YOU, THE AMERICAN GUN OWNER, WILL DETERMINE TRUMP’S VICTORY THIS NOVEMBER 2024—BUT ONLY IF YOU VOTE!

YOU, THE AMERICAN GUN OWNER, WILL DETERMINE TRUMP’S VICTORY THIS NOVEMBER 2024—BUT ONLY IF YOU VOTE! *

__________________________________

THE STAKES FOR ALL AMERICANS CANNOT BE HIGHER FOR OUR COUNTRY AND OUR PEOPLE.

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY. YOUR VOTE WILL DETERMINE THE OUTCOME. ~See Donald Trump’s speech delivered at the Trump Tower in New York City, on September 26, 2024

*****

“WITH AMERICANS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS UNDER DIRECT THREAT IN THIS ELECTION YEAR, IT IS AMAZING THAT 10 MILLION GUN OWNERS ARE NOT EVEN REGISTERED TO VOTE.

ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS THREATENED TO IMPOSE MANDATORY ‘GUN BUYBACKS’ ON 100 MILLION LAW ABIDING AMERICANS. THAT IS RAW AUTHORITARIANISM, AND THE BEST WAY TO FIGHT IT IS WITH THE VOTES OF EVERY LEGAL GUN OWNER IN OUR BELOVED NATION.”

~Alan M. Gottlieb, Founder & Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation and Chairman, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

******

This is not the time to be apathetic about or flippant over the upcoming 2024 U.S. Presidential Election or to treat the act of voting as a trivial matter for this Country is in a DEATH SPIRAL to TYRANNY.  

YOU, THE GUN OWNER, CAN PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR COUNTRY BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE THE WILL TO DO SO—OTHERWISE ALL IS LOST TO YOU, TO ME, TO EVERY AMERICAN NOW ALIVE OR YET TO BE BORN.

IF YOU CHERISH YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, YOU MUST MAKE IT A POINT TO VOTE.

If you never voted in a U.S. Presidential election, or you have, in the past, voted in some elections but not all, and you have decided to sit out this U.S. Presidential Election, YOU SHOULD SERIOUSLY RETHINK THAT DECISION!

THE HARRIS ADMINISTRATION IS DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN THE SOROS OPEN-SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS AGENDA TO DESTROY OUR FREE REPUBLIC. THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND AN ARMED CITIZENRY HAS NO PLACE IN A COUNTRY RULED BY TYRANTS.

KNOW WELL——

YOUR RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS ON THE LINE IN THIS ELECTION. IN FACT, YOUR LOSS OF WILL AND ACTION—THE INHERENT RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE INDIVIDUAL—SHALL BE ROUGHLY TAKEN FROM YOU IF THE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT PARTY MACHINE (BACKED BY AND FUNDED BY THE WEALTHY GLOBALIST-MARXISTS AND THEIR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS), INCLUDING, MOST PROMINENTLY, THE MAMMOTH GEORGE SOROS OPEN-SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS) IS SUCCESSFUL IN SEATING IN THE OVAL OFFICE, THE MACHINE’S RADICAL LEFT MARXIST HAND PUPPET, THE UNTRUSTWORTHY, UNCHARISMATIC, PLAINLY DECEITFUL, INARTICULATE, DULL-WITTED KAMALA HARRIS. See George Soros - Open Society Foundations.

Note: George Soros and his son, Alex, have not tried to hide their commitment to Kamala Harris [See e.g., the articles in Fox News, and in the New York Post].

George Soros openly, even brazenly, endorsed her nomination. And that nomination should, more accurately, be described as an appointment/anointment of powerful PARTY LEADERSHIP—OPERATING behind closed doors, NOT IN ACCORD WITH PARTY RULES.

The Party Leadership then proceeded, audaciously, to present Harris, falsely, AS the RANK-AND-FILE PARTY ELECTORATE’S CHOICE (AS IF A FORMAL PRIMARY HAD TAKEN PLACE (BUT IT DIDN’T), OR AS THE DECISION BY VOTE OF THE DELEGATES AT THE PARTY’S CONVENTION (BUT THE DELEGATES never had the opportunity to consider the pros and cons of each potential candidate in an extensive field of potential candidates).

The Convention should have been utilized for that purpose, but it wasn’t. The Convention had no serious purpose at all. It had been reduced to a ridiculous, raucous, gala celebration—more akin to a self-congratulatory Hollywood “Oscars Night” than to a serious attempt to ascertain whom best exemplifies the policies of the Democratic Party, as a body politic.

Kamala Harris emerged simply BY AD HOC ROYAL FIAT).

But THE PRESS promptly fell in line, as did many RANK AND FILE PARTY DEMOCRATS and as did the PARTY DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION. And all of this transpired after the fact.

Democrat Party Leadership only adhere to Law, Rules, and Procedures when those things cohere with their aims.

Biden, remember, was quietly and unceremoniously kicked out, just months before the 2024 Election. And Harris did not win a single primary vote during the primary season of 2020 as the Democratic Party Electorate hated her—she dropped out early, and was the first, or among the first, do so).

Does the Democratic Party Electorate truly love her now, in 2024?

In the absence of a primary or a Convention to determine if that is so, how does anyone know? Apparently, this doesn’t matter to Democrats or, at least, to the Party Leadership. The Leadership is happy and so is the Soros clan.

The ever-obedient Mainstream News Media (MSM) tries to deny the close relationship between Soros and the Biden-Harris Administration.

Plainly, the SOROS OPEN-SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS’ structure has disturbingly close ties to the Administration, assisting if not controlling, the extreme left-wing agenda for Biden and Harris.

George Soros has now handed over control of this multi-billion dollar non-profit tax-exempt 105(c) mega-group socio-political cartel to his son Alex.

The Agenda of the Soros Open-Society is plainly directed to the destabilization of and eventual disembowelment of the United States as a Free Constitutional Republic.

Long content to hide in the shadows, George and Alex Soros have come out into the open, apparently quite confident that Harris will win the 2024 election.

The Soros Agenda will become more prominent and certainly more entrenched in American politics, policy, and platform if Harris does emerge victorious in November. That doesn’t bode well for the Nation and the American people.

After experiencing life these past four years under the Biden-Harris Administration. Americans already have a good taste of what to expect from a Harris Administration if she emerges in the November 2024 Election.

Alex Soros and other unelected power brokers will wield enormous power over the Country through the Nation’s public persona, Kamala Harris. Harris, like Biden, will wield no actual Article II power. It is all a façade. The real power lurks behind the scenes dictating policy to their puppet in the White House and to the puppet’s Cabinet.

The Nation’s enemies know this. The Nation has grown weak, economically and militarily. American society is in shambles. It is in the grip of decay. There is a noticeable loss of will. This is all by design.

The Nation is being hollowed out, not unlike a company that is in the throes of a takeover by a Private Equity Consortium. Our enemies can surmise this. And what they surmise and observe will continue to embolden them.

A recent obviously staged photograph of Kamala Harris’ VP, Tim Walz, shows him standing with Alex Soros, in Soros’ multi-million-dollar New York City Apartment.

The photograph illustrates to the American Electorate, as it was plainly meant to, the fact of and extent of the close connection/alliance of Soros and Harris.

And the figure of Tim Walz standing submissively with bowed head, while Alex stands confidently at the window of the apartment, pointing to the New York Skyline, tells the world—BEFORE THE FACT—that the United States has A NEW MASTER, AN UNELECTED TYRANT, ALEX SOROS AND THE POWERFUL “OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS.” See, e.g., the July 2024 Jerusalem Post article with photo.

Recall how, for years, Soros money and influence operated at the local and State level in “Blue States” like California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey, where it has effectively funded elections of those State Prosecutors whose purpose IS NOT to prosecute criminals, BUT to dismantle the State Criminal Justice System. And they have become very effective at it.

But the “Open Society Foundations” have now expanded their reach to the Federal Level. Now, clearly deeply entrenched in the Democrat Party, the powerful Soros Network, through its money, influence, and organizational prowess can wield substantial control over the expansive and powerful apparatus of Government—the police, military, intelligence, communication and information—formulating (and even dictating/deciding) policy.

Alex Soros won’t be acting alone. Other powerful Neoliberal Globalist and Neo-Marxist elements both at home in the U.S. and in the European Union (EU) will have a hand IN THE UNMAKING OF AMERICA.

The phrase “Rules-Based International Order” (RBO) (sometimes referred to as the “Liberal International Order) (LBO), that politicians and Biden-Harris Administration officials such as Anthony Blinken have from time to time bandied about, are not just loose descriptors for the active coordination of economic, political, social, cultural, and legal affairs of wealthy, powerful functionaries operating behind the scenes in western nations. It is much more than that.

As with the European Union itself that had begun as a loose confederation of several Western European Countries—France, West Germany (BEFORE WEST GERMANY’S UNION WITH EAST GERMANY), Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands in 1957—and which solidified into SINGLE massive social, political, economic, financial, and legal structure in its own right, with its own Government in Brussels, other western nations, including the United States and the British Commonwealth Countries, are destined, through the machinations and intrigues of the RBO (or LBO), to formally merge with the EU, resulting in the creation of a colossal Neo-Marxist Empire, spanning the Globe.

The United States, with its powerful military and intelligence apparatuses, technological prowess, scientific acumen, and mineral resources, is not to be denied access to and control by these Empire Builders.

America’s culture is to be undermined, and its institutions reorganized; its Constitution is to be reconfigured if possible, or, if it cannot, then simply erased.

What the MANIPULATORS-DESTROYERS of our society have long desired and that had commenced as a slow disassembly of a society grounded on the principles, precepts, and tenets OF INDIVIDUALISM is NOW RAPIDLY COMING TO FRUITION.

During these past four years, under DICTATORIAL THUMB OF THE BIDEN-HARIS ADMINISTRATION, our society has seen an enormous transformation in its SOCIAL STRUCTURE as it is now grounded ON NEW AND ALIEN philosophical and ideological principles and concepts including MULTICULTURALISM, MORAL RELATIVISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS.

The proponents of these destructive concepts have crafted DOGMAS, CODES OF CONDUCT, and what constitute PROPER and IMPROPER THOUGHT PROCESSES around these concepts. Such Dogmas and Codes of Conduct have been infused in the policies of Government and in other institutions across America.

But these DOGMAS, CODES OF CONDUCT, and the POLICIES that spring from them, cannot be reconciled with an AMERICAN CULTURE, HONED BY nearly two hundred and fifty years of our EXISTENCE as an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE— NOT RULED BY OR BEHOLDEN TO ANY OTHER NATION OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL ENTITY—AND A FREE, SOVEREIGN PEOPLE RESIDING IN A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

And these Dogmas, Codes of Conduct and Government policies cannot be reconciled with CONCEPTS like MORAL CERTAINTY and MORAL ABSOLUTISM.

MORAL CERTAINTY and MORAL ABSOLUTISM are indicators of our Country’s adherence to the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ETHICAL SYSTEM. That system is grounded in our Nation’s faith in a singular OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCENT, OMNI-PRESENT, MORALLY PERFECT, AND BENEVOLENT DIVINE CREATOR.

Our Nation’s Moral Belief system cannot be reconciled with alien ideas propounded by and placed into effect in Government and in many private institutions across the Country by the present Administration.

And THE CONCEPT of the SANCTITY and INVIOLABILITY of the INDIVIDUAL that grounds the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION—THE BLUEPRINT THAT ESTABLISHES THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND MAN’S RELATIONSHIP TO IT and MAN’S SUPREMACY OVER IT—cannot be reconciled with an idea promulgated by the MARXISTS, that the INDIVIDUAL is NOT important. They believe that the GROUP, THE COLLECTIVE, THE STATE, THE HIVE—is all-important. The individual has value only to the extent that he serves THE STATE. If he does not or cannot or will not, then his life is not only unimportant, it constitutes a burden to the well-being of the STATE—to the well-being of the COLLECTIVE. Americans see this idea at play in the manner in which Democrats (who have immersed themselves in MARXIST IDEOLOGY) view Americans and craft policies. Americans are viewed in terms of groups and group dynamics. As individuals, they have no relevance at all.

The Biden-Harris Administration’s policies as actualized in Government and in many other institutions, private, public, and quasi-public, across the landscape of the Country demonstrate something NOT ONLY different but abhorrent to the traditional concepts that ground our Nation’s sensibilities and our core values and that have shaped our Nation and led our Nation to economic prosperity, innovation and inventiveness, and great power.

The Biden-Harris Administration has cast all of that aside.

By emphasizing and extolling the importance of physical characteristics and corresponding identification with a particular GROUP, rather than on emphasizing and extolling individual achievement and merit, and one’s pride in personal accomplishment—this Biden-Harris Administration has besmirched and diminished the American Citizenry.

This Administration and the one to follow if Harris wins the U.S. Presidential Election in November turns American values upside down.

The Biden-Harris Administration (and the Harris Administration to follow) raises MEDIOCRITY to the status of a VIRTUE and lays the groundwork for man’s DEPENDANCY on the STATE for his essential needs, health, and well-being.

Harris who constantly goes on about the importance of EQUITY, would craft policy that stymies American initiative and crushes independence of thought. This can only lead to destruction of a person’s Self-esteem, a person’s sense of Self-worth—indeed, the destruction of one’s very Selfhood.

This evidently is what the Biden-Harris Administration wanted, what its policies have been designed to engender, and what has occurred.

In the present Administration’s policies, Americans bear witness to a complete inversion of what has made both them and their Country successful.

Implementation of the Administration’s policies are antithetical to the principles Americans cherish, of what generations of Americans have lived by, and what have provided the impetus for personal success that has then been magnified many times over to become the Nation’s success.

But this is not what Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and their wealthy, powerful benefactors want. What they seek is something much different. The policies crafted and implemented have served to devastate the lives of tens of millions of Americans and to devastate the Country. And that is a price the Administration is willing to pay. For what they wish to achieve is control over the lives of Americans.

Rather than to push each American to succeed, they wish each American to fail. They don’t say this openly, only obliquely.

But, in their policies and in the abasement of Americans and in the ruination of the Country, this is plain.

The Biden-Harris Administration has designed policies meant to subjugate Americans.

Subjugation allows for trouble-free control over the masses. It leads to laziness and listlessness, apathy and malaise. This is what the Administration wants. This is their vision of the future for America that Kamala Harris will create. This is the America that is taking shape. It presently exists as an overlay on the social fabric of the Nation. If Kamala is elected U.S. President, this overlay will become permanent. The United States will be hollowed out. Its resources harvested, its people reduced to penury, hopelessness, and helplessness. The masses will be completely dependent on the Harris Administration for its sustenance.

DE FACTO ERADICATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS—BEGINNING WITH AN AMBITIOUS ASSAULT ON CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS—WILL BE THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS OF A HARRIS ADMINISTRATION.

FIREARMS ARE AMONG THE FIRST THINGS ON THE AGENDA OF THOSE POWERFUL INTERESTS WHOSE END GOAL IS THE ERASURE OF YOUR RIGHTS, THE DISSOLUTION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR COUNTRY.

A subservient America implies a powerless America. The Federal Government cannot control a populace that is armed. And the Harris Administration will not and cannot abide an armed citizenry.

No Tyrannical Government will tolerate an armed citizenry. THE ARMED CITIZENRY MUST BE IMMEDIATELY DISARMED.

PLANS FOR DISARMING THE CITIZENRY WILL BE KEPT QUIET. IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE DONE WITH LITTLE NOTICE BEFOREHAND AND THEN WILL BE UNDERTAKEN QUICKLY. MUCH OF THIS WILL BE DONE BY EXECUTIVE FIAT.

From her past actions and remarks Kamala Harris is plainly predisposed to erase the Second Amendment. Erasure of the other Fundamental Rights will follow by Executive Action.

Both Biden and Harris demonstrate their personal abhorrence toward civilian possession of firearms. Hence, her comment during the so-called “Debate” with Trump (a set-up by the Harris Campaign and ABC News to place Trump on the Defensive throughout the Debate), Harris asserted she has no intention of “taking everyone’s guns away.” That is a damnable lie—the most obvious of the many Harris lies uttered in that excuse for a debate. This is here bald-faced lie:

“This business about taking everyone's guns away — Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away, so stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.” See transcript of the Harris-Trump ABC News debate.

Anti-Second Amendment politicians are notorious for prefacing their remarks with language that they expect, wrongly, will allay the concerns and suspicions of gun owners.

We routinely hear remarks to the effect: “Of course I support the Second Amendment, but——” or “I, myself am a gun owner——I’m not going to take your guns,” or “Most Gun Owners agree with me that no one needs an ‘assault weapon,’” or “You can have a gun but you don’t need a ‘weapon of war.’”

When Donald Trump justifiably and truthfully exclaimed at several points during his confrontation with Kamala Harris, that Biden’s failed policies are her policies, Harris, plainly primed for Trump’s declaration, during her coaching sessions, quipped sarcastically at one point (to deflect the damning truth),

“You’re not running against Joe Biden. You’re running against me.”

That’s true, but trivially so. But the deflection hides the obvious point and one that Harris never convincingly explained away at the Debate, or at any point thereafter, that Biden’s policies WERE her policies.

Keep in mind, Biden made it a point of expressly referring to his Presidency as THE BIDEN-HARRIS PRESIDENCY.

No other U.S. President has ever suggested let alone expressly stated that his Presidency operates as an equal partnership of President and Vice President.

Traditionally, Vice Presidents have little power. They are not members of the President’s Cabinet and are often delegated minor or inconsequential tasks if the President deigns to give them anything.

Consequential tasks of a Vice President are those established by law such as breaking tie votes in the U.S. Senate.

Dick Cheney, as Bush’s VP, DID, however, exercise considerable power. Still, Bush never referred to his Presidency as the Bush-Cheney Presidency. A Vice President’s one consolation is the implicit understanding that the VP spot often serves as the steppingstone to the U.S. Presidency for him or herself, or, at least, a chance at grasping the “Brass Ring.” Other than that, the Vice President is relegated to the Executive Department’s cellar unless a calamity arises—the U.S. President is incapacitated by serious illness, or dies while in Office, or is assassinated.

But, apart from Harris’ false retort to Trump about her not taking Americans’ guns from them, it’s the seeming equivocation about her influence on policy that leads to some ambivalence, among a few Americans, at least, as to whether Biden’s policies really were/are her policies. And, if so, then it is plain, that she would continue those disastrous policies in a Harris Administration. If one should have any doubt about that, Biden, thereafter, set the record straight.

As a guest on Whoopie Goldberg’s “The View,” on September 26, 2024, “President Biden praised his Vice President Kamala Harris for handling ‘everything from foreign policy to domestic policy’ under his administration.” Biden says Harris handled 'everything from foreign policy to domestic policy' under his administration | Fox News. And that is something she has not denied or tried to deny, or can deny, even as her campaign tries to position Harris as THE “CHANGE CANDIDATE.”

Biden’s remark also serves to confirm a point made by Biden’s Communication Director, a month earlier.

“‘Vice President Harris has been the governing partner for every key decision that the president has made in his term in office,’ Biden White House communications director Ben LaBolt proudly proclaimed during an MSNBC ‘Morning Joe’ interview back in mid-August.’”

'Utterly Disconnected': Ted Cruz Expertly Explains Why the Kamala Harris 'Change Agent' Act Isn't Working – RedState

So, then, Kamala Harris must be pleased with her policies and the results that arose from them. She would only lie about this because most Americans ARE NOT pleased with those policies and with THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THOSE AWFUL POLICIES have had NOT ONLY ON their OWN LIFE BUT on that of the COUNTRY, and, further, on the WORLD.

GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COMING U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AS DETERMINATIVE OF THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY—IF WE WILL STILL HAVE A NATION THAT IS IN FACT AND NOT MERELY IN NAME A TRULY FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, WHERE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SOLE SOVEREIGN OVER THEIR GOVERNMENT, WHY IS IT THAT SO MANY GUN OWNERS DO NOT INTEND TO VOTE IN THIS NOVEMBER 2024 ELECTION?

THE CASUAL ATTITUDE OF TEN MILLION OR MORE AMERICAN GUN OWNERS IS MIND-BOGGLING, INEXPLICABLE, GIVEN THE STAKES INVOLVED FOR AMERICANS, PERSONALLY, AND FOR THE COUNTRY GENERALLY.

The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election was significant. Many Americans were stunned Trump had won. The Press and Pollsters were, for the most part, equally stunned. And the powerful Globalists were stunned. Even the populations in countries around the world were stunned. Trump represented a sea-change not only in the manner of his governance, but in the values reflected in his governance and in his policy aims.

The Electorate that voted Trump in Office intended for him to follow through with his promises to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” which, much more than a slogan, meant a return to traditional values, consistent with the duties of the U.S. President under Article II of the Constitution, and in conformance with the sanctity of the Nation’s Bill of Rights.

The Neoliberal Globalist and Neo-Marxist Cultural agenda directed to the slow, quiet, inexorable, methodical process to unwind the social fabric of our Nation and to weaken the Natural Law Rights of the citizenry had commenced in earnest at the dawn of the 2lst Century.

Many Americans saw clearly what was happening, and they were appalled by what they saw: The slow dissolution of their natural law rights and loss of control over their own life.

This was the impetus needed to sweep Trump into Office. His successes were immediate and could not be reasonably denied. For Example, during his first few weeks in Office, he made clear to Congress that he would veto any attempt to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that Obama had worked on in secret.

This economic package if signed into law would have been a boon to multinational companies, enabling them to easily circumvent Federal or State Law to enhance their fortune at the expense of U.S. manufacturing, accelerating the decline of the manufacturing sector.

Enactment of the TPP would have lowered American wages, leading to working class poverty. See, e.g., the article on the BBC website.

A powerful coalition among Democrats, Globalists, and Marxists, with the assistance of a seditious Press, worked furiously to rid themselves of Trump.

They failed. Life for Americans had improved immensely under Trump’s watch. That is not something the Progressive Democrats, the Globalists, and the Marxists wanted the American people to see.

Another Trump term commencing in January 2021 would dash whatever hope the forces that sought to crush America and its people had achieved prior to Trump’s first term in Office. But a Trump Second Term in Office in 2021 would not come to pass. Biden was ensconced in Office, albeit under arguably dubious circumstances.

Life under the Biden-Harris Administration was a bust. It should surprise no one then, that these powerful forces that hated Trump would pull out all the stops to prevent Trump from prevailing in the 2024 race, which, if the Election were fairly run, would see a probable victory for Trump.

SO, VOTER TURNOUT FOR KAMALA HARRIS IS CRUCIAL FOR THE ANTI-AMERICAN PROGRESSIVE-MARXIST DEMOCRATS. THEY SEEK TO PREVENT DONALD TRUMP, THE POPULIST PRESIDENT FROM SERVING A SECOND TERM THAT WOULD SEE A STRONG, REVITALIZED AMERICA. THIS IS WHY IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT FOR REPUBLICANS TO MAXIMIZE VOTER TURNOUT.

THE FORCES SUPPORTING HARRIS INTEND TO CREATE A DIMINISHED AMERICA TO HERALD A NEW WORLD ORDER WHERE ALL NATION-STATES WOULD BE REDUCED TO PAWNS IN SERVICE TO THE WORLD EMPIRE GOVERNED BY A POWERFUL CORPORATIST-MARXIST OLIGARCHY. OBAMA HAD PAVED THE WAY FOR THAT. HILLARY CLINTON WOULD HAVE CONTINUED THE AGENDA SET BY OBAMA. THAT WASN’T A SECRET. THE PRESS PROUDLY PROCLAIMED THAT FACT. TRUMP’S VICTORY DASHED THAT HOPE. IT COULD ONLY BE REGAINED IF TRUMP WERE PREVENTED FROM SERVING A SECOND TERM. AND WITH BIDEN IN OFFICE, THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR WEALTHY, SECRETIVE BENEFACTORS WASTED NO TIME IN UNDOING ALL THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF TRUMP. THEY RAPIDLY RESUMED THE COURSE SET BY OBAMA AND MOVED RAPIDLY APACE TO ACCOMPLISH AS MUCH AS THEY COULD TO WEAKEN THE UNITED STATES, ECONOMICALLY, FINANCIALLY, SOCIALLY, EVEN MILITARILY—TO READY IT FOR INCLUSION IN WHAT THEY CONCEIVED AS A GREATER ONE WORLD EMPIRE.

TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR GOAL, THESE DESTROYERS OF A POWERFUL NATION-STATE WOULD NEED ANOTHER FOUR YEARS. A HARRIS PRESIDENCY WOULD ENABLE THEM TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR OBJECTIVES. THEY NEED TO ENHANCE VOTER TURNOUT FOR HARRIS AND TO REDUCE VOTER TURNOUT FOR TRUMP.

THE INTRICATE, WELL-OILED DEMOCRAT PARTY MACHINE AND ITS WEALTHY, POWERFUL BENEFACTORS DON’T WANT TRUMP SUPPORTERS TO VOTE.

IN PARTICULAR, THEY DON’T WANT AMERICA’S GUN OWNERS TO VOTE. THIS MEANS——

THEY’RE URGING YOU NOT TO VOTE. THEY ARE DOING THIS THROUGH USE OF TWO KINDS OF MESSAGING:

ONE THAT IS OVERTLY BOMBASTIC AND SENSATIONALIST AND THE OTHER SUBVERTLY SUBTLE AND SUBLIME.

THE GOAL IS TO REDUCE YOUR INTEREST IN THE SIMPLE ACT OF CASTING A BALLOT, AND TO UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE IN A TRUMP VICTORY IN NOVEMBER.

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU DIAL OUT THIS RUINOUS MESSAGING!

THAT MESSAGING IS MEANT TO DECEIVE YOU. THE ELECTION IS NOT IN THE BAG FOR DEMOCRATS. AND THE WEALTHY, POWERFUL FORCES BANKROLLING THE EFFORT AND ORCHESTRATING THE HARRIS CAMPAIGN KNOW THAT.

THE RACE IS TIGHT. THAT SURPRISES, FRIGHTENS AND ENRAGES DEMOCRATS AND THEIR BENEFACTORS.

DESPITE THE SIZE OF THEIR WAR CHEST AND THEIR NEAR ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE PRESS, CABLE, AND BROADCAST NEWS MEDIA, AND SOCIAL NEWS MEDIA, THE NEEDLE HASN’T BUDGED. HARRIS HAS LOST WHATEVER “BOUNCE” SHE DERIVED FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONVENTION AND FROM THE ABC TELEVISED DEBATE, SHE HAS SINCE LOST THAT “BOUNCE” IN THE POLLS.

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC REMAINS DEEPLY SUSPICIOUS OF HARRIS’ CHARACTER, AND PERSONALITY, AND ABILITY, AS WELL AS HARRIS’ AIMS AND AGENDA—THE LAST OF WHICH IS A DIRECT CARRY-OVER FROM THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION. AND ALL OF THIS IS REFLECTED UNIFORMLY IN THE POLLS.

THE COUNTRY IS IN DECLINE UNDER THE PRESENT BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION AND WILL RUPTURE UNDER A CONTINUATION OF THAT ADMINISTRATION UNDER HARRIS. MUCH OF THE ELECTORATE KNOWS THIS, OR, AT LEAST, STRONGLY SUSPECTS THIS, AND IT IS NOT ENAMORED AT THE PROSPECT OF A CONTINUATION OF THE BIDEN-HARRIS AGENDA, WHICH THE ELECTORATE SEES COMING DESPITE ALL THE EFFORT TO DISGUISE THE TRUTH FROM THE ELECTORATE.

AMERICANS ARE WELL AWARE OF THE FLAWS OF KAMALA HARRIS ON BOTH A PRAGMATIC AND INTUITIVE LEVEL.

THIS ELECTION IS AS TIGHT AS A DRUM. THAT MEANS YOUR VOTE, AS A GUN OWNER, IS CRUCIAL TO GETTING TRUMP ELECTED. YOU CAN’T RIDE THIS ELECTION OUT. THE ELECTION IS UP FOR GRABS.

VOTE EARLY IF YOUR STATE ALLOWS FOR IT OR CAST YOUR VOTE ON ELECTION DAY—BUT DO VOTE! YOU MUST VOTE! YOUR VOTE IS NECESSARY TO ENHANCE THE PROSPECT OF AND PROBABLY ENSURE TRUMP’S VICTORY IN NOVEMBER.

If you fail to vote and to cast your ballot for Trump, and Harris ekes out a victory, then—— YOU ARE LETTING DOWN NOT ONLY YOURSELF BUT YOUR FAMILY, YOUR FRIENDS, YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS, AND YOUR COUNTRY.

YOU MUST VOTE LIKE YOUR LIFE AND WELL-BEING AND THAT OF THE COUNTRY DEPENDS ON IT. FOR IT DOES.

If you dismiss the importance of this Election—the most important event of our time, as Trump, himself, has repeatedly and truthfully asserted—you are disavowing the sanctity of your Nation’s NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, including a Right that no other Government on Earth recognizes or has ever recognized and that few of the “COMMON PEOPLE” in any other Country are “privileged” to enjoy.

THAT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY BY ANY AMERICAN.

YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS A NATURAL LAW RIGHT BESTOWED ON AND IN YOU BY THE DIVINE CREATOR.

IT IS NOT TO BE SEEN AS A MERE PRIVILEGE TO BE GRANTED YOU OR DENIED TO YOU BY GOVERNMENT BASED ON MERE WHIM.

POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IS NOT TO BE PERCEIVED AS THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT PROPONENTS SEE IT: AS A DANGEROUS FRIVOLITY OF THOSE WHO INSIST ON HAVING THEM. IF YOU WANT TO POSSESS A FIREARM, SO THEY INSIST, SUCH POSSESSION SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONTROLLED BY THE STATE, AND FOR A CAREFULLY DEFINED PURPOSE, NONE OF WHICH HAPPEN TO BE THE PREEMINENT REASON FOR WHICH THE FRAMERS CODIFIED IT IN THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS.

Sure, you can use a firearm for many worthwhile pursuits, a few of which the Anti-Second Amendment proponents recognize—at least for the moment.

You can use a firearm for sport, and you can use a firearm for hunting, or for competitive purposes in formal or informal competitions. You can use a firearm target-shooting for enjoyment. Perhaps you collect firearms for personal exhibit at home or for investment. You can use a firearm for all of these things you may be doing or have done or are thinking of doing—at least in most jurisdictions in the United States.

THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SUBSUMES ALL THESE AFOREMENTIONED ACTIVITIES, to be sure.

BUT ALL THESE ACTIVITIES ARE AUXILIARY MATTERS, PASTIME PURSUITS, AND IN THE GREAT SCHEME OF THINGS, OF LESSER IMPORTANCE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THEY IMPACT THE SALIENT PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS EXISTS.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS WHAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS REALLY ABOUT.

IT IS ALL ABOUT SELF-PRESERVATION AS AGAINST ANYONE OR ANYTHING THREATENING YOUR LIFE AND WELL-BEING AND THAT OF YOUR FAMILY, BE IT:

•  VICIOUS PREDATORY ANIMAL, OR

• VICIOUS PREDATORY MAN, OR

• VICIOUS PREDATORY GOVERNMENT OF MEN

THE CODIFICATION OF THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF DEFENSE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS GOD-ORDAINED, NOT MAN-MADE. AS SUCH, THE RIGHT IS:

•  ABSOLUTE, NOT PARTIAL OR CONDITIONAL

• ETERNAL, NOT TRANSITORY

• PERMANENT, UNCHANGING; NOT EPHEMERAL, FLEETING, MODIFIABLE

• RIGHTEOUS AND JUST, NOT IMMORAL OR UNFAIR

ONE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ACKNOWLEDGES THIS, KNOWS THIS, INTENDS TO PRESERVE THIS RIGHT. THAT CANDIDATE FOR U.S PRESIDENT HAS PRESERVED AND DEFENDED THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS ONCE BEFORE—WHEN HE WON THE RACE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT IN 2016, DEFEATING THE DEMOCRAT PARTY CANDIDATE, HILLARY CLINTON. THAT MAN IS DONALD J. TRUMP.

Back in June 2016, roughly five months before the U.S. Presidential Election that brought Donald Trump to the White House, where he served his First Term in Office, and he began repairing much of the damage caused by his predecessor, Barack Obama, the online news magazine, “Investor’s Business Daily,” posted an article that clearly, if tacitly, promoted Trump, knowing that Democrats intended to subvert the Bill of Rights.

In that article, titled, “Democrats Attack 3 Of The 10 Amendments In The Bill Of Rights,” the editorial staff warned that Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party nominee for President for that General Election cycle, and the Party leadership were primed to chisel away at the Nation’s Bill of Rights.

The editorial staff wrote,

“Hillary Clinton and other leaders in her party always talk about how they want to grant new rights to Americans. They talk about the ‘right to affordable health care,’ the ‘right to a college education,’ the ‘right to a livable wage’ [and, to this list in reference to the present election cycle, we would add, ‘the unqualified right of a woman to an abortion’]. But at the same time, many of these same Democrats have been agitating to restrict or outright repeal existing rights enshrined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.”

Discussing the Democrats’ targeting of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed, the “Investor’s Business Daily” wrote,

. . . Democrats are increasingly calling not just for restrictions on purchases for would-be terrorists or bans on ‘assault rifles,’ but to scrap the 2nd Amendment entirely.

‘The Second Amendment needs some changing, because Americans don't agree with it and we’ve had it,’ Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., declared last week.

After Gabby Giffords was shot, liberal talk show host Bill Maher said that the Democratic party should ‘come out against the 2nd Amendment.’ Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., responded, ‘I sure wish they would.’

Retired liberal justice John Paul Stevens wrote on op-ed saying the 2nd Amendment should itself be amended, so that the right to own guns only would apply to those who are actively serving in a militia.

Three years after the publication of John Paul Stevens op-ed, on April 11, 2014, in the Washington Post, as cited in the “Investor’s Business Daily,” the Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice—apparently fearing that even a tightly controlled citizen militia would pose a visible, dangerous, and unacceptable threat to the Federal Government— went further in his attack on the Second Amendment—much further.

In an opinion piece published in the NY Times on March 27, 2018, and under a title appearing in bold, oversized font—Stevens’ called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment!

Not an easy task to accomplish. Many Americans know the Framers crafted the U.S. CONSTITUTION in a manner to make amendment to the Constitution very difficult. THAT WAS NO ACCIDENT.

Having successfully overthrown one Tyranny—THE ENGLISH MONARCHY—the Founders of our Free Republic had no desire to lay the foundation for another one, and this one, ironically, of their own making, albeit only unintentionally.

They were astute thinkers. They assiduously constructed the United States as a Free Constitutional Republic—A TRULY FREE REPUBLIC—with the American people, alone, as sole sovereign of their Country and of their Government.

TAKE A LOOK AT ANY GOVERNMENT AROUND THE WORLD TODAY. ALL ARE INHERENTLY DESPOTIC, OR NEARLY SO, OR HAVE BECOME SO, DESPITE ALL CLAIMS MANY OF THEM MAKE TO THE CONTRARY.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS DIFFERENT.  FROM ITS INCEPTION THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION DESIGNED OUR NATION TO BE A TRULY FREE REPUBLIC, AND THE CENTRAL (“FEDERAL”) GOVERNMENT WAS CAREFULLY CRAFTED TO OPERATE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THAT FREE REPUBLIC, TO PRESERVE, AS THE SOLE AND SUPREME SOVEREIGN OF THEIR NATION AND THEIR GOVERNMENT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEMSELVES.

BUT WILL WE AMERICANS CONTINUE TO RESIDE IN A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC? THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN—A MATTER TO BE DECIDED BY THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024.

Most governments on Earth are DESPOTIC from the get-go, DESIGNED TO BE SO. Others, commencing as OSTENSIBLE DEMOCRACIES of one sort or another, to some extent or another, become Despotic over time, devolving first into AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES and, eventually, into pure, full blown TOTALITARIAN REGIMES.

WE CALL THE AWFUL TRANSFORMATION OF GOVERNMENTS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS into oppressive, repressive DESPOTIC GOVERNMENTS— TYRANNIES.

The Framers of our Constitution knew well that EVERY government that ever existed, if not DESPOTIC at the outset and designed to be so, would inexorably devolve into DESPOTISM over time. For every government has within it THE SEEDS OF DESPOTISM—HOWEVER BENEVOLENT, BENIGN, AND SEEMINGLY BENEFICIAL TO THE CITIZENRY, IT STARTS OUT TO BE.

Those individuals in government, wielding some power over the populace, wish eventually to wield more power—ultimately, immense power. This is part and parcel of human nature of many people—impossible for sociopathic or outright psychopathic individuals—WHO BETRAY AN INCLINATION FOR OR AN IMPULSE TOWARD EXERTING POWER OVER OTHERS, to constrain. Such people relish the idea of controlling the lives of millions of denizens (“citizens”).

Even if such people intend initially to utilize the power, they wield, to benefit the populace, they eventually become susceptible to corrupting influences if they do and they usually exhibit such tendencies within their early ascension to power.

One of America’s Founding Fathers, a profound thinker, and our Nation’s Fourth President, James Madison, elucidated the intractable problem of government clearly and succinctly in “Federalist 51”:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

AND WHAT ARE THOSE AUXILIARY PRECAUTIONS THAT JAMES MADISON PROPOSED?

Madison proposed a Government with powers described, demarcated, and distributed to distinct Branches—each Branch operating as a check on the power of the other. But would the APPLICATION of the DOCTRINE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES be enough to constrain and contain the slide of a Republican form of Government toward Tyranny? Unfortunately, no.

POWERFUL CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENTS TEND TO AMASS MORE POWER AND CONTROL THROUGH TIME. AND THE LARGE, BLOATED U.S. GOVERNMENT IS NO DIFFERENT. THIS MASSIVE GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO GROW IN SIZE AND POWER AND THE STRUCTURE IS CHANGING AND CONVERGING INTO ONE SINGULAR BEHEMOTH. THE TREMENDOUS GROWTH OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY HAS INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF DECADES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST. THIS EXTRAORDINARY GROWTH IS EMBLEMATIC OF THE TENDENCY TOWARD DESPOTISM.

CONSIDER, THE CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DHS, FOR EXAMPLE:

“With the passage of the Homeland Security Act by Congress in November 2002, the Department of Homeland Security formally came into being as a stand-alone, Cabinet-level department to further coordinate and unify national homeland security efforts, opening its doors on March 1, 2003.”

EVEN THE NAME ALLUDES TO AND EXUDES DESPOTISM: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

GERMANY’S “THIRD REICH” WAS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE “FATHERLAND,” AND STALIN’S RUSSIA, WAS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE “MOTHERLAND.” IS NOT USE OF THE TERM, ‘HOMELAND,’ A NOT-SO-SUBTLE ALLUSION TO THESE PAST TOTALITARIAN REGIMES?

SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IN A BRIEF COMMENT TO AN ARTICLE APPEARING IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE ARBALEST QUARREL POINTED TO THE DISTURBING SIMILARITY OF THE DESCRIPTORS. WITH HUNDREDS OF OTHER COMMENTS IN THE NY TIMES, OURS WAS SUMMARILY REJECTED. WE HAD NOT EXPECTED THAT, BUT, IN HINDSIGHT, WE SHOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT OUR REMARK WOULD BE REJECTED BY THE “TIMES.”

DESPOTIC REGIMES AND THEIR DUTIFUL PROPAGANDA MILL DO NOT LIKE ANYTHING OR ANYONE DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE TRUTH. THE OBJECTIVE IS REPRESSION OF ALL DISSENT. RECALL THE PREPOSTEROUS ATTEMPT BY DHS TO CREATE A “DISINFORMATION BOARD.”

The Biden-Harris Administration and its DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas did not anticipate the public outcry. Or, perhaps they did, and were merely testing the waters, to see how far they could go in their inexorable push toward TYRANNY.

In a statement posted on the DHS website, the DHS stated—notably one without any suggestion of apology:

The Department welcomes the recommendations of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, which has concluded that countering disinformation that threatens the homeland, and providing the public with accurate information in response, is critical to fulfilling the Department’s missions. We thank the Subcommittee for its work, which required extensive fact gathering and analysis over a short period of time.
In accordance with the HSAC’s prior recommendation, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas has terminated the Disinformation Governance Board and rescinded its charter effective today, August 24, 2022.  
With the HSAC recommendations as a guide, the Department will continue to address threat streams that undermine the security of our country consistent with the law, while upholding the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of the American people and promoting transparency in our work.”

With THE GROWTH OF BIG GOVERNMENT and CONSOLIDATION of POWER IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH and the slow MERGER OF and FUSION OF THE THREE BRANCHES into ONE SUPER BRANCH [ALTHOUGH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TENACIOUSLY RESISTS THE EFFORT TO SQUASH ITS ARTICLE III POWER], THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BECOMING THE VERY THING THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC WARNED ABOUT AND TOOK STEPS TO AVOID AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TODAY HAS SLOWLY BECOME THE ANTITHESIS OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS ORDAINED. THE FEAR OF THE FOUNDERS IS MANIFESTING IN FRONT OF US.

When Trump became U.S. President in January 2017, he attempted with some success to constrain the size of the Government and to make it answerable to the people. Powerful interests fought him. They sought to create the very TYRANNY that both the Nation’s Founders, and Trump as President, abhorred and sought to prevent. They plotted and orchestrated a massive campaign to subvert Trump’s policies and initiatives, and eventually to oust Trump from power, once they realized he could not be flattered, or bribed, or cajoled, or threatened, “to play the game of pretending to make policy and to make decisions” as Bush, and Obama, and Clinton had willingly done.

THE POWERS BEHIND THE SCENES, CONSPIRED TO DESTROY BOTH TRUMP AND HIS PRESIDENCY, INCLUDING THOSE CLOSEST TO HIM, PROFESSIONALLY AND PERSONALLY, DEVISING A PLETHORA OF STRATEGEMS.

Treacherous individuals within his own Administration sabotaged Trump’s efforts, gloating over their betrayal.

A seditious Press lauded the efforts of these saboteurs. But they failed to dent Trump’s policy achievements, grounded on the promises he had made to the Electorate that supported him, believed in him and had voted him into Office.

Trump’s detractors continued to strategize ways to oust him. All of those efforts proved fruitless.

The fortitude of the man to thwart the efforts and fury of the plotters to remove him from office was as tenacious and as formidable as anything the plotters could and did throw at him. Still, there is just so much one man is capable of doing to resist the weight of the fury of the forces unleashed against him.

WHAT POWER, IF ANY, EXISTS SUFFICIENT TO REPEL THAT OF THE FORCES MARSHALED AGAINST OUR PEOPLE, OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR COUNTRY, AND AGAINST A PRESIDENT WHO ACTUALLY SERVES THE PEOPLE, CONSTITUTION, AND COUNTRY, IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE OATH HE TAKES.

THE PRESENSE OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY IS THE EQUALIZING FORCE AGAINST RAPACIOUS AND POWERFUL EVIL.

THE ARMED CITIZENRY—THOSE WHO PERCEIVE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF OUR FREE STATE—REMAINS THE NATION’S LAST AND BEST GUARDIAN-PROTECTOR.

BUT FOR ALL THAT, IT IS THAT VERY ARMED CITIZENRY THAT CONSTITUTES THE GRAVEST THREAT TO THE AGENTS OF THIS NATION’S DESTRUCTION.

THE ARMED CITIZENRY HAS THE MEANS AND THE WILL TO PREVENT THE AIMS OF THE DESTRUCTORS OF THE NATION FROM ACHIEVING THOSE AIMS.

WHERE A FREE PRESS FAILS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE—AS OUR PRESS HAS FAILED THE PEOPLE—THE ONLY FORCE REMAINING CAPABLE OF SECURING THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE FROM THE FORCES THAT WOULD DARE CRUSH IT IS THE ARMED CITIZENRY. THIS, THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC KNEW WELL TO BE A SINGULAR TRUTH, OUR LASTING HOPE TO PRESERVE A FREE STATE, OUR LAST “FAIL-SAFE” TO PROTECT THE NATION AND ITS PEOPLE FROM TYRANNY.

THERE IS, IN THIS COMING ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, A CLASH OF TITANS——

A CLASH BETWEEN TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS, A MASSIVE SWATH OF THE ELECTORATE ON ONE SIDE, AND, ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE GLOBALIST ELITE AND PROGRESSIVE/MARXIST PORTION OF THE ELECTORATE, INCLUDING THE PRESS

WHICH SIDE WILL PREVAIL WILL NOT BE KNOWN UNTIL AFTER THE BALLOTS HAVE ALL BEEN TABULATED ON NOVEMBER 5, AND THE ELECTORAL VICTOR EMERGES. ARE THERE AMONG THE ELECTORATE, A SUFFICIENT NUMBER TO DEFEAT THOSE AMONG US, SO BESOTTED WITH “KAMALA”—NOT SO MUCH A PERSON AS A FICTITIOUS PROJECTION THRUST ON THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE ART AND ARTIFICE OF HOLLYWOOD AND BY THE FAIRY TALE NARRATIVES CONCOCTED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS AND THE PRESS?

IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT A SIZABLE PORTION OF THE ELECTORATE THAT HAS ALREADY VOTED, OR PLANS TO VOTE, FOR THE HARRIS-WALZ TICKET, FAILS TO APPRECIATE THE TRUE THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY THAT THESE AGENTS OF DESTRUCTION POSE. THESE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN PLAYED THE FOOL AND HAVE NO REALIZATION OF THAT FACT.

With advances in information technology and mind control, unscrupulous power-mongers operating with impunity both inside the Country as well as outside it, have successfully taken control over the thought processes and actions of a great swath of the Electorate. They hope to maximize voter turnout for Kamala Harris—the corrupt and mindless shell whom they can control just as they have controlled Joe Biden, their previous figurehead—who has made abundantly clear to THE NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST AND NEO-MARXIST FORCES THAT CRUSH that she will gladly do their bidding in return for the trappings of prestige and power.

WHAT CAN YOU, THE AMERICAN GUN OWNER, DO, WHO CHERISHES HIS OR HER RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE TO ENSURE THAT YOUR CHERISHED RIGHT IS PRESERVED AND YOUR RIGHT TO LIVE FREE FROM THE THREAT OF GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION? SIMPLE: YOU MUST VOTE. BUT ARE YOU ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW TO VOTE?

KEEP IN MIND——

ONLY CITIZENS WHO ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE CAN LEGALLY VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

BUT YOU MUST FIRST REGISTER TO VOTE TO BE ABLE TO CAST A BALLOT. THE TIME TO REGISTER IS NOT OPEN-ENDED.

SOME STATES HAVE IMPOSED A THIRTY DAY CUTOFF (REGISTRATION THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY) TO VOTE.

CONTACT YOUR BOARD OF ELECTIONS FOR INFORMATION ON REGISTERING TO VOTE. DO SO AT ONCE! DO NOT PUT THIS OFF!

See this link at Vote.org to determine the time limit for registering to vote in your State.

The act of registering to vote and casting a ballot are simple things to accomplish—among the simplest of tasks any American can be called upon as an American Citizen to undertake. But these simple tasks are not to be taken lightly. VOTING IS A SACRED RIGHT AND AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DUTY.

MAKE NO MISTAKE AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 2024 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THIS IS NOT JUST ANY U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY! THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE, BAR NONE, TO PRESERVE OUR FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. IF WE LOSE THIS ELECTION. IF THE NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALISTS AND NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS PREVAIL AND SEAT THEIR PUPPET, KAMALA HARRIS, IN THE OVAL OFFICE IN JANUARY 2025, YOU AND I BOTH KNOW WHAT SHE WILL DO. SHE WILL IMMEDIATELY SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT WILL DESTROY THIS REPUBLIC AND OUR NATURAL LAW RIGHTS—ALL OF THEM! HARRIS SAYS HER VALUES HAVE NOT CHANGED AND, INDEED, THEY HAVE NOT. SHE IS A MARXIST WHO BELIEVES IN THE DISSOLUTION OF OUR NATION-STATE AND THE SUBJUGATION OF THE CITIZENRY TO THE WILL OF THE COLLECTIVE—THE HIVE—THE DICTATES OF THE STATE! SHE WILL NEED NO PRODDING FROM HER MASTERS—SOROS AND OTHERS—TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF AMERICAN SOCIETAL ANNIHILATION COMMENCED UNDER HER FIRST TERM WITH BIDEN.

We have already remarked on the SEVERITY AND EXTENT OF THIS THREAT in this Essay/Bulletin, and we will continue to do so because the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election IS THAT IMPORTANT!

Trump made poignantly clear the stakes for Americans in the election back in May 2024, seemingly a lifetime ago, when he delivered his address to NRA. To protect our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, it is incumbent on all gun owners to vote. If you don’t, and Trump loses the election, don’t cry the blues. You will have only yourself to blame.

In pertinent part, Trump said this:

The NRA has stood with me from the very beginning, and with your vote, I will stand strong for your rights and liberties. Four or more years in the White House, we’re going to do things like nobody can believe. We’re going to turn our country around. We’re going to, quite simply, make America great again. But one thing I’ll say, and I say it as friends, we’ve got to get gun owners to vote because you know what? I don’t know what it is.

Perhaps it’s a form of rebellion because you’re rebellious people, aren’t you? But gun owners don’t vote. What is that all about? I’ve heard that. I heard it a few weeks ago. If the gun owners voted, we would swamp them at levels that nobody’s ever seen before. So I think you’re a rebellious bunch, but let’s be rebellious and vote this time. Okay? If you go out and vote . . . I understand exactly why you don’t, but we have to win this election. It’s the most important election in the history of our country. [See also YouTube video on this point Donald Trump: 2024 election the ‘most important’ in history of United States (youtube.com)]

You’ve got to get all your friends, all the gun owners. They have to go, and they have to vote. If they vote, there’s nobody that can beat us, nobody. So it’s very important, and I want to thank the NRA president, Charles Cotton, your first vice president, Bob Barr, and interim executive vice president, Andrew Arulanandam. That’s a terrific group of people.” ~Selective quotes from Donald Trump’s speech at the NRA Leadership Forum held in Dallas, Texas where Trump addresses attendees on May 18, 2024. [Roll Call Factbase - Speech: Donald Trump Addresses the NRA Leadership Forum in Dallas - May 18, 2024. See also transcriber’s (“@rev”) transcription of event].

Trump has reiterated the importance of voting many times since the address to attendees of the Convention. And he has made clear we must make this Election “Too big to rig.”

The Anti-American forces that intend to carry their new puppet—the smug, vacuous and insufferable Marxist Kamala Harris across the finish line in November—don’t see the election that way AND YOU SHOULDN’T EITHER!

You Must Vote and You Must Cast Your Vote for Donald Trump! But to be able to vote in the upcoming election, you must be registered to vote. You must do so at once!

The two Co-Authors of this Essay and Co-Founders of the Arbalest Quarrel understand, acutely, the absolute horror that will be unleashed on our Nation if the forces that dare to crush our Nation and our people succeed in seating their “PARLOR TRICK,” Kamala Harris in our Nation’s highest Office. This Nation will be at an end.

The swiftness of our demise will be as sudden and as catastrophic as a lightning bolt from the heavens. These past four years under Biden that swiftly undid all the myriad accomplishments of Trump are no more than a foretaste of the terrible times ahead for all Americans if he loses this race. THIS, IN A NUTSHELL, is the impetus for the work that went into drafting and posting this comprehensive Essay/News Bulletin.

This Essay/News Bulletin draws on what we, at the Arbalest Quarrel, have observed, what we have investigated, what we have analyzed and synthesized, and what we have inferred from that extensive, expansive legal and political research, observation, and investigation, over a span of eleven plus years. We started the Arbalest Quarrel website in early 2013.

Recently, Stephen L. D’Andrilli, one of the authors of this essay responded to an article written by NRA’s Executive Vice President, Doug Hamlin, titled “The NRA Is Back,” published in the July 2024 edition of NRA’s magazine, “America’s1st Freedom.”

In his letter to the Editor, Stephen stated, in important part, “Along with the many voters on our side, the millions of new gun owners and the many NRA members who are coming back to the fold, [Doug Hamlin] declares, ‘Now is the time to be bold,’ and ‘We need to vote [in the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election] and make sure all gun owners vote. If we do, we will retain our freedom.’” Stephen ends his letter with this exclamation, “We should all heed [Doug Hamlin’s] words.”

NRA published Stephen’s letter in the recent October 2024 “Mail Call” Section of “America’s First Freedom.

The NRA titled Stephen’s response to the Executive Vice President’s article with the last three words of Stephen’s letter: “HEED THESE WORDS” [Pointing to the Paramount Importance of Guns Owners, ALL GUN OWNERS, TO TAKE ACTION.

GUN OWNERS MUST SUPPORT TRUMP BY CASTING THEIR VOTE FOR HIM IN THIS ELECTION. IT MAY, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, BE OUR LAST ONE. REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER AGAIN HAVE A TENABLE CHANCE OF GETTING A TRUE CONSERVATIVE IN THE OVAL OFFICE—A PATRIOT WHO, LIKE DONALD TRUMP, CHERISHES THE FREE REPUBLIC OUR FRAMERS CRAFTED FOR US AND DIVINE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS THAT THOSE FRAMERS INCORPORATED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION.

SITTING OUT THIS ELECTION IS NOT A TENABLE OPTION!

AQ has often wondered why it is that no other person in recent memory has suffered such continuous vehement, venomous, insatiable, unrelenting assault professionally and personally than Donald Trump, and how it is and why it is that no other person in modern American history has garnered more animosity and outright hatred by such broad coalitions at home and overseas than our 45th U.S. President.

We did some digging and serendipitously came across a lengthy, comprehensive, and provocative interview of Eric Weinstein, a mathematician, economist, and a former Managing Director of the Global Macro Hedge Fund, Thiel Capital. See YouTube video.

The interviewer, Chris Williamson, host of “Modern Wisdom Podcast,” began his interview of Weinstein (who incidentally hosts his own podcast), by recapping something Weinstein had told Williamson back in January of this year.

Williamson said,

“When we spoke at the beginning of the year [January 2024], you said that it is much too close to November to switch anybody out [referring to the Democrat Party leadership replacing Biden with someone else to run against whomever the Republican voters selected during the primary season to run against Biden].”

Williamson added, “It turns out I was wrong.”

With a wry smile Weinstein replied (referring to himself with feigned modesty), “Beginner’s Luck.”

Williamson continued, “You said, ‘What are the odds that Joe Biden has a debilitating event between now and November, including death? . . . A debilitating event could have been a debilitating public event [the Trump/Biden Debate, it turns out].” 

Weinstein responds, “I purposely left [“the nature of the debilitating public event”] vague. And, I didn’t say the other part of it, which I now feel comfortable saying, which is, I don’t know whether Donald Trump will be allowed to become President.”

Eric Weinstein - Are We On The Brink Of A Revolution? (4K) (youtube.com) Note: The interview aired approximately three weeks ago as of the posting of this article.

The sentence—

“I don’t know whether Donald Trump WILL BE ALLOWED TO become President”—we, at the Arbalest Quarrel, find deeply disturbing.

The suggestion is that powerful and ruthless forces have a personal, vested interest in seeing the demise of our Nation and of all nation-states, in favor of a singular monolithic neoliberal international world order that replaces the very concept of nation-state. This is something we have long surmised, and this has become the focal point of all the work we have done on AQ to date.

And here was a brilliant theorist providing support for our own inference.

But the idea that these ruthless forces would go so far as to attempt to “take out” Trump literally, through assassination, is something we had buried deep in our subconscious, not wishing to give credence to such a horrific thought.

The idea that these attempts on Trump’s life are simply the product of “lone wolves” we have all heard before, but this is a Gordian Knot that the FBI and USSS has not bothered to untangle for us.

Instead, they lob it out to the public, suggesting we make sense of this—either that or take on faith as truth, the ridiculous non-answers they give us, knowing how ridiculous their remarks are but not caring that we know that we are being given a mouthful of nonsense.

So, then, two maniacs operating on their own initiative, with no assistance from anyone, decide to assassinate Trump. Sure!

Even worse than the insouciance of the FBI and Secret Service whom we know have become rogue Government organizations, is the dismissive attitude of the Press and some Democrats and the Radical Left commentators that do little to hide the fact that they find the near assassinations understandable, even rational. They would be perfectly happy to see Trump assassinated. They gloat over the prospect of just such a horrific occurrence and have not let go one iota of their vicious, vile, ludicrous, and defamatory assertions that Trump is a Dictator and a Racist.

THERE IS AFTER ALL A MASSIVE TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY TAKING PLACE IN AMERICA.

TRUMP, “MAGA” SUPPORTERS, AND EVEN OUR NATION’S BLUEPRINT—THE U.S. CONSTITUTION—ARE VIEWED AS OBSTRUCTIONS TO A NEW WORLD ORDER THAT PROGRESSIVES AND MARXISTS AND GLOBALISTS SEE AS GOOD AND PROPER AND, MORE, INEVITABLE.

The wealthy, powerful secretive Neoliberal Globalist class perceives the very concepts of ‘nation state’ and of ‘citizen’ as archaic and detrimental to their interests in a modern Globalized world THAT, OF COURSE, BENEFITS, THEM, TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY.

They perceive Donald Trump as a dangerous obstacle to their gameplan and to their salient objective: Construction of a one-world empire with them at the helm.

Weinstein deals with this matter in depth, which makes the interview an important “listen” for America’s Gun Owners, especially.

We point out that Weinstein’s puzzling remark about Trump, that he may not be allowed to become President IS NOT TO SUGGEST that Weinstein doesn’t want Trump to win the Election in November. Frankly, we don’t know.

Weinstein stays noncommittal on his position which he alludes to as “neutral.” He says, “I don’t have a dog in this fight.” It is difficult to believe that any person can take a neutral stance on this Election with so much at stake—whether the United States continues as a Free Constitutional Republic and independent, sovereign State or not.

But Weinstein’s lengthy and weighty exchange with Williamson does much to establish that powerful, secretive interests DO HAVE “a dog in this fight” even if Weinstein, himself, does not, and they intend to prevent Trump from becoming U.S. President to serve a second term and, further, they have the means and the will to do just that.

Weinstein suggests WE AMERICANS ARE TRULY IN THE MIDST OF WITNESSING THE POSSIBLE OVERTURNING OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WITH ALL THAT SUCH A CATASTROPHE ENCOMPASSES.

Weinstein’s remarks support the Arbalest Quarrel’s own concerns which have remained consistent since we started this legal-political website for educational purposes.

There is, though, in that interview, an Audio/Video clip that comes toward the end of the Weinstein interview which we listened to intently and relistened to, and having done so, leads us to reassess and controvert ideas we have propounded about Harris’ native intelligence. Her presentation as a near moron, and mumbling fool like Biden (who, unlike her, is ravaged by dementia) may be a front, a façade, a fabrication.

But why she and her image makers and propagandists would wish to create such a persona of her is confounding to us unless they feel that the projection of such a persona would help her electoral chances.

But what does that say of that portion of the Electorate who supports her run for the U.S. Presidency?

Still, what Weinstein happens to say about Harris’ belief system we are confident does confirm and support our position as stated infra—that Harris, unlike Biden, is a true believer of Marxism and a person who is dead set on bringing about to fruition the Marxist vision for humanity and the world. Karl Marx propounded that vision in elaborate detail in in his many works, prepared and published in the Mid-1800s. The powerful forces intent on our Nation’s demise, don’t need a complete, dementia-riddled fool like Biden to push their agenda.

Kamala Harris, after all, is a true believer (there is no question about that), and if she is highly intelligent—most U.S. Presidents are—she may actually be one of the architects of our Nation’s dissolution. If so, it would be wrong of us to think of her simply as, and simply classify her, as another “messenger boy.”

Two hundred and fifty years later, coincidental with where the U.S. now stands since the founding of a Free Republic, Karl Marx’s vision will become true if Harris does win the U.S. Presidency. The profound irony would be that the United States, having its birth as a truly Free Constitutional Republic and having become the most powerful, prosperous Nation in the world, and thence, the envy of the world, would now become the harbinger of both its destruction and that of the world—a Marxist world dictatorship. That is the exact opposite of what the Founders of our Republic had envisioned, had crafted and had made a reality.

Our Nation, our Constitution, our Institutions will have suffered not only complete defeat, but annihilation and what would emerge would be our utter corruption and that of the world. We, Americans, will have fallen from grace and taken the world with us. The irony would not be lost on Karl Marx. He would find it most fitting and would be quite pleased. The Audio clip of the interview isn’t long but is definitely worth a close listen.

Powerful Globalist and Neo-Marxist interests are firmly entrenched in the western civilization and have become noticeably more prominent since the turn of the 21st Century—and most disconcertingly in our own Country. They know that the World Empire they wish to impose on the world isn’t possible if America remains a sovereign, independent Nation and free Constitutional Republic. This Nation’s inclusion is necessary to their plans. This Nation’s fall is therefore of the highest priority for them.

Donald Trump, and one-half of the Electorate that fervently supports him and his mission to preserve our Republic, stand in their way. And, so, Trump and what the Press and Progressives and outright Marxists—these and all the other elements of the RADICAL LEFT—describe always vituperatively as “MAGA AMERICANS,” are routinely ridiculed, censured, and reviled. Trump and the MAGA PEOPLE must be dealt with harshly.

We point to the powerful negative influence (no secret) that the powerful Radical Left Extremist George Soros has had on our Nation, and the powerful negative impact he (and now his son, Alex) continues to exert on our Nation and our people.

Donald Trump, as an American Populist, has made patently clear and has poignantly demonstrated he is firmly committed in preserving the United States as an independent sovereign Nation, consistent with the Oath he had once taken and would take again as U.S. President in 2025:  TO PRESERVE AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

The Globalists, along with the multi-cultural Neo-Marxists, clearly do not want and will not abide a President who serves in fact, not merely in title, as U.S. President, responsive to the American Electorate that voted him into Office. For such a man upends the overthrow of our Republic that its Destroyers have long planned for and that they swiftly and happily see coming to fruition with Kamala Harris firmly ensconced in the Oval Office.

This is the core of what the Globalists and Marxists see as the problem posed for them by Trump and so-called “MAGA” Americans. Trump and a large portion of the Electorate obstinately refuse to accede to the transformation of their Nation from a Republic to a Marxist Dictatorship. These sinister shadowy forces have developed, cultivated, implemented and long nourished, on an industrial scale, a complex, profound campaign of psychological conditioning, directed against Americans. The purpose is to insinuate into the minds of Americans a new socio-political paradigm that is antithetical to our Nation’s ideals and to the principles established in our Nation’s Constitution and to the core values that have for generations been embedded in the psyche of the American people. They want to disrupt and sever Americans’ connection with their past. Contrariwise, Trump and most of the American Electorate want to reinforce that memory and connection with the past and to preserve and secure that past for generations of Americans to come.

Unfortunately, it has come to pass, slowly and inexorably, that many Americans, especially the Nation’s young, have inculcated in their psyche a sensitivity to a paradigm shift in thinking. The youth of our Nation have become the product of systematic indoctrination and brainwashing, amenable to the vision of Karl Marx.

Many Americans, susceptible to persistent, vigorous psychological conditioning, have succumbed to a new way of thinking that is detrimental to their own best interests.

These Americans have not only turned away from the wondrous Country the First Patriots crafted and built for themselves and for us Americans who came after—a Nation that evolved to become the most powerful, prosperous, and successful Nation the world has ever seen—but have come to abhor our Country and our Founders, and our history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethical system, despite the remarkable achievements.

This is not happenstance. It is all according to plan—A PLAN TO TURN AMERICANS AGAINST THEMSELVES AND AGAINST EACH OTHER SO THAT THEY BECOME UNABLE TO RESIST THE COMING ARMAGEDDON.

Many Americans are inured to this systematic brainwashing and appalled at what they are seeing.

A profound schism is the result. And, with Americans fighting among themselves, the Country is ripe for a takeover.

THE COMING ELECTION WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE SUCCESS AND PROMISE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776 IS PRESERVED OR IS LOST—LOST FOREVER—HAVING BEEN REPLACED AT THE BALLOT BOX BY THE NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST/NEO-MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION.

The architects of America’s destruction want a Messenger Boy (or Girl) who knows his or her place and acquiesces to the will and dictates of the powerful, unelected forces, operating mostly in the shadows.

Their agenda and interests, posited as right and proper and consistent with the norms of a preposterous “Rules-Based International Neoliberal Global Order,” are wholly antithetical to the interests and security of our Nation and to the security and well-being of the American people.

Yet, Trump stubbornly perseveres and so do his supporters. And this infuriates the forces that crush and enrages those Americans who have fallen to the seductive influences of the Press and to the rhetoric of those Politicians who have betrayed us, whose sentiments are in lockstep with the aims and agenda of those intent on destroying us.

HOW FAR ARE THESE FORCES THAT CRUSH COUNTRIES AND CIVILIZATIONS WILLING TO GO? We know the answer. And it is disheartening, even horrifying.

At the time of the Williamson/Weinstein interview, there was already one attempt on Trump’s life and a second attempt would come soon after the interview.

Desperate people are capable of desperate acts, and we are not referring here to the maniacs, Crooke and Routh. Those two pathetic creatures, one dead and the other presently under wraps [perhaps to wind up dead in detention to keep him from talking] are but mere instruments of desperate people who happen to be extraordinarily wealthy, extremely powerful, and sharply focused on achieving their end game.

Such people have the both the means and the will to carry out the murder of leaders and possible leaders of countries, including a past President of the United States who may be elected again this November, to serve his second term in office—a term that was unlawfully denied both him and the Electorate who voted him into Office in November 2020.

These forces are, apparently, able to easily find, train, equip, and control the lunatics who attempt to carry out assassinations. And we must assume there are many such lunatics available.

And these sinister forces have powerful aides.

The leadership at the DOJ, DHS, FBI, AND INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY allow events to unfold in accordance with the will and wishes of these ruthless, amoral impenetrable forces whom they serve.

Even FOX news will do no more than provide hints at the apparent complicity of these Government bureaucracies but will avoid any mention of the forces lurking behind them.

Conservative pundits, however, DO SEE through the implausibility of Federal agencies, bureaus, and departments that have budgets of billions of dollars conveniently screwing up when it comes to defending the life of Donald Trump, and these pundits are delineating the specifics of those “screw-ups,” if in fact that is what they are. We have serious doubts that these seeming happenstances are just screw-ups due to ineptitude, and, so, must ask:

ARE THESE SCREWUPS JUST THAT—THE PRODUCT OF MERE INEPTITUDE—OR ARE THEY INDICATIVE OF SOMETHING MORE AT PLAY HERE?

We definitely believe there is more going on here, and FOX news anchors such as Jesse Watters, Greg Gutfeld, Laura Ingraham, and others are, to our mind, as we listen to them, becoming increasingly more open and forthright about their suspicions even as most other news organizations and the Press seem curiously uninterested in investigating these assassination attempts.

THE PROPAGANDIST NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AT MSNBC AND CNN, AND MANY OTHERS, NONSENSICALLY blithely, insultingly, and idiotically claim and proclaim that Trump, himself, is solely responsible for the assassination attempts directed against him. And in making such ridiculous remarks in such a straightforward way, the listener must infer that, these “news” commentators are complicit in what is rapidly taking shape as a major coverup.

Still, as powerful as these Globalists and Neo-Marxists are—and the hold they have over the Press, social media, and the Federal Government itself is apparently extensive—they are no match for determined Americans who hold firmly to their heritage, culture, and God-Given Natural Law Rights.

You, the Gun Owner, are one of these people—among our Nation’s true Patriots. Be mindful of the stakes here.

Your Life and Well-Being and that of your Children and Grand-Children, and of generations of Americans yet to come, depend on the outcome of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election.

If tens of millions of gun owners VOTE AS ONE, we can defeat the Globalists and Marxists at their own game.

The outcome of the U.S. Presidential Election therefore comes down to you and what you do or fail to do in the next few weeks. 

Whether this Country continues as a Sovereign, Independent Nation and Free Constitutional Republic, or is reduced to a mere cog in some greater world empire—an empire that has little regard for the needs and wants of Americans and even less regard for the notion of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual soul (which they see as an altogether bizarre and irrelevant notion)—depends on your active participation in this 2024 U.S. Presidential Election.

That we feel compelled to draw attention to this matter is due to the predilection of many gun owners—all too many—TEN MILLION OR MORE of you who have not yet registered to vote and who, apparently, do not intend to vote this Fall.

This is unconscionable and unforgivable, given the stakes.

Such a casual attitude toward this Election ought to be unthinkable. We implore you to take this election seriously as if your life and well-being depend on it. For, in fact, it may.

Some Commentators have routinely said and continue to say this election is the most consequential in our lifetime. IT IS, but that remark is only half-true.

This coming election is, AS TRUMP HAS REPEATEDLY SAID, and as we stated, supra, THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION EVER—AND, WE WOULD ADD—GOING BACK TO OUR NATION’S EARLIEST DAYS.

HOW FAR BACK?

WE WOULD SAY, WITHOUT HYPERBOLE, A DATE GOING BACK BEFORE RATIFICATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION: TO THE VERY BEGINNING OF OUR HISTORY: TO THE ADOPTION OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ON JULY 4, 1776. THAT MARKED THE DATE THE FIRST PATRIOTS THREW THE GAUNTLET AT THE FEET OF THE TYRANT—GEORGE III.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT EVENT, WE FIRMLY BELIEVE PREDATES RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ON JUNE 21, 1788, AND THE RATIFICATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS THEREAFTER, ON DECEMBER 15, 1791.

THE DRAFTING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WAS OUR RALLYING CRY, LEADING TO OUR REVOLUTION AND THE OVERTHROW OF TYRANNY THROUGH THE PROWESS AND EFFORTS OF AMERICA’S FIRST PATRIOTS, AND BY THE DINT OF ARMS. AND NOW, ON THE EVE OF THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, WE AMERICANS SHOULD BE REMINDED OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT YEAR, 1776. ARE OUR NATION’S YOUTH ANY LONGER TAUGHT OF THAT MOMENTOUS YEAR?

Trump has reiterated and underscored the importance of this Election often. See, e.g., Donald Trump: 2024 election the ‘most important’ in history of United States (youtube.com)] He has pointed this out at a campaign event in Las Vegas, Nevada. Trump says Election Day is 'most important day in the history of our country at the Vegas rally - Las Vegas Sun News. He remarked on this during his speech at the Republican National Convention on July 19, 2024. Trump paints a familiar vision in his RNC speech, after recounting his brush with death: NPR. And, during a 20-minute speech at Mar-a-Lago on Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024, he said, “November 5 [2024] will be the most important day in U.S. history.” Trump says Nov. 5 will be the most important day in U.S. history | AP News.

And he has made this point most recently in his address to the Nation from Trump Tower in New York City just the other day, September 26, 2024. See Donald Trump’s full speech at Trump Tower in New York (Sept. 26, 2024) | wfaa.com as mentioned supra.

Left-wing commentators and reporters shrug off the remark as one more example of Trump’s use of superlatives for emphasis, or as an example of Trump’s predisposition toward embellishment, or exaggeration, or for excess, generally. But is it any one of those things, really? The answer is, “No.”

A declaration is either true or false. Exaggeration doesn’t make the statement one or the other. The factual event that the declaration refers to is determinative of truth or falsity. Emphasis that provides rhetorical flourish doesn’t make a declaration “truer” or “falser.” The declaration is simply “true”, or it is “false.”

Curiously, these same commentators don’t suggest that Trump has lied here, which amounts to a tacit acknowledgment that our 45th President simply conveyed nothing less than the Truth and emphasized the importance of the TRUTH EXPRESSED.

The fact remains that, now in 2024, as, then, back in 1776, we LIVE OR DIE as a Nation of TRULY FREE AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLE this November 5, 2024.

This coming Presidential election is of another order of magnitude to any election that has come before. For, this election, truly is our last chance to save our Free Constitutional Republic.

The forces that crush only need the next four years, commencing in January 2025, to complete the process they set in motion many years before and which moved rapidly ahead with Biden in the White House.

Consider the efficacy of Trump’s pronouncement from the standpoint of a further remark Trump has made—one that no commentator or reporter has made light of because they happen to make the same remark, as has Kamala Harris, herself.

The remark, recited somewhat differently in subsequent iterations, denotes two starkly different visions for the Country.

Some commentators and news reporters take this to mean different views on specific issues that include, for example, immigration, abortion, firearms, and the meaning of “American Democracy.” But these visions reflect something more basic and profound: the preservation of OR the unwinding of our Free Republic.

The idea of “Democracy” that Progressives and Marxists go on about ad nauseum hits at the crux of the difference between Trump’s vision for America and that of the varied interests, both powerful and secretive, that back Harris. See Harris and Trump Bet on Their Own Sharply Contrasting Views of America - The New York Times (nytimes.com) 

Trump extolls the principles of Republicanism as exemplified in the socio-political-economic doctrine of INDIVIDUALISM, upon which our Constitution rests, and through which the United States has, in the span of less than 200 years, become the most successful, prosperous, powerful, and flourishing Nation the world has ever seen.

The forces that represent and that fund the Democrat Party machine want to institute something much different from the America the Framers of our Constitution crafted. Because the aim of the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist Internationalists is so distinct from our Free Constitutional Republic, the construct they envision cannot be easily insinuated into our Nation without the public taking notice of the change. So, they don’t try to suggest that the change they seek to produce is nuanced, merely a matter of degree, rather than kind, of what the Founders of our Republic gave us. What is proposed is a paradigm shift away from what has existed since the American Revolution in 1776. To make the public amenable to that shift which amounts to nothing less than the dissolution of an Independent Sovereign Nation and Free Constitutional Republic, the public must change its perception of our Nation-State—must come to dislike it, even loathe it, and accept as something positive, a societal construct that is the polar opposite to that which the Founders gave us.

The powerful secretive interests that intend to destroy the fabric of a Nation constituted as a Free Republic adhere to a socio-political doctrine that the Founders of our Republic gave no consideration for as they found it repellant, and inconsistent with the pronouncements of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that sprang from it, are grounded on principles that reflect the singular importance of the Individual. Freedom and Liberty are conceived from a personal context, not a collective context. As one would expect, the principles of Freedom and Liberty as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S. Constitution—especially the Bill of Rights of the Constitution are framed through the socio-political and economic philosophy of INDIVIDUALISM.

The Antithesis of INDIVIDUALISM is a socio-political and economic philosophy called Collectivism.

The two doctrines are incompatible and cannot be reconciled.

Why this is and what “COLLECTIVISM” in America means is best understood and exemplified by the policies the Biden Administration has embraced—the effects of which have devastated this Country in many ways: Societally, in the broadest sense, and Politically; Economically and Financially; and militarily.

And this process is the result of a conscious, cold, calculated DESIGN. It cannot be explained away as the result of mere crass and caustic INCOMPETENCE and INEPTITUDE. Americans have seen:

• A POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT EXERTS CONTROL OVER THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AND INSTITUTES POLICIES SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO CAUSE AMERICANS TO DEPEND ON GOVERNMENT FOR SATISFACTION OF ALL WANTS AND NEEDS, THEREBY DESTROYING THE NOTION OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY,

• THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF PSEUDO DOGMAS TO CONFOUND AND DIVIDE THE POPULACE, SUCH AS “DEI,” “CRT,” TRANSGENDERISM, AND THE LIKE AND TO MOVE THE PUBLIC TOWARD RECOGNITION, ACCEPTANCE, OF AND A PREFERENCE FOR AN AMERICA GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLES AND PRECEPTS OF COLLECTIVISM.

• THE UTILZATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO ENGINEER SOCIETAL REFORM, AND THE APPLICATION OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES TO REDIRECT AND READJUST THE PUBLIC’S CONSCIOUSNESS AND PSYCHE TOWARD CONFORMITY WITH, COMPLIANCE TO AND RELIANCE ON STATE DICTATES WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE REASONABLENESS OF THOSE DICTATES

• ATTACKS AND DENIGRATION OF SACRED SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS, SUCH AS CHRISTIANITY, THE NUCLEAR FAMILY, MORALITY AS AN ABSOLUTE, AND THE CONCEPT OF AND IMPORTANCE OF NATURAL LAW AS CODIFIED IN THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS—ALL OF WHICH ARE CONSONANT AND IMPLICIT IN THE DOCTRINE OF INDIVIDUALISM AND WHICH MUST THEREFORE BE ERASED

• THE FLAGRANT DISMANTLING OF OUR NATION’S GEOGRAPHICAL BORDERS, ENABLING AND ENCOURAGING MASS MIGRATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM ONE HUNDRED FIFTY COUNTRIES TO FLOOD INTO AND THROUGHOUT OUR COUNTRY, CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO OUR NATION’S INTERNAL SOCIAL FABRIC AND FINANCIAL SECURITY

• ERADICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF ‘INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE’ AND THE WEAKENING AND EVENTUAL SHATTERING OF THE CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES (AS THE IDEA OF ‘NATION’ IS TIED TO THE IDEA OF ‘CITIZEN’ AND BOTH ARE ANATHEMA TO COLLECTIVISM)

• THE EMERGENCE OF AND EMBRACE OF NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISM AND NEO-MARXISM ON THE WORLD STAGE AS A SOCIO-POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL PHENOMENON AND REALITY, REPLACING ALL PREVIOUS CONCEPTS, PHILOSOPHIES, AND PRINCIPLES TIED TO AMERICENTRIC CULTURE AND INSTITUTIONS

• THE DELIBERATE FAILURE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF CONGRESS, AND THE RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (AND, INSTEAD, TO IRREVERENTLY PROCEED WITH AN AGENDA DAMAGING TO THE NATION—A TREACHERY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER AND A POMPOUS, CAVALIER ATTITUDE TOWARD THAT TREACHERY)

Democrats know most Americans do not naturally ascribe to COLLECTIVISM and to COLLECTIVIST impulses. Therefore, their thought processes have to be modified and readjusted to cohere to the principles and features of COLLECTIVISM.

Academicians who promote Social/Political Progressivism or outright Marxism know most Americans are ardently opposed to policy aims that are antithetical to the principles and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM upon which the U.S. CONSTITUTION is grounded, and upon which Americans’ ethical system is tied. and upon which our institutions are structured.

Democrats and their benefactors do little to discuss their errant policy aims directly and openly to the public even as they thrust alien concepts and policies on that public. They lie constantly and blatantly the public—presenting reprehensible policy aims that are antithetical to the prescriptions of the Articles of the Constitution, abhorrent to the exercise of Americans’ Natural Law Rights, and detrimental to the safety and well-being of the Country and its people—seemingly in a benign or positive light.

Their predisposition to lie often and flagrantly to the public about the negative impact of their AGENDA and POLICY AIMS is ITSELF indicative of COLLECTIVISM.

COLLECTIVISTS consider DECEPTION morally acceptable if it serves their agenda and helps them to achieve their goals.

THEY HOLD TO THE IDEA THE ENDS TRULY DO JUSTIFY ANY AND ALL MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR OBJECTIVES. LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, SILENCING/THREATENING ARE ALL PART OF THEIR ARSENAL TO ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES.

Given the propensity of COLLECTIVISTS to lie openly or to evade responding directly and honestly to a question about policy, one should not find it remarkable to hear an old Communist, Senator Bernie Sanders (who prefers to be referred to euphemistically as a “Social Democrat”) and the arrogant, irritating, frankly frightening and cold-hearted politician, Hillary Clinton, openly acknowledging that Kamala Harris must avoid mention of her Marxist-Progressive policy aims to secure electoral victory, lest the public be repulsed.

After she emerges victorious, she can proceed with the Globalist-Marxist Agenda to complete what the Biden-Harris Administration and the Obama Administration started: the destruction of the United States as a sovereign, independent Nation and Free Constitutional Republic. For, at that point it will be much too late for the public to cry “FOUL!” and demand redress.

But some Left-wing news sources, such as the USA Today Newspaper do acknowledge or, at least, make a pretense of acknowledging the Democrats political con game: What does Harris believe, really? Polls slip as voters demand answers (usatoday.com) See also SCNR Hillary Clinton Claims Harris Faces 'Double Standard' Over Policies | SCNR Are these newspapers so confident that Harris will win the election? If so, what do they know that the public doesn’t? Much of the Electorate isn’t fooled, but nonetheless would prefer to see a Harris/Walz victory even as that portion of the Electorate agrees with Trump/Vance over the important police issues: Economy, Inflation, Immigration, and Crime. Latest polls as of October 1, 2024, demonstrate a bizarre discrepancy between beliefs and actions—— Americans prefer the Trump/Vance policy aims and believe they are truthful about those aims and objectives when they discuss them, but many of those same Americans seem inclined to vote for the Harris/Walz ticket. Harris and Walz generally remain more popular than Trump and Vance. See the recent article in the “Independent.” This demonstrates the power of psychological conditioning. The Press—utilized as propaganda—can coax the public into acting in a manner at once inconsistent with their own beliefs, and contrary to their best interests and that of the Nation.

Now, as then, WE LIVE AS A NATION OF TRULY FREE AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLE IN ACCORD WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF INDIVIDUALISM AS THE FRAMERS OF OUR NATION INTENDED, AS REFLECTED IN OUR CONSTITUTION, OR WE, AS SOVEREIGN MASTER OF GOVERNMENT, BECOME ITS SERVANT AND OUR FREE REPUBLIC DEVOLVES INTO BASE TOTALITARIANISM.

UNDERSTAND: WE ARE IN AN IDEOLOGICAL WAR!

This present ideological war is one fought without firearms and cannons, but it is a war just the same. It is one fought with words and oratory, and computers and algorithms. It is cyber-warfare and psychological warfare.

The final battle of this war is fought and, we hope, WON at the Ballot Box, where Americans have, in many states, have begun to vote.

As the orator, writer, and statesman, Frederick Douglas said, “A man’s right rests in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box.” ~Speech, 15 November 1867 as quoted in Robin Van Auken, Louis E. Hunsinger, “Williamsport: Boomtown on the Susquehanna” (Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2003), 57 Frederick Douglass On The Three Boxes Of Civil Rights | The Heidelblog  

For the past four years, beginning with a stolen election in 2020, followed by a miscarriage of justice in the “Lawfare” directed against Donald Trump in 2024, and two horrific, unforgettable assassination attempts on Trump in the space of two months, in the lead-up to this year’s U.S. Presidential election, no one should take lightly the stakes of this election.

Two assassination attempts on Trump should, of themselves, be a wakeup call for all Americans.

If we do not win at the BALLOT BOX, that will leave us only the CARTRIDGE BOX. And no rational person would opt for the CARTRIDGE BOX over the BALLOT BOX, when our Country can be won handily AT THAT BALLOT BOX.

Using the rational mind the Divine Creator gave us, each of us should be able to perceive plainly the danger facing us as a Nation and turn away from anything that points to Tyranny.

Yes, the Tyrant’s forces constantly proclaim Donald Trump to be the Tyrant even though his words and actions proclaim something entirely different: THE DESIRE TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR FREE REPUBLIC FROM ALL THREATS BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

It is they, THE FORCES THAT CRUSH, who screech loudest that “TRUMP IS THE TYRANT,” and that “TRUMP IS _______ [FILL IN THE BLANK OF YOUR FAVORITE FOREIGN DICTATOR PRESENT OR PAST: STALIN? HITLER? POL POT? KIM JONG UN? GAIUS CALIGULA? . . .]

Kamala Harris may hardly fit the bill as Tyrant, compared to those names cited. But Donald Trump certainly doesn’t fit the bill. Today, certainly, in the West, the concept of Tyrant—A TRUE TYRANT—is more expansive and complex, at least as applied to western countries, than was the case in the past.

Sheldon Wolin, who coined the phrase “INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM,” points out in a book he wrote titled, “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism,” published on January 1, 2010, that the concepts of Despots and Despotism are seemingly more elusive, but no less real today than in the past. The modern Despot/Tyrant seen today isn’t one man or woman. It is generally many people operating secretly but in concert, DEFYING LAW and CONSTITUTION.

They are found in both the PUBLIC SECTOR/GOVERNMENT and in the PRIVATE SECTOR/BUSINESS and FINANCE. They manipulate the systems in which they operate illegally and unethically to affect change to their advantage, oblivious to the grave harm they do the countries and people in which they operate.

MOST RECENTLY—

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris represent the public faces of the INVERTED TOTALITARIAN influences that are destroying our Country from within.

Neither one has real power, not really. They simply, blithely do the bidding of those people and groups THAT DO wield REAL POWER.

Biden and Harris are terrible people—corruptible, corrupt, and corrupting, to be sure. They happily sold their Souls to the Devil a long time ago. They did it all for the illusion and trappings of power and for monetary wealth that they lust for.

Other American politicians who relish the trappings of power and who lust over acquisition of oak leaf crowns, in service to the TYRANT in return for monetary wealth, and self-aggrandizement, include Hillary Clinton (who is aiming for a position in a Harris Administration as she loves to be close to power or its trappings), Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Dick and Liz Cheney.

And there are many, many others in recent American History alone, for example, Henry Kissinger (Secretary of State and National Security Advisor), and Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve). 

A landslide victory for Kamala Harris will seal our Nation’s fate forever. And it will not be a happy or glorious end for any American.

A landslide victory for Donald Trump, on the other hand, will inform treacherous politicians—Democrats and some Republicans, too—and those malevolent, malignant forces that support politicians who are intent on dooming our Country and our citizenry, that our Country and people are “OFF LIMITS” to them.

Both our Nation and its Citizenry are sacrosanct and inviolate. Neither one is to be auctioned off or cast aside.

Rarely does anyone have a second chance to make things right. Americans have that chance now.

This is our last chance to do so. And we have that chance now. And we must reiterate:

THE “BALLOT BOX” IS A MUCH BETTER WAY TO WIN BACK OUR COUNTRY FROM THE WRECK CREATED THESE PAST FOUR YEARS BY THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION, THAN IS THE PROSPECT OF POSSIBLY RELYING ON THE “CARTRIDGE BOX” TO ATTEMPT A REPAIR OF A LOST ELECTION AFTER THE FACT, WHEN THIS ELECTION NEED NOT BE LOST.

You Gun Owners who have not registered to vote and who, at this moment, have no intention to do so must not acquiesce to the false idea that Democrats will cheat and that there is nothing to be gained by casting a vote for Trump. That is foolish and false thinking.

Yes, powerful forces defeated us at the Ballot Box in 2020. They used a multitude of unethical and illegal means to do so.

They were, unfortunately, aided by many complacent, lackadaisical, or simply frightened Congressional Republicans. But that has changed. The forces that desire to achieve a knockout blow against us in November will have a tougher time cheating this time. They know it. That is why they are taking no chances now.

They are pulling out all the stops to maximize voter turnout on behalf of a tongue-tied, lackluster, mentally feeble Mannequin, Kamala Harris, that will do their bidding just as the senile, corrupt Joe Biden had done.

Biden no longer serves their purpose. They threw him away like a torn T-Shirt. He is disgruntled surely. But he made a fool of himself. He has no one to blame for that but himself. No one need be sorry for his sorry fate. The Democrats certainly are not. He willingly served as their instrument— severely damaging our Country—which was the intent all along.

Let him shuffle off to his fate. No one, other than his close family perhaps, will shed a tear for him when he is gone. He will not see his likeness carved on Mt. Rushmore. His name will be a footnote in history. Any research paper on him and his Administration will serve as a treatise of how a U.S. President must not behave.

Now these same Tyrants turn to another imposter. One, who, like her predecessor, cares nothing for the Country. This is readily apparent in her robotic mouthing of platitudes, clichés, bald-faced lies, and outright gibberish that a complicit Press makes a pretense of referring to as flowery oratory. She will in the end, suffer the same fate as Biden. But for us, Americans, her sad fate will matter little, for the damage to our Nation that she, as President would help to inflict on our Country and on us, the American people, will have been tragic and irreparable.

If we are to defeat these forces that intend to destroy us, we must beat them at their own game.

What more do you need to know about the importance of casting a vote for Donald Trump in this election?

Four years of life under the RINO George Bush and his VP Dick Cheney, and eight years under the thumb of the Apologist, Marxist Barack Obama and his VP Joe Biden, and four awful years of Joe Biden and his VP Kamala Harris should tell you exactly what you can expect during the tenure of Harris/Walz.

Some Americans say they know little to nothing of what Harris represents. That isn’t true. They should know, as most of us do, exactly what she and Walz represent and what will be wrought under their tenure.

You may think your life will be bearable under Harris/Walz. It will not. The forces that seek to destroy our Constitution, excise our Bill of Rights, and overthrow a Free Republic will waste no time in completing the process that began with Bush, that gathered steam under Biden, and that now plan to proceed in earnest, to complete that objective, and to do so rapidly. But that can only happen once those forces safely and securely ensconce Harris in office. These forces intend to shred the U.S. Constitution, not just amend it. They believe the Constitution has no redeeming features. See, e.g., the article in the Harvard Gazette, penned by two Government scholars that push the Socio-Political Progressive Agenda. They begin their essay with this:

The U.S. Constitution desperately needs updating, say Harvard government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt.

“We have a very, very old constitution; in fact, the oldest written constitution in the world,” notes Ziblatt, the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government. “It was written in a pre-democratic era. It hasn’t been amended much compared to other democracies. As a result, we have these institutions in place that most other democracies got rid of over the course of the 20th century.”

In their new book “Tyranny of the Minority,” the comparative political scientists argue that these antiquated institutions, including the Electoral College, have protected and enabled an increasingly extremist GOP, which keeps moving farther to the right despite losing the popular vote in all but one of the last eight presidential elections. The scholars also survey governments worldwide for examples of democratizing reforms. And they draw from history in underscoring the dangers of our constitutional stasis.

The Framers of our Constitution crafted the Electoral College to prevent a “TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY” on the individual. One might well wonder whether this PURPORTED WILL OF THE “MAJORITY” TRULY REFLECTS A COMMONALITY OF THOUGHT THAT DERIVES FROM DEEP SOUL-SEARCHING, OR IS NOT, INSTEAD, REALLY MANUFACTURED——THE PRODUCT OF A DEVIOUS GOVERNMENT THAT HAS THRUST IDEAS INTO THE PSYCHE OF AMERICANS TO LEAD THEM TO ACCEPT POLICY AIMS THAT ARE ANTITHETICAL TO THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS. If the latter proposition is true, then one must conclude that these Americans ARE OBLIVIOUS TO the reality that THE PROPAGANDISTS, on behalf of the Tyrant, have SHORT-CIRCUITED AMERICANS’ RATIONAL THOUGHT PROCESSES. If that’s the case, then this seemingly “WILL OF THE MAJORITY” (the “WILL OF THE MOB”), IS AN ABJECT ILLUSION. THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY (THE MOBOCRACY), THEN, REFLECTS NOTHING MORE THAN THE WILL OF THE TYRANT PROJECTED ONTO THE PSYCHE OF THE MAJORITY THAT HAPPENS TO BELIEVE, ERRONEOUSLY, THAT THE WILL EXPRESSED EMANATES, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, FROM EACH OF THEM, WHEN IT DOES NOT, AND NEVER DID.

THE TYRANT HAS SIMPLY IMPOSED ITS OWN WILL ON THE COLLECTIVE MIND.

The authors infer the U.S. Constitution is no longer relevant.

An Opinion Contributor to “The Hill” reaches the same conclusion. And there are many other scholars who agree with this assessment. But is the inference sound? We argue that it isn’t. These scholars who argue that our Constitution is no longer relevant fail to factor in a crucial premise. It is this: The U.S. Constitution is grounded on fundamental values—— values settled, unmodifiable, and eternal: FREEDOM, LIBERTY, THE INDOMITABILITY OF SPIRIT, AND THE SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF A PERSON’S SELFHOOD, among others. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS GROUNDED IN THESE VALUES—REFLECTING PERMANENT, ETERNAL, UNCONDITIONAL, AND INFLEXIBLE TRUTHS.

The ARTICLES of the U.S. CONSTITUTION, and the BILL OF RIGHTS, that followed, both ratified by the STATES, embody these values.

THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHES A FRAMEWORK FOR A SOCIETY—UNSEEN IN ANY OTHER SOCIETY EITHER BEFORE OR SINCE—THAT REFLECTS THESE TRUTHS, ORDAINED BY THE DIVINE CREATOR.

GOVERNMENT IS NOT A MORAL TRUTH. IT IS AT BEST A TEMPORARY, EMPIRICAL NECESSITY, GIVEN THE FLAWS INHERENT IN MAN. THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, SAW GOVERNMENT AS, AT BEST A NECESSARY EVIL——ITS POWERS, EXTRAORDINARY AS THEY ARE—MUST NEED BE VERY CAREFULLY CRAFTED, DEFINED, DEMARCATED, AND APPORTIONED AMONG THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES. BUT, IN ALL INSTANCES, IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS STRONG, CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT IS NOT SOVEREIGN OVER THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN OVER IT. THE GOVERNMENT EXISTS ONLY BY THE GRACE OF AND BY CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.

SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY, THIS IDEA OF GOVERNMENT AS DE MINIMIS IN IMPORTANCE TO THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE BECAME LOST.

Those scholars who write of a TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY— DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR VIEW OF A U.S. CONSTITUTION NO LONGER RELEVANT TO THE TIMES—IS A HARBINGER OF A SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT THAT ARE THE OBVERSE OF THAT FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC CREATED BY THE FRAMERS AND THAT HAS PROPELLED THE COUNTRY TO THE STATUS OF THE MOST PROSPEROUS AND PROMINENT, POWERFUL AND SUCCESSFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, AND ALL IN THE SPAN OF LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

If some scholars view our Constitution as irrelevant, in need of mass revision or erasure and replacement, they give us a hint of their reason (or rationale) for that position.

GOVERNMENT HAS GROWN NOTICEABLY MORE POWERFUL OVER TIME AND IT MUST REMAIN SO. But the claim that this best serves the will of the majority is a myth. What is this WILL OF THE MAJORITY PRESUMENT TO BE? Is it that the majority of the American people happen to agree on what rights THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE AND THOSE THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD NO LONGER BE PERMITTED TO EXERCISE—WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS THE DECISIVE ENFORCER?

How can an American know that THIS PURPORTED “WILL” OF THE PEOPLE IS TRULY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?

Are Americans to believe that each member of the MAJORITY happened to come to a decision of what action is RIGHT AND PROPER and what action is not? Is a Woman’s Right to ABORT HER BABY to be UNCONDITIONAL because the PRESS TELLS us this constitutes the WILL OF THE MAJORITY. Is it the WILL OF THE MAJORITY THAT AMERICANS SHOULD BE SILENCED AND CENSORED FOR EXPRESSING THEIR THOUGHTS IF THE MAJORITY IS REPULSED BY THOSE THOUGHTS AND THAT A PERSON SHOULD EVEN BE CRIMINALLY INDICTED FOR EXPRESSING “UNPOPULAR THOUGHTS?”

IF IT IS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY TO CONSTRAIN ONE’S RIGHT TO BEAR FIREARMS THAT THE MAJORITY SAYS NO CIVILIAN SHOULD POSSESS OR IF IT IS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY TO BAN CIVILIAN POSSESSION FO WEAPONRY ALL TOGETHER, IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF “NATURAL LAW RIGHTS?”

IF THE MAJORITY DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO MODEL A NEW AMERICA MODELED ON THAT BELIEF? WHAT WOULD SUCH AN AMERICA LOOK LIKE? WOULD IT STILL BE ONE THAT CHERISHES THE IDEA OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY?

ARE THOSE CONCEPTS TO GO BY THE BOARD AS EITHER RELATIVE IN MEANING OR ALTOGETHER MEANINGLESS? And there is a basic question here that must first be asked and answered: DOES SUCH WILL OF THE MAJORITY EVEN EXIST? IS THAT NOT SIMPLY A SOCIETAL CONSTRUCT BY GOVERNMENT THAT HAS USURPED THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE OVER GOVERNMENT, MAKING A PRETENSE OF SUBORDINATING ITSELF TO AND COMPLYING WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHEN GOVERNMENT IS DOING NO SUCH THING? RATHER GOVERNMENT PRETENDS TO ACT IN ACCORD WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHEN IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTING IN ACCORD WITH THE WILL OF GOVERNMENT. THE PRESS MANIPULATES THE PSYCHE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, “MANUFACTURING CONSENT” BY FEEDING SELECTIVE IDEAS TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE PRESS AND “THE MOB” (A MOBOCRACY OF ZOMBIES) HAS SIMPLY ACTED IN ACCORD WITH THE WILL OF THE POLICY MAKERS IN GOVERNMENT. THE PUBLIC IS THUS SEDUCED. ITS EXERCISE OF “WILL” IS MERE ILLUSION. IT IS THE WILL OF GOVERNMENT THAT IS ACTUALIZED. GOVERNMENT HAS MERELY INSERTED ITS OWN WILL IN THE PSYCHE OF THE PUBLIC.

SO, THEN, WHAT HAS OCCURRED IS PUBLIC COHERENCE WITH POLICY ORDAINED BY GOVERNMENT, UNDER THE GUISE THAT IT IS GOVERNMENT SIMPLY RESPONDING TO A PUBLIC “WILL OF THE MAJORITY” OUTCRY OVER “SPEECH” OR “GUNS” OR “WHAT PREGNANT WOMEN CAN DO OR NOT DO WITH THE BABIES CARRY WITHIN THEIR WOMB” OR THIS OR THAT. . . WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS AT THE MOMENT TO “TRIGGER” THE MOB ABOUT IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS OWN POLICY OBJECTIVES, IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS DUTIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR UNDER THE LAWS OF CONGRESS OR UNDER U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS.

This raw, virulent attack on the U.S. Constitution, and coming as it does continuously and from a multitude of institutions—academia, the Press, and the Government too—is disquieting and should give all Americans who cherish their Natural Law Rights and the preservation of a Free Constitutional Republic, pause.

This concerted, disturbing attack on the U.S. Constitution has definitely concerned some Legal Scholars, to the point they felt compelled to respond in kind to the attack.

One legal scholar, Adam J. MacLeod, Adam J. MacLeod is Professor of Law at Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and Research Fellow of the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy.

Adam MacLeod wrote an article titled, “The Thousands-Year Old Constitution,” published in “Public Discourse,” on October 2, 2018. In Part One of a two Part series, he made his concern about the attack on our Constitution, up front. He writes,

Many legal and political scholars think that the terms of the U.S. Constitution are now antiquated and obsolete. They think that our constitutional terms need to be updated and reinvented from time to time. They task federal judges, especially the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, with inventing new constitutional innovations to meet the ever-changing demands of a progressive society.

The Constitution is, in this view, what the judges say it is, and the judges must declare the terms of the Constitution anew according to the evolving moral awareness of America’s most sophisticated elites. An influential proponent of this view was the late Justice William Brennan. Its most famous proponents today are Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and, on certain issues, now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy.

On this view, the Constitution is often referred to as a living constitution. Now thriving independently of the dead-hand control of the white men who wrote it, the Constitution produces new norms and transforms old institutions into new sources of liberty and self-actualization. But this is a false conception. The Constitution itself isn’t doing any of those things. Judges are doing those things in the name of the Constitution as they invent new constitutional terms and premises. A better name for this view is the Novelty Constitution.

The Novelty Constitution has obvious weaknesses. First, it is both undemocratic and unrepublican. The Novelty Constitution cuts down and pushes out the customary and statutory laws that the people have chosen to govern themselves and the institutions that mediate between people and governments. Less obviously, but just as significantly, the Novelty Constitution undermines the legitimacy of the very judges who are charged with inventing it. When judges invent the same law from which they derive their judgments, their judgments rest not in law but in the innovative minds of the judges themselves. The Novelty Constitution is thus legally arbitrary. The judges who invent new meanings for the Constitution can identify no reason why we should respect their judgments as lawful judgments. They give us only judicial fiat, sometimes covered in shadow by abstractions that emanate from penumbras of the Constitution and, sometimes, just Because I Said So.

In an op-ed by Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at George Washington University, titled, “The Counter-Constitutional Movement: The Assault on America’s Defining Principles,” published in the Wall Street Journal on September 24, 2024, and reposted on the author’s own website, “Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks,” the following day, Professor Turley expressed his deep concern over the assault on a major facet of and essential cornerstone of Freedom and Liberty—Free Speech. He pointed to politicians’ attack on the Constitution, but also that of legal scholars.

These law professors don’t simply express reservation over the Constitution, but disdain for it. They openly deride and malign both the Constitution and the High Court. Their attack slips into an emotional vituperative tirade.

Turley doesn’t mince words when describing this. He plainly sees such vehement, unbridled attacks on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Nation’s Constitution on the part of some in the legal community appalling.

Turley writes,

The attacks on the court are part of a growing counterconstitutional movement that began in higher education and seems recently to have reached a critical mass in the media and politics. The past few months have seen an explosion of books and articles laying out a new vision of “democracy” unconstrained by constitutional limits on majority power.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, is author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” published last month. In a 2021 Los Angeles Times op-ed, he described conservative justices as “partisan hacks.”

In the New York Times, book critic Jennifer Szalai scoffs at what she calls “Constitution worship.” She writes: “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” She frets that by limiting the power of the majority, the Constitution “can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”

In a 2022 New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”

Others have railed against individual rights. In my new book on free speech, I discuss this movement against what many professors deride as “rights talk.” Barbara McQuade of the University of Michigan Law School has called free speech America’s “Achilles’ heel.”

In another Times op-ed, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, asserts that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”

George Washington University Law’s Mary Ann Franks complains that the First Amendment (and also the Second) is too “aggressively individualistic” and endangers “domestic tranquility” and “general welfare.”

Mainstream Democrats are listening to radical voices. “How much does the current structure benefit us?” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) said in 2021, explaining her support for a court-packing bill. “I don’t think it does.” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said at the Democratic National Committee’s “LGBTQ+ Kickoff” that “we’ve got to reimagine” democracy “in a way that is more revolutionary than . . . that little piece of paper.” Both AOC and Ms. Robinson later spoke to the convention itself.

The Nation’s Elie Mystal calls the Constitution “trash” and urges the abolition of the U.S. Senate. Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School complains that Americans are “slaves” to the Constitution.

Without countermajoritarian protections and institutions, politics would be reduced to raw power. That’s what some have in mind. In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman laid out a plan for Democrats should they win the White House and both congressional chambers. They would enact “democracy-entrenching legislation,” which would ensure that “the Republican Party will never win another election” unless it moved to the left. The problem: “The Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described, and that’s something the Democrats need to fix.”

Trashing the Constitution gives professors and pundits a license to violate norms.

Such unreserved attack on the Constitution—especially our BILL OF RIGHTS and on the U.S. SUPREME COURT, our THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, operates, to our mind, as a barely disguised CALL TO ARMS— A NEO-MARXIST, NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST COUNTERREVOLUTION. The only thing needed to launch this COUNTERREVOLUTION is a formal renunciation of our FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, commencing with release of an “ANTI-DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.”

We first see this ANTI-DECLARATION In a series of executive orders—obviously previously prepared—that Biden signed during his first few days and weeks in Office.

The Biden-Harris Administration began to overturn President the majority of Trump’s policy achievements—achievements that centered around returning our Country to its roots—of strengthening the principles reflected in our DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE from TYRANNY.

The Trump Administration ran toward the Constitution. The Biden-Harris Administration ran away from it.

The raison d’êtra of the present Administration is directed to returning the agenda of the Bush and Obama Administrations: CONSOLIDATING POWER IN A SINGULAR, MAMMOTH ALL-POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—the Antithesis of what the U.S. CONSTITUTION has ordained.

THE HARRIS ADMINISTRATION INTENDS TO CONTINUE THAT AGENDA, RESULTING IN DE FACTO OR DE JURE ERASURE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION—MARKING THE END OF OUR FREE REPUBLIC AND AN ABRUPT END TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OVER GOVERNMENT.

If anyone should doubt this, consider Trump’s nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those nominations reflected a return to the primacy of our Constitution, the Blueprint of a truly Free Constitutional Republic, and the sovereignty of our citizenry.

The Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists would have none of that. And, having failed to oust Trump during his first term in Office, they machinated to turn the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election against him through using unethical and also patently illegal means. They achieved precisely what they wanted with the installation of a corrupt, weak, easily malleable, dementia-riddled puppet in the White House.

In four short years all of Trump’s achievements direct to redressing the many transgressions and violations of law and Constitution of Bush and Obama, of the previous eight years, were quickly undone by the Biden-Harris Administration.

The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist empire builders will waste no time completing the process started in the previous Administration if Harris becomes U.S. President. The damage done to our Free Republic will be irreparable. There can be no return to our Free Republic. Her Administration will see to that.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS WILL OBLITERATED, COMMENCING WITH THE DISARMING OF THE U.S. CITIZENRY. DON’T THINK FOR A MOMENT THIS WON’T HAPPEN.

You, just as we, cherish our Natural Law Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Do you honestly believe Harris when she stated during the pretense of the debate with Trump, “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody’s guns away.” Oh, really?

They mean to do just that. She has made that abundantly clear back in 2019 and has recited her intentions many times since. They are GROUNDED IN HER “VALUES,” that she slyly said, “HAVE NOT CHANGED.”

Banning semiautomatic weapons will be her first order of business.

The Right of armed self-defense is essential to a person’s life and safety, especially during this era of violent, incessant crime enveloping our Country. The violent crime wave has intensified these past four years through the deliberate infusion of well over 20 million illegal aliens into our Country, many of whom are murderous, psychopathic gang members or psychotic rapists.

Trump has made clear that we must make this Election “Too big to rig.” Bing Videos 'Too big to rig': Trump aims for landslide victory in 2024 US Elections amid illegal migrants crisis (youtube.com)

This election is not in the bag for Harris (nor for that matter, for Trump) but if you believe the lie, that will make the lie true. Don’t listen to naysayers.

This election will be won or lost dependent on what you do or don’t do, not what the politicians and the pundits and the pollsters say.

Most Americans wish to preserve their Country as the framers of the Constitution intended, grounded in morality, belief in the Divine Creator, the importance of family, love of Country, and belief in themselves.

It is these things that have made us the envy of the world. No one likes what the Biden-Harris Administration has wrought.

And it is no wonder that Harris is told by her handlers to keep her mouth shut about her policy objectives—a continuation of the agenda of the past four years—to destabilize and destroy the Country and turn the reins to the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists—DECISIVELY.

A seditious Press conveys the idea to Trump supporters that the election is just a formality, that Harris has already won the election and that your vote for Trump is a fruitless, vacuous act. It isn’t. We beseech you to reject the lies perpetrated on you and perpetuated to urge you to doubt yourself and to doubt that Trump can win. He won once in 2016—proving that most Americans do in fact detest the repugnant belief system and aims of the Globalists and Marxists—and HE CAN DO SO AGAIN, DECISIVELY, in 2024.

He won in 2020, and it was stolen from him and, by extension, from you and from us too, but it will be much more difficult for the Democrat Party machine to cheat in 2024.

This Presidential Election can be a blowout for Trump but only if Americans—especially America’s gun owners—ALL OF US—make a concerted effort to vote AS ONE.

This election can go either way. And the forces that wish to crush our Republic, to create fear in our people, and to erase our Bill of Rights are both enraged and frightened that Trump can in fact pull off a win.

Powerful interests, operating both here at home and from afar, want Donald Trump gone. The word ‘gone’ is a euphemism. Let us be blunt.

The forces at work TO DESTROY Trump WANT Trump “DEAD”! All other attempts TO RID themselves of Trump HAVE FAILED, including:

• THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AND RUSSIA HOAX,

• SABOTAGE OF TRUMP’S POLICIES AND INITIATIVES DURING HIS FIRST TERM IN OFFICE, DUE TO BETRAYAL, AND TREACHERY OF SOME STAFF WORKING IN TRUMP’S ADMINISTRATION,

• TWO RIDICULOUS IMPEACHMENTS

• CONSTANT VICIOUS, VIRULENT, AND VILE INVECTIVE, SLANDER AND LIBEL HURLED AGAINST TRUMP BY THE PRESS, SOCIAL MEDIA, ACADEMIA, HOLLYWOOD CELEBRITIES, AND SPORTS ICONS,

• THE DELIBERATE MISUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM AGAINST TRUMP.

Everything thrown at Trump has failed to knock him out of contention. His resilience in the face of constant threats is incredible, his fortitude remarkable. And his “MAGA” support is massive and intense.

Only one tactic—the most horrific of all—remains to be utilized against Trump: ASSASSINATION. Once avoided by A SLEW OF MALIGNANT FORCES, given the horror of its effect on the citizenry—POSSIBLY RESULTING IN A CHAIN OF EVENTS THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL—have now turned to it because nothing else is left but the “ballot box” and this Election is not a surefire guarantee for success for the forces that desire to crush this Country and its people.

Sure, they are still using vote harvesting, and there is an effort afoot by the Biden-Harris Administration, commenced just a couple of months ago, to fast-track the naturalization process for upward of 500,000 illegals just before the election so that they can cast a ballot for Harris, and there is the outright use of illegal aliens casting votes for Harris. See remarks, infra. See, e.g., article in AP Half a million immigrants could eventually get US citizenship under a sweeping new plan from Biden | The Associated Press (ap.org)

Meanwhile, the DOJ, is attempting, to introduce “new evidence” against Donald Trump with only a few weeks to go before the Election. Trump Jan. 6 Case: Jack Smith Has Filed New Evidence—Here's Why It's Still Not Public (forbes.com)

This action is inconsistent with DOJ’s own rules that prohibit the DOJ from bringing action during an election cycle for the purpose of influencing an election. This so-called 60-Day Rule is found in Justice Manual § 9-85.500. Trump superseding indictment: What is the DOJ's 60-day rule? (lawandcrime.com). The DOJ is acting in defiance of its own Rule, anyway.

Meanwhile the Secret Service (USSS) and the FBI have told the public nothing substantive about the tactic to remove Trump from contention—TWICE!

They have even kept information from the U.S. Senate that is in the process of ascertaining just what the Secret Service knows about these two attempts. The unusual reticence of both the FBI and Secret Service in a matter involving the attempt to assassinate a U.S. Presidential candidate (and past U.S. President), and a man who may well become our next President, is thought-provoking.

Two assassination attempts inside of two months and a complacent and an incompetent or conspiratorial U.S. Secret Service leadership strongly suggest that powerful, shadowy elements indeed want Trump dead since all other tactics and strategies utilized for the last eight years to silence or remove Trump from contention have failed.

These powerful, ruthless forces know their agenda is lost if Trump becomes the next U.S. President serving a second term in office in 2025.

Trump’s death is the only way they can be certain that Trump will not secure the White House.

If Trump dies, our Free Constitutional Republic dies with him, and the agenda—the destruction of the United States—is then assured.

AND DON’T THINK THAT THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION IS TONING DOWN THE RHETORIC. THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT DO THAT AFTER THE FIRST ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON TRUMP, AND THEY HAVEN’T DONE SO AFTER THE SECOND ATTEMPT.

It is an odd—BUT CLEARLY INTENDED—choice of words when Biden’s Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, says “LET’S EXTINGUISH” TRUMP FOR GOOD.”

With the Biden-Harris Administration clearly wanting Trump GONE, and the Secret Service and FBI, adamantly refusing to say anything substantive about these assassination attempts, we can only conclude that another attempt on Trump’s life will likely occur in the weeks remaining before the election.

It is extremely disturbing that the USSS and FBI don’t even bother to proffer a reason for their reticence in discussing the attempted assassination of a man who has already served as U.S. President and is primed to serve as U.S. President a second time. Yet, they surely owe Congress and the Public an explanation.

Are the FBI and USSS leadership less than forthcoming because they are hiding something ominous? It is not difficult to surmise what that horrible truth might be.

If the leadership of the FBI and USSS are not themselves complicit in the attempts on Trump’s life, their insouciance demonstrates plain reckless disregard for Trump’s life and personal safety. That is bad enough.

You and I do not have control over this. All we can do is hope and pray that Trump escapes any further attempt on his life if such comes to pass.

BUT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU GUN OWNERS ARE ABLE TO DO AND MUST DO: YOU CAN AND MUST REGISTER TO VOTE NOW AND YOU MUST THEN ACT. YOU MUST CAST YOUR VOTE FOR TRUMP! IF YOU HAVE NOT YET REGISTERED TO VOTE, DO SO AT ONCE! TIME IS SHORT!

You gun owners—all ten million of you (AND THERE ARE AT LEAST TEN MILLION OF YOU)—who have not yet registered to vote and who do not intend to vote in November can kiss your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms goodbye if you fail to vote.

THE BEST WAY TO STOP THE RAPE OF OUR COUNTRY IS ALSO THE SIMPLEST. IT IS BOTH YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND YOUR DUTY AS A PATRIOT.

VOTING IS THE SIMPLEST OF TASKS TO UNDERTAKE, A CHERISHED RIGHT, AND THE DUTY OF EVERY FREE MAN.

Trump has implored gun owners to cast their vote in the 2024 election to protect their right to keep and bear arms, and therefore to help him defeat Tyranny that is a hairbreadth away.

On August 5, 2024, Ammoland Shooting Sports News posted an Arbalest Quarrel article where we pointed out a curious fact about those TEN MILLION unregistered gun owners who, with the most consequential election facing our Republic since its founding, HAVE NOT troubled themselves to register to vote.

Apparently, these are among the same people who did not vote in the U.S. Presidential election of 2020.

Despite the insurmountable evidence of rampant cheating and unethical electoral machinations of Democrats in that 2020 U.S. Presidential election, the outcome was very close.

The results came down to a handful of States and a few thousand votes in each of those States.

“In a contest with historic turnout, President-elect Joe Biden topped President Trump by nearly 7 million votes, and 74 votes in the Electoral College, but his victory really was stitched together with narrow margins in a handful of states.” Biden Won By Narrow Margins In Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin : NPR

The popular vote counts for little. It is our Nation’s electoral college that determines who wins a U.S. Presidential election. This explains why the Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College in favor of use of raw numbers only. Doing so would undermine the importance of the majority of States, most of them found the middle of the Country. By extension, Elimination of the Electoral College undermines the votes of Americans residing in those States. Use of raw numbers in lieu of the Electoral College works to the Democrats’ benefit.

Dismantling the Electoral College in favor of using the popular vote alone to decide the election tends to favor Democrats since, traditionally, there are more of them in the Electorate than Republicans.

And Democrats want more, many more. That explains why the Party wishes to do away with the Electoral College. See, e.g. the March 11, 2024, article by the political scholar, Victor Davis Hanson, published in the Chicago Tribune.

This desire for a bigger favorable headcount explains the Biden-Harris policy of actively, avidly encouraging, and even assisting millions of illegal aliens to enter our Country illegally. It also explains the Congressional effort to create Statehood status for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. They want to solidify a new voter base that will benefit them for all time.

Fortunately, the Framers of our Constitution realized the flaw in the idea of implementing a voting structure resting on a direct popular vote.

Recognizing the problem, they crafted the Electoral College to even out the disparity of large urban areas always deciding elections, creating a perpetual Mobocracy controlled by powerful Oligarchs. The smaller States with small rural populations could never fairly contend with that.

The Electoral College enhances fairness in our Federal Elections because States with small populations are not shut out of contention, notwithstanding that these States do have fewer electoral votes than States like New York and California which have large populations.

Consider:

In Pennsylvania 515,277-gun owners presently are not registered to vote. In the 2020 election Biden won Pennsylvania by 81,660 votes.

How many Pennsylvania gun owners withheld their vote from Trump in the 2020 election? Was it the same 515,277 voters who were not registered to vote in that previous Presidential election and who did not take part in the election. The Number of Electoral Votes: 20.

In Michigan 370,619 gun owners presently are not registered to vote. In the 2020 election Biden won Michigan by 154,880 votes.

How many Michigan gun owners withheld their vote from Trump in the 2020 election? Was it the same 370,619 voters who were not registered to vote in that previous Presidential election? The Number of Electoral Votes: 16

In Nevada 59,173 gun owners presently are not registered to vote. In the 2020 election Biden won Nevada by 33,596 votes.

How many Nevada gun owners withheld their vote from Trump in the 2020 election? Was it the same 33,596 voters who were not registered to vote in that 2020 Presidential election? The Number of Electoral Votes: 6

In Georgia 350,897 gun owners presently are not registered to vote. In the 2020 election Biden won Georgia by a mere 12,670 votes.

How many Georgia gun owners withheld their vote from Trump in the 2020 election? Was it the same 350,897 voters who were not registered to vote in that 2020 Presidential election? The Number of Electoral Votes: 16

In Arizona 133,094 gun owners presently are not registered to vote. In the 2020 election Biden won Arizona by a mere 10,457 votes.

How many Arizona gun owners withheld their vote from Trump in the 2020 election? Was it the same 133,094 voters who were not registered to vote in that 2020 Presidential election? The Number of Electoral Votes: 11

In Wisconsin 338,884 gun owners presently are not registered to vote. In the 2020 election Biden won Wisconsin by 20,682 votes.

How many Wisconsin gun owners withheld their vote from Trump in the 2020 election? Was it the same 338,884 voters who were not registered to vote in that 2020 Presidential election? Number of Electoral Votes: 10

In the 2020 Matchup, the Press says that Biden beat Trump by 7 million votes (assuming that all votes were legitimately cast). That was the raw tally.  2020 Presidential General Election Results (uselectionatlas.org).

This would suggest that, on raw total of votes cast, Biden beat Trump handily. Yet, that raw total count loses significance when Americans consider that the number of voters isn’t spread out uniformly across the Country.

The majority of those votes for Biden came from large urban areas in two States: California and New York. No surprise, there.

But ITS the Electoral College that determines who wins an election. On that score, Biden beat Trump narrowly—306 to Trump’s 232. It was 74 Electoral votes that decided the election in favor of Biden—NOT SEVEN MILLION MORE VOTES CAST FOR BIDEN, RATHER THAN TRUMP (AGAIN ASSUMING THOSE SEVEN MILLION VOTES CAST WERE VOTES TRULY CAST FOR BIDEN AND NOT TRUMP AS THE MACHINES TALLIED THE RESULTS AND ASSUMING THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAST BALLOTS WERE CITIZENS AND WERE NOT UNDER DISABILITY DUE, FOR EXAMPLE TO AGE (LESS THAN 18 YEARS OLD) AND WERE NOT CONVICTED OF A FELONY (WHERE THE FELON HAD NOT RECEIVED A RELIEF FROM DISABILITY ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION)).

See Biden’s 306 Electoral College Votes Make His Victory Official - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Why is this discussion important? For this reason——

HAD GUN OWNERS TROUBLED THEMSELVES TO VOTE IN THE AFORESAID SIX SWING TATES, DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE GARNERED 311 ELECTORAL VOTES TO BIDEN’S 227. HE WOULD HAVE WON. HE, TRUMP, NOT BIDEN, WOULD BE IN OFFICE WITH TRUMP HIS SECOND TERM AS U.S. PRESIDENT IN JANUARY 2021, AND THE NATION AND THE WORLD, TOO, WOULD HAVE BEEN SPARED THE HORROR THAT TRANSPIRED UNDER BIDEN AND HARRIS REGIME: THE U.S. BORDERS WOULD BE SECURED; EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST WOULD HAVE BEEN SPARED THE DEVASTATION OF WARS; AMERICAN WOMEN AND YOUNG CHILDREN WHO ARE NOW DEAD OR SERIOUSLY INJURED, PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND PHYSICALLY, AS A RESULT OF VICIOUS ATTACKS COMMITTED BY ILLEGAL ALIEN MANIACS, WOULD BE ALIVE AND WHOLE; THE ECONOMY WOULD BE THRIVING RATHER THAN COLLAPSING; INFLATION WOULD BE KEPT IN CHECK; LUDICROUS FABRICATED DOGMAS POSTULATULATING THAT GENDER, MALE AND FEMALE, ARE MERELY STATES OF MIND, NOT BIOLOGICAL ABSOLUTES, AND THAT THE NATION IS STRUCTURALLY FLAWED, CONSISTING OF TWO MAJOR CLASSES, GROUNDED ON RACE, THE WHITE OPPRESOR CLASS AND BLACK OPPRESSED CLASS, AND THAT OPPORTUNITY AND ADVANCEMENT IN WORK SHOULD BE PREDICATED ON PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF PEOPLE, AND NOT ON MERIT, EXPERIENCE, AND ABILITY; THE NATION WOULD BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT RATHER THAN DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN RESOURCES; AND THE COUNTRY WOULD EXTOLL ITS HISTORY, HERITAGE, CULTURE, ETHOS, AND JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ETHIC, RATHER THAN DENIGRATING AND APOLOGIZING FOR IT.

ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT AROSE AND MUSHROOMED AND BROUGHT AMERICANS, THE NATION, AND THE WORLD, TO THIS SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS UNDER THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION AND THOSE POWERFUL RUTHLESS FORCES DICTATING RUINOUS POLICY FOR THE NATION, WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED—IF AMERICANS, ESPECIALLY TEN MILLION AMERICAN GUN OWNERS HAD BOTHERED TO CAST A BALLOT FOR DONALD TRUMP ON ELECTION DAY IN THE PREVIOUS U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CYCLE. BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPENED. AND THE NATION AND THE WORLD SUFFERED CALAMITY THAT IS ONLY WORSENING EACH DAY.

Even with Democrat Party machinations in 2020, a massive turnout of Gun owner votes for Trump in those 2020 Swing States, would have amounted, on a popular count, with a result, as Trump accurately said, “TO BIG TO RIG.” That turnout for Trump would have been sufficient to negate the votes Biden had garnered from the major urban areas and through whatever unlawful votes cast by illegal aliens.

Gun owners should take their cue from this and not presume their vote doesn’t count. IT DOES! AND IT LIKELY WOULD HAVE SEEN NOT BIDEN, BUT TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN JANUARY 2021 if those unregistered gun owners had only registered and voted for Trump in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2020.

Note: Trump DID win the swing State of North Carolina in 2020, as he had done in 2016 (no question about that) and, until recently, he was the favorite to win North Carolina in 2024. Now, North Carolina is very much in play.

The Democrats WANT North Carolina.

THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IN OUR COUNTRY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR FEDERAL ELECTIONS

The problem posed by ILLEGAL ALIENS CASTING VOTES IN THE U.S. GENERAL ELECTION and such seemingly LEGAL VOTES cast by newly naturalized ILLEGAL ALIENS DO POSE A PROBLEM FOR THE FAIRNESS OF A 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BUT WOULD SUCH CHEATING SUFFICE TO ENSURE A VICTORY FOR THE DEMOCRATS?

LET’S LOOK AT THIS.

DO ILLEGAL ALIENS CONSTITUTE A RISK TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM IN 2024?

According to a study published by the website, “Just Facts” Study: 10% to 27% of Non-Citizens Are Illegally Registered to Vote – Just Facts, between 2 million and 5 million illegal aliens are illegally registered to vote. “These figures are potentially high enough to overturn the will of the American people in major elections, including congressional seats and the presidency.”

IS THAT INFERENCE TRUE?

Well, even if 5 million illegal aliens registered to vote and do vote in 2024 and if we add to that, the half million illegal aliens who were or are soon to be made citizens by Joe Biden, that amounts roughly only to half the number of 10 million (or more) currently unregistered American gun owners who, as citizens, ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO VOTE if they just troubled themselves to register to vote and followed that up by casting their vote for Trump.

It is therefore imperative that the 10 million unregistered American gun owners immediately register to vote and make it a point to cast their ballot for Donald Trump in the upcoming election. Even if a handful of those 10 million plus gun owners would cast a vote for Harris rather than for Trump, that paltry number would pale in significance to the millions who would vote for Trump.

Moreover, if there are a substantial number of gun owners who do intend to vote for Harris, it is likely they are presently registered to vote and have already taken part in early voting for Harris or they intend to vote for her on or before Election Day and do not, therefore, count among the 10 million unregistered Gun Owners who are not at present registered to vote and who would cast a vote for Trump.

The Democrat Party Machine is proactive in ensuring high voter turnout in Federal Elections, unlike the Republican Party although that has changed after the disastrous Chairman of the RNC, Ronna McDaniel, gaveled in the Party for the last time in March 2024. The reins have since been turned over to North Carolina GOP Chair Michael Whatley and Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, as Republican National Committee Co-Chair.

BUT WHY DO SO MANY GUN OWNERS DISDAIN THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY, AS CITIZENS, TO VOTE?

Is the casualness of many gun owners to vote grounded on the belief the polls are notoriously wrong, so they can rest easy? That was true enough in 2016, when Trump pulled out a victory that likely surprised even him.

It certainly surprised, even shocked, most pollsters and pundits and millions of Hillary Clinton supporters.

The Democrat Party machine took steps, legal buy unethical, illegal, and quasi-legal, to prevent that seeming anomaly from occurring again. The Democrat Party machine manipulated, the 2020 U.S. Presidential election to ensure a victory for their puppet, Biden, not a particularly popular candidate who, even at that time, was riddled with dementia, which explains why his campaign kept him under wraps before the election, using the pretext of COVID as an excuse to explain why Biden would only make a few appearances—and those few were primarily at his home and all were all very carefully scripted.

Democrats also used the COVID Pandemic as a pretext to change State laws throughout the Country—through illegal means (i.e., through the state courts or state administrative offices). But under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, only a state legislature has the legal authority to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding Federal elections in the state. See explanation in the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.

Thus, the Democratic Party set the stage, months before the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, for tens of millions of people to vote-by-mail, inviting Electoral Fraud on a massive scale, as there were few of any checks in place to prevent tampering of ballots. Democrats also crafted and implemented the tactic of vote-harvesting.

Unverified, unchecked, absentee ballot voting, together with the mechanism of ballot-harvesting, and the use of private party (proprietary) voting machines for tallying votes (without any backup check to ensure the accuracy of the tallying) set the stage for significant voter fraud to occur—ensuring a Democrat Party victory.

The Democrat Party machinery cannot continue, this cavalier gamesmanship in 2024. The Party can’t use the pretext of COVID to allow alternative forms of voting, allowing for voter fraud to occur on a massive scale, as likely occurred in 2020. So, Democrats have devised other schemes to maximize their chances of ensconcing Harris in the Executive Suite.

Democrats are relying on massive advertising campaign that their massive war chest made possible——to mislead the Electorate, encouraging gullible Americans to cast their ballot for Harris. And it doesn’t stop there.

Apart from trying to encourage a large voter turnout through a comprehensive “Get Out the Vote Drive” for Harris, the Democratic Party machine is attempting to encourage Trump supporters to refrain from voting in the upcoming Election. That won’t be hard to accomplish if many supporters of Trump, those 10 million plus gun owners, are predisposed to refrain from voting anyway, presuming, falsely, that casting a vote for Trump isn’t worth their trouble because he won’t win the election even with their vote. We already explained, supra, the myth underlying that notion.

Democrats have attempted to convey to the Electorate that the 2024 U.S. Presidential election is a foregone conclusion. To support that inference, they rely on whatever polls seem to work to their advantage to suggest that the coming election amounts to a mere formality.

IT ISN’T.

At best any given poll (even if scientifically valid) is but an isolated snapshot—a projection at a particular moment in time of a sliver of the Electorate polled. It means little. Yet Democrats use the Press to launch a media blitz to suggest that Harris is favored to win the election. That is false. But if the lie does keep a person from casting a vote for Trump who otherwise would have voted, then the lie serves its purpose.

But, how accurate, really, are even the most well-established polls? A Politico report suggests that, because Donald Trump tends, traditionally, to poll less strongly than the actual election bears out, a statistical tie or even a small deficit for Trump tends to suggest, from the 2016 Election and even from the resulting 2020 Swing State counts in the Trump-Biden contest, that Trump may be doing better, nationally and in the swing states, than Harris is doing, than recent polls may present, especially when juxtaposed with polls in the previous two contests.

“Trump is a president whose support has been notoriously difficult for pollsters to survey.” This quote comes from an article in Politico published on September 8, 2020, two months before the November 2020 U.S. Presidential election. The 8 states where 2020 will be won or lost: A POLITICO deep dive - POLITICO.

Politico was mindful of how wrong the pollsters were in predicting a Trump victory in 2016. Most pollsters predicted a blowout win for Hillary Clinton.

Even in 2020, and with all the cheating, the ultimate results were much closer than predicted by the polls. How much manipulation of the votes did the Democrat Party machine have to wring out to ensure that Biden would emerge the victor?

A tight election, then, which this Election is shaping up to be by the established pollsters (and this finding has remained constant for several weeks) favors Trump.

Recent polls conducted after the Democratic Party leaders and the puppet-masters unceremoniously dropped Biden in the trash bin after concluding he had become more liability than asset to them, now proclaim the matchup between Trump and Harris to be as tight as a drum. And that point is probably closer to the truth. What they fail to mention is that, had the Democrats stuck with Biden, he might, at this point, be doing better than Harris, as Harris has an abysmal track record with men and, more particularly, with the rank-and-file members of unions, unlike Biden.

And the bumps Harris had derived from the Democrat Party Convention and, subsequently, after the inane ABC Trump-Harris debate have done nothing for her. The Debate itself was a setup from the get-go, a carefully orchestrated ploy to make Harris look like a worthy competitor in a face-to-face matchup with Trump. The two candidates are in statistical tie if one gives credence to the polls at all.

Concerning that ludicrous Harris-Trump debate, it was a setup from the get-go. The debate was a carefully orchestrated ploy to make Harris look like a worthy competitor in a face-to-face matchup with Trump.

Trump fell headlong for the ruse. This so-called debate was one more tactic to chip away at Trump’s prospect for victory, but the public has a short memory, and the debate, such as it was, had no staying power in the mind of the Electorate.

The puppet-masters are certainly aware of this, and they are mindful of the struggle in trying to make Kamala Harris look “Presidential” when she lacks the bearing, and character, and the native intelligence and the strength of will, to serve as President of the United States—especially in the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief.

Harris’ image-makers are certainly aware of Harris’ personal flaws, and they are mindful of the faultiness of the polls when factoring how Trump is doing at any moment in time. They are working to offset what may be a Trump lead over Harris that the polls do not and cannot accurately factor in.

As pointed out above, the major tactic of Democrats is to keep Trump supporters at home during this election cycle even as Democrats frenetically urge Harris supporters, and those independents on the fence, who would rather refrain from voting, to register to vote and to vote early if their states permit early voting, and to cast their ballot for Harris.

Leftist websites and publications are exhorting unregistered gun owners to remain unregistered as is their natural bent, anyway.

How do we know this? Consider, for example, the dubious pronouncement of FactCheck.org that proclaims Trump is wrong in asserting that Gun Owners tend not to vote.

It may well be most Gun Owners DO vote, as FactCheck.org recites, but it DOESN’T follow logically that ALL gun owners vote, since 10 million plus gun owners are not registered to vote in 2024 (a fact that “FactCheck.org” doesn’t deny or even address). It is therefore reasonable to infer that a failure to register to vote by a significant number of Gun owners will likely cost Trump the election.

This is what the propagandists are relying on—the hope that these 10 million plus gun owners refrain from voting—reciting the tiresome line that their vote won’t mean much, and relying on the idea (with some validity), that Democrats will cheat anyway, so they might as well just stay home, clutch their guns and hope that Harris and the Tyrant puppet-masters won’t come after their firearms. Well, they will!

It is patently ridiculous for a Gun Owner to refrain from voting based on the false claim that his or her vote is futile.

A gun owner’s failure to vote DOES MEAN that his or her vote WON’T count, BUT PRECISELY BECAUSE THAT PERSON NEVER CASTS HIS VOTE.

THE OBVIOUS RESPONSE IS, THEN: CAST YOUR VOTE. IF YOU CAST IT, THE VOTE COUNTS! IF YOU DON’T CAST YOUR VOTE, IT WON’T. SIMPLE LOGIC.

The second excuse given for failing to register is that since Democrats had used the pretext of COVID to enable mass mail-in voting along with vote harvesting which enabled massive fraud to occur in 2020, there is nothing to suggest they won’t work the same angle in 2024 and that casting a vote for Trump is ultimately a fruitless endeavor. This excuse, too, is lame.

True, there was likely massive voter fraud in 2020 that served to place an incompetent, corrupt, and senile puppet in the White House.

This evident fraud helps explain why Democrats and a complicit Press incessantly, even frantically, argue that there was no fraud—that all such claims have been debunked.

This concerted, frantic effort to cajole the American public to believe the narrative of an absence of rampant cheating and the incessant attempt to silence or ridicule anyone who provides reasonable arguments to suggest otherwise only serves to draw more attention to the idea that there was rampant fraud in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, after all.

Moreover, if Press claims of massive voter fraud in 2020 were debunked, then who debunked the claims, how were those claims debunked, and when were the claims debunked?

How were claims of massive fraud debunked in the face of substantial, concrete, verifiable allegations of such fraud that Courts around the Country refused even to entertain? And, why did so many courts around the Country routinely dismiss sound allegations of fraud? To this day, all these questions go unanswered. The Press considers the questions themselves taboo.

Further, why were these persistent, pertinent questions regarding claims of fraud never investigated by the Press? And it is noteworthy, that a comprehensive investigation by the DOJ never occurred. Nothing was said by William Barr, AG, at the time, beyond his terse, unsupported comment that the DOJ had found no evidence of massive fraud. Barr refrained from providing the public with any particulars.

Given all this, many supporters of Trump are justifiably concerned about a resurgence of Democrat Party fraud in the 2024 Election.

The RNC is well aware of this and has instituted measures that will make electoral fraud efforts much less likely to succeed in 2024.

Democrats, themselves, are, accordingly less inclined to engage in overt, audacious attempts to commit electoral fraud that they undertook in 2020, and as the RNC is sensitive to the possibility of massive fraud occurrences through inclusion of millions of illegal votes in the mix, the DNC is on notice that the RNC will be watching this election very closely. For example, spotters will be on the lookout for illegal aliens casting ballots. Democrats will be less emboldened to engage in cheating with the RNC closely observing the election process unfold, especially in the swing states.

In any event, Democrats, in control of the Press and social media, feel confident they can influence the small percentage of undecided voters to cast a ballot for Harris, rather than for Trump. But that, too, can be a false hope.

Harris doesn’t come across well. The public is aware of this. Anyone who hasn’t already made up their mind will be more sensitive to what Harris actually says, if she says anything meaningful at all in the weeks ahead leading up to the Election.

Is there any other reason that many Gun Owners are disinclined to register to vote. Part of that disinclination may be due to a misconception concerning the notion of responsibility.

The act of voting is not something the Government forces on a person. Voting may reasonably be perceived as an aspect of the right of free speech. A person is engaging in speech when deciding whom to vote for and casting his or her ballot.

An American is of course, free to vote as he wishes or to refrain from voting at all, just as a person may choose to possess a firearm or not.

Yet, for some gun owners, they see the act of registering to vote and casting a ballot as a kind of infringement on their right to act or to refrain to act as they wish. They see the act of voting as a peculiarly Government activity imposed on the public. It isn’t but that may be the perception that many gun owners—ten million—may have inculcated.

Thus, notwithstanding the risk of a Trump loss in a close election occurring because ten million gun owners chose to withhold their vote, they nonetheless see vindication in their act of being true to themselves as engaging in quiet rebellion against the Government. But this act of eschewing voting for Trump operates as a rebellion against oneself.

Trump acknowledged the propensity of many gun owners to view voting as a Government-sanctioned activity, and that, for them, is reason enough to refrain from voting. See this expressly during his address to attendees of the NRA Convention in Dallas, in May 2024.

Gun Owners are strong proponents of the PHILOSOPHY OF INDIVIDUALISM that is the bedrock of American culture and the foundational structure of our Constitution upon which a Free Constitutional Republic exists and persists through time.

The PHILOSOPHY OF INDIVIDUALISM is the exact opposite of that of COLLECTIVISM—the dominant mechanism that underpins Marxist countries. In those countries the needs, desires, and wishes of the INDIVIDUAL take a backseat to society, “THE COLLECTIVE,” as dictated by government. In such a society the worth of an individual is de minimis and must give way to the will of the masses.

In such a society, everyone loses. The individual is reduced in status to that of an inconsequential cog in a massive wheel. The average person becomes no more significant than the life of an ant in a massive ant colony or a worker bee slaving away in a hive. Life becomes essentially meaningless, and that meaninglessness is reflected in the dire state of one’s sense of self-worth and of the sad state of one’s life and living conditions in the Collective.

Clearly, where government treats a person like a pawn, that government also is suspicious of THAT PAWN exercising independent thought and conduct. Deviation of thought and behavior from the norm is not tolerated in a Despotic State. The Government controls the masses by inducing conformity in thought and behavior and, in so doing, constrains rebellion.

A society grounded on Collectivism would not permit the populace to keep and bear arms, for such an idea is anathema to the notion of a person as potentially dangerous to a highly structured society, conceived and operated like an ant colony or beehive.

Owning a gun entails one’s adherence to the principles of INDIVIDUALISM which is tied to the exercise of freedom of thought and conduct and to the maxim that one makes of his life as he will, subject to no constraint other than that he recognize the right of others to do the same and that he take no action that would do harm to another person as long as the other person does no harm to him.

With great freedom comes also great responsibility. Countries founded on and governed by Collectivism (Despotism) don’t expect and don’t desire and don’t encourage responsibility in their populace. What they demand from the populace is blind obedience to government edict. Personal Responsibility isn’t required where there is an absence of Freedom. And, in a Country operating under the principles, precepts, and tenets of Collectivism, there is neither freedom nor responsibility. Such concepts are anathema to Collectivism.

Unfortunately, too many American Gun Owners fail to see the complementariness of Freedom and Responsibility. They see voting as akin to a government dictate, which they eschew. BUT VOTING IN FEDERAL ELECTION ISN’T A GOVERNMENT DICTATE.

To vote in an election is to exercise one’s right to dissent. The act of voting is a corollary of the right to speak one’s mind. In fact, the right to keep and bear arms is, as well, an act of speaking one’s mind. AND THIS IS HOW THE GUN OWNER SHOULD SEE THE ACT OF CASTING A BALLOT.

The Gun Owner tells the Federal Government that he is to be left alone—and that the Government is forbidden to meddle in his personal affairs.

Donald Trump, as a successful businessman, understands that desire full well. His life and personal success in business is a testament to his commitment to the principles, precepts and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM.

But the powerful, ruthless forces orchestrating the Harris-Walz campaign reject the philosophy of INDIVIDUALISM. They intend to obliterate that philosophy, which means they intend to obliterate our Constitution, and they intend to eradicate any notion of the sanctity of natural law rights upon which a Free Constitutional Republic depends for its very existence.

To reiterate: Voting, as a species of the right of Free Speech, IS NOT A DICTATE THRUST ON A PERSON BY GOVERNMENT, BUT A SACRED RIGHT, ILLUSTRATIVE OF INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT. Voting one’s mind is a species of Free Speech, an act of FREE WILL, and as such, it is a NATURAL LAW RIGHT.

It is a sacred right bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, but it is also a sacred duty and responsibility to be undertaken by all Americans as citizens, sovereign master over Government.

To forego one’s duty to vote in a Free Republic is to disparage all other natural law rights, including the right to armed self-defense to prevent the introduction of the very thing—tyranny —that would make civilian possession of firearms impossible.

You, gun owners, can make up whatever excuse you wish for not voting in 2024. But, if you fail to do so, and Kamala Harris becomes the new President-Stooge of the Democrats know this: You have forfeited the Country both for yourself and for every Patriot in this Country who has done his or her part to vote Trump into office to serve his second term that was wrongly denied him in the Presidential Election of 2020. We have a chance now—A SECOND CHANCE—to right a wrong previously committed against Trump and the Electorate.

We can now set things aright but only if you make it a point to cast a ballot for Donald Trump. And that means you must first register to vote if you have not already done so. There is still time to register, but you must do so quickly.

As we said, supra, and reiterate, some states require that a citizen who can vote must register to do so within 30 days of a coming election. That means there is scarcely more than a week to do so. See Vote.org to determine the time limit for registering to vote in your State: Voter Registration Deadlines - Vote.org 

If you, the American gun owner, fail to register to vote and to cast your vote for Trump, don’t blame fate and evil forces for what befalls you, your Country, and your fellow Countrymen for your failure to act, whether due to your own laziness, or a lackadaisical attitude, or to thoughts of what Democrats will do or not do to enhance their chances of victory in November, or to your misguided attitude toward the nature of the act of voting in this U.S. Presidential election that will determine whether or not we are still a Free Republic after November 5, 2024.

Voting is a surprisingly simple thing to do, and of the utmost importance in safeguarding the Republic, and avoiding a costly civil war in terms of blood and societal upheaval.

Better to win at the ballot box than on the battlefield. And don’t have any illusion. The Bill of Rights is on the chopping block if Harris is installed in the Oval Office. A new chassis to replace an old jalopy does not change anything in terms of what to expect. If Democrats prevail in November, they will immediately undertake steps to ensure that they never lose an election again, as their control over the machinery of the Federal Government and of the States and over the lives of Americans will be so complete, that casting a ballot truly will be reduced to a meaningless act.

In some ways Harris is worse than Biden.

Biden was swayed by Progressives due to his emotional weakness and ever worsening senility during these past three (almost four) years he sat in the Oval Office. But he wasn’t a Progressive or Marxist by nature or conviction. His political life began as a “Dixiecrat,” and it is to those Dixiecrats that he owes his comfortable life in Government.

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is an obdurate Marxist, through and through. From her upbringing by Marxists to her earliest days in politics, up to the present, she is as Radical a Leftist as the most extreme Leftists in the Country. There is nothing about our Country’s Constitution, or history, or heritage that she cherishes, and the Biden-Harris policies to date are but a foretaste of what to expect if she becomes U.S. President.

Harris is the specially selected replacement for Biden that the Neoliberal Globalist and Neo-Marxist Cultist elites have appointed and Annointed—their “Manchurian Candidate”— whom they are banking on to assist them in achieving their ultimate aim—the vanquishing of a Free Republic and the subjugation of the American people. With her at the helm, Americans will see the collapse of every vestige of our Free Constitutional Republic and the construction of a Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist Order in America, grounded solely on the principles, precepts, and tenets of COLLECTIVISM.

THE CHOICE BETWEEN HARRIS FOR U.S. PRESIDENT OR TRUMP FOR U.S. PRSIDENT COULD NOT BE STARKER.

Often, in the past decades, the election of a Democrat or Republican to the Office of President did not translate into drastic disruption in the lives of the citizenry. Sure, there were philosophical differences between the two Parties, but on policy, “America First,” tended to be the mantra of both.

President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, firmly believed in a strong, robust America as a bulwark against the Communist menace posed by Russia, in its incarnation as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). In that regard, he was as fervent a defender of a powerful independent, sovereign United States, and Free Constitutional Republic as President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, who preceded him.

But as President, both became acutely aware of the danger posed by a Shadow Government taking shape around them over which they, as the principal representative of the Electorate, had little control. Eisenhower called this imposing monolithic structure, “The Military, Industrial, Congressional Complex.”

Congress did not much care for the negative connotation of the association when Eisenhower first used the phrase, and strongly urged him to delete the term ‘Congressional’ and he did so as inclusion of the word ‘Congressional’ is missing in the phrase as apparent in his farewell address to the Nation.

He wasn’t the first to allude to the threat posed by what is today referred to as the “Bureaucratic Deep State” or the “Administrative State,” but Americans can aptly ascribe that moment when Eisenhower first referred to a sinister, powerful Shadow Government operating in the midst of THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to a point in time when the thought that the U.S. was threatened by an enemy much closer to them than the USSR and potentially more dangerous.

Eisenhower’s address marked a tipping point for America and Americans marking our Nation’s clear, inexorable slide toward all-encompassing Tyranny. He delivered his farewell address to the Nation on January 17, 1961.

Kennedy saw this too and his attempt to warn the public of the ominous threat posed by this secretive Governmental structure resting beneath the façade of an open Government sealed his fate. The true power residing in Government did not answer to the American people and did not abide by the dictates of the U.S. Constitution.

Years later, when Ronald Reagan served our Country as U.S. President, he too saw clearly the danger posed by the false god of secularism taking root in our Country and across the world. SECULARISM is a feature of COLLECTIVISM. This is the overt manifestation of THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT taking over the Country.

On March 8, 1983, President Reagan delivered his famous “Evil Empire” speech to the National Association of Evangelicals. See Reagan, "Evil Empire," Speech Text - Voices of Democracy (umd.edu).

At the time, “Congress was debating a resolution in support of a ‘nuclear freeze,’ a doctrine supported by the Soviet Union that would have prevented the deployment of U.S. cruise and Pershing II Missiles in Europe. On March 7, President Reagan had met in the White House with a group of conservative leaders and pro-defense elected officials on the subject of the nuclear freeze. The President advised that his Administration was stalwart in opposition to the nuclear freeze [adding that] a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace.”

President Reagan said in part,

I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: ‘He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increased strength But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary.’

Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, ‘We have it within our power to begin the world over again.’ We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.”

A person may be led to believe the point of the speech was directed primarily if not solely to the threat posed by “the Soviets’ Global desires.” That is untrue.

Americans could contain the Soviets. Reagan referenced the threat posed by the Soviet Union as a springboard to a much graver threat to our Nation and one much closer to home: a failure of faith that would augur our Nation’s demise and as the leader of the Free World, that failure of faith here would augur the end of Western Civilization. Forty years later, Reagan’s deep concerns have come home to roost.

Reagan said this,

While America’s military strength is important, let me add here that I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.

Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversion made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western World exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in communism’s attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, ‘Ye shall be as gods.’

The Western world can answer this challenge, he wrote, ‘but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism’s faith in Man.’

What Reagan was getting at is that secularism is a bankrupt notion.

Man becomes a mere vacuous, soulless shell if he places his faith in a temporal, transient, manmade contrivance. Reagan emphasized the point by relating an experience he had years before.

Reagan said,

A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the Cold War, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people’s minds. And he was speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, ‘I love my little girls more than anything — —’ “And I said to myself, “Oh, no, don’t. You can’t — don’t say that.”

“But I had underestimated him. He went on: ‘I would rather see my little girls die now, still believing in God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God.’”

Jump forward to the present day.

The deeply troubling concern that Reagan expressed in his 1983 address to the National Association of Evangelicals transcended the danger posed by the Soviet Union, the nature of which was only partially, and minimally, the basis for the speech.

Reagan knew that America could effectively handle foreign threats, even one emanating from a major nuclear power such as the Soviet Union.

The United States could contain that threat—one plain and widely known. But it was the threat borne at home—a crisis of faith—that Reagan knew to be the most dangerous and debilitating threat facing America.

This crisis of faith had slowly, inexorably infiltrated and infected the Country at a primal level, calling into question, for many Americans at the time, something potentially more devastating to the survival of the United States as a Free Republic than a powerful foreign adversary.

Reagan would be shocked to see what has befallen our Country, but he probably wouldn’t be surprised because he had warned that, if Americans lose their faith in a higher power, we are doomed. Forty years after Reagan’s address, we find our Nation on the cusp of dissolution because the Executive Branch of Government under the Biden-Harris Administration, along with Democrats in Congress and more than a few Republicans, and a seditious Press, and many Academicians who have capitulated to the false god of secularism—and a SHADOW GOVERNMENT PERCOLATING QUIETLY THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF OUR COUNTRY—WORKING WITH THEIR LIKE KIND IN BRUSSELS AND IN THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES TO ERECT A VAST NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST-NEO-MARXIST WORLD EMPIRE, ENSLAVING THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY NO LESS THAN THE POPULATIONS OF ALL OTHER WESTERN NATIONS.

The virulent, vile Marxists’ attack on Christianity, on the Judeo-Christian Ethic, on our Nation’s history, heritage, culture and ethos, on our institutions, on our Natural Law Rights, on the very fabric of our society is not something that simply happened ostensibly through no fault of anyone.

TO THE CONTRARY, WHAT AMERICANS ARE WITNESSING TODAY IS THE PRODUCT OF COLD, CALCULATED, CALLOUS DESIGN.

The forces of NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISM and NEO-MARXISM espouse a new orthodoxy of faith based on SECULARISM—FAITH IN GOVERNMENT—THE STATE, THE SOLE PROVIDER OF ALL WANTS AND NEEDS. AND WHAT THE STATE GIVETH TO A PERSON, IT CAN JUST AS EASILY TAKETH AWAY. THE UNDERLYING SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY TOUCHES ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE, ALL INSTITUTIONS. IT DISAVOWS THE SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL AND SPIRIT. IT DEMAND OBEDIENCE TO ITS DICTATES.

Our Nation has survived and thrived and has become the most powerful and successful Country on Earth through the application of the philosophy of INDIVIDUALISM—the foundation of our Constitution blueprint of our Nation—finds manifestation in the political, social, economic, cultural and ethical fabric of our society. INDIVIDUALISM IS A POWERFUL PHILOSOPHY—THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION—UPON WHICH A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, THE ONLY KIND LIKE IT IN THE WORLD, EXISTS.

The Cult of Marxism and of the various shades of Marxism (Socialism and Communism) is an aspect of a different, and totally alien philosophy—COLLECTIVISM—one the Founders of our Nation would have rejected out-of-hand, if they gave it any thought at all.

COLLECTIVISM eschews and scoffs at the very notion of a SINGULAR, TRANSCENDANT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, OMNIPRESENT, MORALLY PERFECT, IMMORTAL—WITHOUT BEGINNING OR END—SUPREMELY BENEVOLENT, LOVING GOD.

COLLECTIVISTS SCOFF AT THE IDEA BECAUSE FAITH IN A TRANSCENDENT BEING OVER WHOM THEY HAVE NO POWER CONFLICTS WITH THE FALSE-GOD THEY THRUST ON THE PUBLIC—THE SECULAR GOD OF GOVERNMENT.

The devastation occurring to our Nation and our people these past four years is a product of the BURGEONING of THIS false, imperfect, self-destructive principle in our Nation—THE GOD OF SECULARISM that MARXISM AND GLOBALISM and all the other offshoots of SECULARISM embraces.

The desire of these Marxist-Secularist Collectivists is to tear down our Nation and introduce the STATE as GOD as the SOLE, INDIVISIBLE, SUPREME BEING. Since this State has no firm core, and is evil incarnate, it cannot create. It can only destroy.

The author, Pastor and Republican Congressman from the State of Georgia (2015-2023), Jody Hice, wrote a book about the fact that Americans and America stand at a precipice. The Book “Sacred Trust,” published in 2024, discusses the danger Americans face by adhering to the Cult of Marxism, placing faith in the TEMPORAL, TRANSIENT GOD OF SECULARISM.

Co-Founder of the Arbalest Quarrel, Stephen L. D’Andrilli, prepared a book review of Jody Hice’s book. On June 24, 2024, AQ posted the review on our site. Interested readers can view it there.

On July 1, 2024, Ammoland Shooting Sports News reposted Stephen’s review of “Sacred Trust”. Interested readers are also invited to read the book review there as well.

A photograph of the Book jacket cover appears in the article as posted in Ammoland.

Hice writes of what Americans presently face—its imminent demise—resulting from MAN forsaking faith in the ONE, TRUE GOD.

It is the same thing that Reagan prophesied would happen if Americans disavow their faith in the DIVINE CREATOR— constructing a false, paltry simulacrum to worship in the DIVINE CREATOR’S stead.

Americans had one chance to prevent the horror that now engulfs us when, with the help of illegal and unethical machinations of the Democrats and their benefactors, ensconced a frail, weak, corrupt, dementia-riddled man in the Oval Office—Joe Biden.

This sad sack of a man who, was promised the trappings of power and meager status, and a few silver coins, willingly sold out his Country, his Countrymen, and the Constitution he had sworn an Oath to serve. But he made a poor bargain with the Devil. And ultimately that Devil—the Democrats and their benefactors—tired of him and decided perfunctorily to rid themselves of him. Those to whom he really swore allegiance and whom he served, unceremoniously threw him in the trash bin.

In attempting to save face—telling the public he relinquished a run for a second term in Office, for the good of the Country—he belied his prior assertion, when he made clear that he intended to run for a second term unless God Almighty told him to stand down. He may have meant the assertion true at the time he made it. Even so, the fact that he passed on a run for a second term, only further undermined the veracity of anything he said either before or what he may happen to say after. As a weak man he folded. And he subsequently looked even more foolish: appearing like a petulant child, besotted, flustered, imbecilic, stammering even more.

Those to whom he swore allegiance turned against him when they found him to be of no further value to them.

Joe Biden will go down in American history as a thoroughly contemptible creature. Having sorely injured the Country and its people, he gravely injured his most precious possession—his own Soul. Best that no one hears anything more from him.

Americans can see well that, at some level, Biden realizes he has gained nothing of substance and lost everything of value. This contemptuous wretch is already living in Hell, months or a few years before the physical shell itself gives out.

That brings us to Biden’s understudy, Kamala Harris. She has made her own pact with the Devil. Learning nothing from what has befallen Biden, she is blind to what lays in front of her once the puppet-masters tire of her, which will happen. And that will happen sooner or later—sooner and at once—if she loses out to Trump.

But all she sees now is her own time in the sun, believing, like Biden, that this MEAGER “JOY” will last indefinitely. It won’t. She is as empty a vessel as Biden and has learned nothing from what has befallen him.

Smug yet stupid, easily dazzled by the bauble of false power she will never wield, most Americans see through the veneer she projects. Kamala Harris is a sinkhole of corruption. A poor con-job that the image makers fashion to act in a C-rated film that won’t be shown in any theater for it is destined for cable.

Those Americans who intend to vote for this thin cardboard cutout deserve what they get. They are as vacuous as she is, believing the lies the camera projects on the screen, wishing there is more to this flimsy paper figurine than there is.

Most Americans see through this slapstick comedy presented to them. But, unless they actively vote for one man who has demonstrated through four years in Office that he can deliver positive results and has delivered positive results for the Country and will do so again. Trump deserves this second term, one in which he strengthens the Country, the Constitution, and the prosperity of the American people.

In his First Term, Trump presented the Country with a solid economy, a world without major wars, he made clear to our foes that America is a force to be reckoned with.

Trump secured our borders, defended our Constitution, upheld our Nation’s Natural Law Rights, returned our Country to energy independence, and demonstrated courage and fortitude in the face of incessant vile personal attacks against him by the Press, Academia, Democrats, a few Republicans, and other sordid elements.

Trump is a man who not only projects strength but exhibits strength in spades. He is a person whom a soldier on the battlefield would know has his back. Can that be said of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris? Just ask yourself that question. And answer the question for yourself, honestly.

THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO RESTORE AND PRESERVE OUR REPUBLIC PEACEABLY AND AVOID THE HORROR OF TYRANNY THAT COMMENCED WITH BIDEN AND WILL BE CEMENTED IN A HARRIS ADMINISTRATION. “

With a stroke of the pen, Harris, at the bidding of her masters, will outlaw civilian citizen ownership and possession of semiautomatic weapons during her first several days in Office. That event will mark the commencement of TYRANNY WRIT LARGE IN THE UNITED STATES.

The banning of all other weapons will follow in short order.

All other natural law rights codified in the Bill of Rights will eventually cease to exist.

Harris will institute martial law without a second thought to destroy the sovereignty of the American people over Government and the NATURAL LAW RIGHTS that enable the American people to exercise their authority over Government.

Without an armed citizenry, there will be nothing to prevent the wholesale excision of all other fundamental rights. And, at that point our Free Constitutional Republic will cease to be. There will be no resurrection. What is dead will be dead forever.

DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO OUR COUNTRY OR TO YOU. THIS IS OUR SECOND BUT LAST OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FOR OURSELVES, OUR COUNTRYMEN, OUR CHILDREN, GRAND-CHILDREN, AND CHILDREN YET TO BE.

REGISTER TO VOTE IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO. AND DO SO AT ONCE AND MAKE IT A POINT TO VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP!

REGISTERING TO VOTE AND CASTING A BALLOT IS EASY!

THESE ARE SIMPLE TASKS BUT ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE! 

VOTE AND GET YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO VOTE. DON’T DELAY!

THE DEMOCRATS AND THOSE BEHIND THE SCENES SUPPORTING THEM INTEND TO MAKE THIS ELECTION A LANDSLIDE FOR HARRIS.

LET’S MAKE IT A LANDSLIDE—BUT ONE FOR TRUMP AND FOR FREEDOM, NOT FOR HARRIS AND TYRANNY!

THE FATE OF OUR COUNTRY—OF YOUR COUNTRY—IS IN ALL OUR HANDS!

_____________________________________

*(NOTE TO THE READER: THIS IS THE FINAL UPDATED (OCTOBER 4, 2024) VERSION OF THE ESSAY/BULLETIN TO GUN OWNERS, POSTED ORIGINALLY ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2024.

AQ HAS CORRECTED TYPOS AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS AND HAS MADE SEVERAL REVISIONS, EXPANDING ON AND CLARIFYING MANY POINTS.

THE NYC MAYOR AND NYC POLICE COMMISSIONER SUGGEST THAT “NON-STATE RESIDENTS” CAN ACQUIRE A CONCEALED CARRY HANDGUN LICENSE. BUT IS THAT TRUE?

In early August 2024, the New York City Police Department notified the public of the adoption of new rules regarding “non-state-resident” applications for NYC concealed carry licenses.

What prompted “THE NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF  EMERGENCY RULES RELATING TO NON-RESIDENT APPLICANTS FOR CARRY LICENSES AND TO PURCHASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORIZATIONS”?

NOTE: This “EMERGENCY” “NOTICE” was promulgated two-plus years after the publication of the Bruen decision. So, then, what was the nature of the present emergency?

“THE NOTICE” was signed and approved by New York City Mayor Eric Adams and by Police Commissioner Edward A. Caban.

The third paragraph of the first page of the lengthy seven-page document, sets forth, that,

Current NYPD rules do not contain formal procedures for applicants who do not reside in New York State, are not principally employed with New York City, and do not have their principal place of business in New York City. A process by which non-State residents can apply for a carry license will ensure that the City is able to properly regulate handgun ownership within NYC while also complying with the Bruen decision. This emergency rule sets forth standards to submit and evaluate applications for carry licenses made by these individuals, hereinafter called ‘non-resident’ applicants.

This response assumes something that few people have contemplated. But the assumption begs the question of whether the New York State Handgun Law, codified in the Penal Code under Section 400.00 et seq., allows for or bars out-of-state residents from procuring a valid NYC concealed handgun carry license.

Few people had bothered to give this matter any thought. Why should they? After all, City and State handgun licensing authorities throughout New York have routinely, even perfunctorily, for decades, denied the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses to most New York residents who sought to secure one.

Very few people could acquire them because New York State law gave City and State handgun licensing officials near absolute discretion in issuing these licenses under the “PROPER CAUSE” standard.

And, if residents of New York have had such a difficult time securing a New York City concealed handgun carry license because they could not establish, to the satisfaction of the licensing official, an “extraordinary need” for issuance of a license to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, under the extremely stringent “PROPER CAUSE” standard, how on earth could an “out-of-state resident” ever hope to carry that burden of proof? Quite simply, that person could not.

But, in Bruen, in late June 2022, the High Court struck down New York’s “PROPER CAUSE” standard.

Henceforth, an applicant for a New York concealed handgun carry license would not have to establish an extraordinary need or any need for the issuance of such a license.

The Court made plain that the right of armed self-defense doesn’t stop at the doorstep of one’s home. So, a showing of one’s need to carry a handgun for self-defense is redundant, even nonsensical, because the right of armed self-defense is self-evident, true—a fundamental, unalienable, eternal right that does not and ought not require a person to formulate a reason for desiring to preserve his life and well-being.

It would be just a matter of time before out-of-state residents en masse clamor for a coveted NYC concealed handgun carry license.

But can they? Understand that there is nothing in the Bruen decision that suggests an out-of-state resident is on the same footing as a New York resident. So, if an out-of-state resident can at least theoretically acquire a New York State-issued or New York City-issued concealed handgun carry license, New York law must provide for that.

Historically, New York’s unabashed antipathy and animosity toward civilian ownership and possession of handguns is well-known and reflected not only in the Handgun Law of the Consolidated Laws of New York but throughout those Consolidated Laws.

However, a peculiar quirk in the State Handgun Law may suggest that an out-of-state resident can feasibly acquire a concealed handgun carry license.

The New York City Government must be assuming this, which explains why the Mayor and Police Commissioner are now scrambling to effectively deal with what they expect to be a large and steady influx of such applications from out-of-state residents.

But, what does the New York State Handgun Law say about non-state residents? It says nothing. The expression ‘non-state resident’ is neither expressly mentioned nor alluded to. The applicable section only refers to residents of New York.

Section 400.00 (3)(a) of the State’s handgun law says this:

Applications shall be made and renewed, in the case of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, or to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle to the licensing officer in the city or county, as the case may be, where the applicant resides, is principally employed or has his or her principal place of business as merchant or storekeeper. . . .”

This statutory section, as explained in New York case law, was created to prevent a New York Resident, businessman, or employee from engaging in “forum shopping” ostensibly to enhance his chances of securing a handgun carry license in the State's most lenient locales.

Presumably, the State Legislature had not considered that an out-of-state resident might perceive Section 400.00 (3)(a) as a loophole, allowing him to obtain a coveted New York City handgun carry license. But that possibility raises another and perplexing question——

WHAT DOES THE EXPRESSION ‘OUT-OF-STATE RESIDENT’ MEAN?

The language of Section 400.00 (3)(a) does not expressly prohibit an out-of-state resident from attempting to procure a valid New York City handgun carry license, true. However, it is also true the statute’s silence does not logically imply that the New York State Legislature intended for Section 400.00 (3)(a) to include “out-of-state” residents, either.

More to the point, the language of Section 400.00 (3)(a) does not suggest a concern for non-state residents who do not have a connection with New York. Section 400.00 (3)(a) presumes a connection with the State.

This important distinction is blatantly ignored in the City’s August 2024 “NOTICE.” The City Government seems to be incurious of or altogether oblivious to the necessity for understanding the meaning of Section 400.00 (3)(a) apropos of ‘non-state resident.’

Since Section 400.00 (3)(a) is silent on this matter, is this to mean an out-of-state resident (WITH NO visible, genuine, if only minimal, legal contact with New York can), under a liberal interpretation of Section 400.00 (3)(a), still apply for a State or New York City concealed handgun carry license with a reasonable expectation of securing one, assuming that person isn’t under disability?

If so, this is an unintended consequence of poorly drafted handgun legislation that the Albany legislators never remedied through amendment. And it now comes back to haunt City and State Government officials.

Only a handful of New York cases allude to a potential problem for anti-Second Amendment New York Legislators and Government officials—a problem that would grow acute for them after Bruen.

Plainly, the New York State Legislature and New York City and State officials never anticipated a case like Bruen coming down the pike, even as Heller and McDonald should have alerted them to that eventuality.

To understand the Government’s blasé attitude, it helps to look at New York case law.

However, the few cases we have encountered all involve applicants who have some connection with New York, and that fact is a crucial factor in determining the disposition of all these cases.

The seminal case on the subject is Osterweil vs. Bartlett, 21 N.Y.3d 580; 999 N.E.2d 516; 977 N.Y.S.2d 153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013). The question on review was this:

“Is an applicant who owns a part-time residence in New York but makes his permanent domicile elsewhere eligible for a New York handgun license in the city or county where his part-time residence is located?”

The Court’s opinion is insightful in resolving the matter here, and we quote pertinent portions of it at length.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by certified question, asks us to decide whether an applicant who owns a part-time residence in New York but makes his permanent domicile elsewhere is eligible for a New York handgun license in the city or county where his part-time residence is located. We answer the certified question in the affirmative, on the basis of the relevant statute. As we explain below, it is therefore unnecessary for us to decide the constitutional issues raised by appellant.

Appellant Alfred G. Osterweil, a resident of Summit, New York, a town in Schoharie County, applied on May 21, 2008 for a New York State pistol/revolver license pursuant to Penal Law § 400.00. The Schoharie County Sheriff initiated the required background investigations (see Penal Law § 400.00 [4]). On June 25, in the course of correspondence on an unrelated matter, Osterweil informed the Sheriff that he had bought a home in Louisiana and that he intended to ‘make that state my primary residence,’ while keeping ‘a vacation property here in Schoharie County.’ Osterweil asked whether he would still be eligible for a handgun license.

Osterweil's letter raised an important question. Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a) provides that

‘[a]pplications shall be made and renewed, in the case of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, to the licensing officer in the city or county, as the case may be, where the applicant resides, is principally employed or has his principal place of business as merchant or storekeeper’ (emphasis added).

At the heart of Osterweil's query is the distinction between residence and domicile. Generally, establishing residence ‘turns on whether [one] has a significant connection with some locality in the State as the result of living there for some length of time during the course of a year’ (Antone v General Motors Corp., Buick Motor Div., 64 NY2d 20, 30, 473 NE2d 742, 484 NYS2d 514 [1984]), whereas ‘[e]stablishment of a domicile in a [place] generally requires a physical presence in the [place] and an intention to make the [place] a permanent home’ (id. at 28), i.e., intent to remain there for the foreseeable future. It follows that an individual can have more than one residence, but only one domicile (see id.). Osterweil maintained a residence in Schoharie County, but could no longer claim it as his domicile. Therefore, if a New York domicile is required for a handgun license, the statute makes him ineligible.

The Sheriff forwarded Osterweil's application and query to respondent George R. Bartlett, III, Schoharie County Court Judge and also the county's licensing officer. Osterweil submitted an affidavit to Judge Bartlett, stating that he and his wife continued to play a role in ‘social, political and community affairs’ in Summit, even though they no longer made their primary residence there. He also cited the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in District of Columbia v Heller (554 US 570, 128 S Ct 2783, 171 L Ed 2d 637 [2008]), in which the Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia law banning the possession of handguns in the home, holding that ‘the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home’ is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment (id. at 636; see also McDonald v Chicago, 561 US 742, 130 S Ct 3020, 177 L Ed 2d 894 [2010]). 

In May 2009, Judge Bartlett denied Osterweil's application for a handgun license, relying on Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a) and an Appellate Division decision, Matter of Mahoney v Lewis (199 AD2d 734, 605 NYS2d 168 [3d Dept 1993]), which held that ‘as used in this statute the term residence is equivalent to domicile’ (id. at 735). Judge Bartlett further ruled that such a domicile requirement was constitutional, under Heller, as a lawful regulatory measure.”

‘We take a straightforward approach to this dispute. If Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a) does not require domicile, then there is no need to decide the constitutionality of a hypothetical statute that requires domicile. The question concerning the meaning of the statute at issue—the question certified to us—must be answered prior to any question concerning its constitutional validity. This is not a case in which we are faced with an ambiguous statute requiring us to favor an interpretation that renders it constitutional over constructions that would invalidate it.’

In finding for the Plaintiff applicant for a handgun license, the Court opined further that,

Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a) states that applications for a license to carry a pistol or revolver ‘shall be made and renewed . . . to the licensing officer in the city or county, as the case may be, where the applicant resides, is principally employed or has his principal place of business as merchant or storekeeper.’ The applicant's residence is referred to in the context of delineating the procedure whereby an individual files an application for a license. The applicant is instructed to apply to the licensing officer in the city or county where he resides (or is principally employed, etc.). The plain language of the statute is not consistent with the theory that the law requires an applicant to establish domicile as an eligibility requirement. Were it so, we would expect to see the manner of proof of domicile set out in the statute.

Moreover, the legislative history of the statutes that underlay Penal Law § 400.00 evinces an intent to ensure that an applicant for a handgun license applies in his place of residence, rather than an intent to limit licenses to applicants who make their domicile in New York. The residency language was added to the Penal Law by chapter 792 of the Laws of 1931. Former Penal Law § 1897 was amended by adding a subdivision, (9-a), which read as follows:

‘No license shall be issued by the police commissioner of the city of New York except to a resident of that city. Outside of the city of New York, no license shall be issued by a judge or justice of a court of record except to a resident of the county in which the office of such judge or justice is located. A license’ may be issued, however, to a qualified person principally employed in such city or county and to a merchant or storekeeper having his principal place of business in such city or county’ (L 1931, ch 792, § 4).

. . . [T]he residence language was introduced to prevent New York City residents from obtaining handgun permits in counties where, at the time, investigations of applicants were much less thorough than in the city. It  is therefore evident that the law was originally designed to ensure that licenses were obtained where applicants resided, and to discourage ‘forum-shopping,’ rather than to exclude certain applicants from qualifying at all.

The corresponding residence language in today's Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a) is derived from former Penal Law § 1903, which was added in 1963 (L 1963, ch 136, § 8; see 1963 McKinney's Session Laws of NY at 155), and then adopted in the revised Penal Law provisions of 1965 (L 1965, ch 1030; see 1965 McKinney's Session Laws of NY at 1691). Appellant points to no legislative history from the 1960s suggesting that the relevant intent of the legislature was different then from what it had been in 1931. We conclude that there was no intent by the legislature to exclude applicants on the basis of domicile.

Finally, and most conclusively, Penal Law § 400.00 itself contemplates that licenses may be issued to individuals who do not make their domicile in New York. When a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver ‘is issued to an alien, or to a person not a citizen of and usually a resident in the state, the licensing officer shall state in the license the particular reason  for the issuance and the names of the persons certifying to the good character of the applicant’ (Penal Law § 400.00 [7]). Since a handgun license may be issued, under the statute, to a person who is ‘not . . . usually a resident’ in New York State, it is clear that there is no requirement of domicile.

Because we hold that Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a) does not preclude an individual who owns a part-time residence in New York but makes his permanent domicile in another state from applying for a New York handgun license, we have no occasion to decide whether a contrary law would be unconstitutional. 

Accordingly, the certified question should be answered in the affirmative.”

It is imperative to recognize the New York State Court of Appeals draws a distinction between the terms ‘residence’ and ‘domicile.’

A few lower courts wrongly did not draw that distinction, suggesting that if a person was not a permanent resident of New York, i.e., domiciled in New York, then that person would not qualify for a New York handgun license.

That led inevitably to an erroneous ruling.

The New York State Court of Appeals opined that it is wrong to conflate the term ‘residence’ with ‘domicile.’ But that does not mean the Court of Appeals suggests that a person with no connection with New York can secure a State handgun license, whether a restricted license or an unrestricted concealed carry license. The Court doesn’t deal directly with that issue because the issue wasn’t presented to it and the facts didn’t mandate consideration of it.

Still, through the reasoning of the Court, coupled with the language of the Statutory Section, Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a), it is likely the Court would find, were it to consider the issue, rule that a non-state resident with no connection with New York cannot, under New York Law, lawfully acquire a New York handgun license.

But, without a case law ruling on this, we must construe, the matter, at best, as an open question.

At worst, extrapolating from Osterweil, we are inclined to infer that an out-of-state resident with no connection to New York is dead in the water. Such a person has, then, no hope of acquiring a valid New York handgun license of any kind, restricted or unrestricted, in the absence of bona fide, if only minimal, connection or contact with New York.

This inference is contrary to the conclusion to be drawn from the NYC “NOTICE.”

The New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, and the City’s Police Commissioner seem to assume that an out-of-state resident who has no connection with New York can feasibly obtain a New York City concealed handgun carry license. We do not see how the City Government can reasonably assume this.

However, the explanation is likely due to the Government’s erroneous conflating of the notion of non-state residents who have no connection with New York with non-state residents who have at least one tenable connection with New York.

Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a) does not, to our mind, support this assumption of the New York City Mayor and the New York City Police Commissioner.

There is no mention of “non-state residents” in this Section or anywhere else in the New York statute (whether or not such non-state residents have any contact or connection with New York).

The New York Court of Appeals in Osterweil, though, did rule that non-state residents (those domiciled in another jurisdiction) but who DO HAVE A TENABLE CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK are able lawfully to acquire a New York handgun license.

Unfortunately, the City’s new “Emergency Rules” do not cite either Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a) or New York State case law to support the tacit inference that non-State residents can lawfully acquire a New York City handgun license, even in the absence of any connection with New York.

This leads us to suspect that the Mayor and the Police Commissioner are being disingenuous.

It is true, of course, as pointed out by the New York State Court of Appeals in Osterweil, that a person does not have to be domiciled in New York to be able to qualify for a New York City handgun license. But, it is quite another thing to suggest, as the New York City Mayor and the Police Commissioner, do, that a non-state resident, who has no legal connection with New York, can still feasibly acquire a New York City ( and, by extension) State handgun) license.

It is a stretch to read Penal Law § 400.00 (3) (a) and the Osterweil case as assuming this. But, that is the implication to be drawn from the City’s “NOTICE.”

Perhaps the City is motivated by the money to be generated from such out-of-state resident applications even as it intends to deny all of those applications. If so, such deceit amounts to actionable fraud on the public.

The public should demand that the Mayor and the Police Commissioner explain cogently and comprehensively what they mean by the expression ‘non-state resident,’ given the expression’s inherent legal ambiguity.

__________________________________

WHAT IS AN AMERICAN?

___________________

Introductory Quote as Lead-in to this Article

“Cameo of a man who has just lost his most valuable possession. He doesn't know about the loss yet. In fact, he doesn't even know about the possession. Because, like most people, David Gurney has never really thought about the matter of his identity. But he's going to be thinking a great deal about it from now on, because that is what he's lost. And his search for it is going to take him into the darkest corners of the Twilight Zone.” ~ Opening narration from Rod Serling’s imaginative series, “The Twilight Zone,” Episode 92, titled, “Person or Persons Unknown,” first aired on March 27, 1962.

____________________

There are many things a person takes for granted but shouldn’t. Among those and undoubtedly the most important is one’s sense of personal identity.

And many things go into one’s sense of personal identity: one’s name, upbringing, a personal belief system and manner in which he observes the world; his sense of self-worth, his livelihood and interests—to name a few.

These things are so intrinsic to his sense of self, he gives little conscious thought to them. There is little reason to. There is a sameness to such things that is reassuring. There is a sense of continuity. Such is how person’s reality is built.

But suppose a person wakes up one day, like David Gurney, our protagonist in the TZ episode, and finds the ground has shifted out from under him.

Everyone he meets—his wife, his co-workers, his friends, claim not to know him.

He becomes understandably angry, confused, lashes out. But that only confirms to others that the man has gone insane.

With his reality shattered, he spirals into a state of despair. He begins to think that perhaps everyone is right, after all.

Such occurred to our protagonist in the Twilight Zone episode, “Person or Persons Unknown.”

But it is one thing to watch a television program, knowing it to be nothing more than contrivance, compelling though it may be. It is quite another thing to suffer the fracturing of one’s soul in the real world.

With all the talk today of Government “Gaslighting” of the populace, one must wonder whether there isn’t something afoot to drive the nation’s people to a full psychotic break.

An important part of one’s sense of self is tied to his community. That community, writ large, is a person’s Nation.

When I and my wife venture overseas on vacation, we enjoy conversing with the people of the countries we visit. They will remark, “Oh, you’re Americans.” Of course we are.

And the conversation invariably turns to where in America we live, how we live, and what we make of the turmoil that has infested the Country since the Biden Administration took over the reins of Government in January 2021.

But, while our conversations involved how I and my wife, as “Americans,” feel about America, no one, had ever asked us what it means to us “to be Americans.”

In other words, no one asks us, in these foreign lands we visit, to define the word, ‘American.’

And I never gave the matter serious thought about that, until, that was, when I happened to read an article in a newsletter I received from the United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”).

The UFT is the New York Chapter of the National American Federation of Teachers (“AFT”). Both are powerful Radical Left-wing teachers’ unions that have, through the years, transformed into shamelessly partisan channels of political activism, whose primary goal is the indoctrination of our Nation’s youth in the cult and ideology of Marxist Collectivism.

In the May 2017 issue of the publication, I came across an article by the UFT Vice President, Richard Mantell, titled “What is an American?”

The article left me absolutely furious. My anger compelled me to respond.

The UFT published my comment on June 1, 2017. I took Vice President Mantell to task.

Mantell laid out a fanciful definition of ‘American,’ grounded essentially on the idea of togetherness and good-will toward all people, everywhere. The last paragraph of his article sums up this notion well.

Mantell says,

“I believe we have a responsibility as public school educators and as citizens of the United States to treat others as we want to be treated, to look past differences, and to recognize the reason why so many people came to this country and still do: to make a better life for themselves and their families. That is the true definition of American.”

Really? That’s it? That’s the “true definition of American”?

I took Richard Mantell to task for his saccharine view of ‘American.’

I wondered what others in our Nation would think apart from those members of the UFT who generally would agree with Mantell.

I submitted a portion of my response to Ammoland Shooting Sports News, for publication, on June 27, 2017.

Ammoland readers can find the earlier article at this link: Response to United Federation of Teachers Open Borders Take on Who Is American (ammoland.com).

It is not necessary for me to reiterate here what Ammoland published.

But, five plus years after publication of Richard Mantell’s “VPerspective” on what it means to be an ‘American,’ the absurdity inherent in his definition becomes even more glaring and menacing and that requires me to develop further the ideas I had earlier written about.

We now have millions of illegal aliens residing in our Country, whom the Biden Administration has deliberately enticed in. And they obliged. And we are inundated with them, and no one knows where, in the Country they are. They have disbursed everywhere.

Many of them are lunatics, or dangerous psychotics, or common criminals whom their home nations are all too happy to rid themselves of. All of them constitute a heavy burden on our limited resources, and are unassimilable. None of them have been properly vetted, and more than a few are murderous terrorists or psychopathic members of international criminal cartels.

Are these people here to make a better life for themselves? Or is it to partake in all those goodies: free housing, free medical care, food allowances, and allocations of federal reserve notes too, and to create violence and induce terror in the native populace?

UFT Vice President Mantell’s mentioning of the word ‘citizen’ in his exposition is not done to impute definitional import to the word ‘citizen’ apropos of ‘American.’

Rather, his point is that being a citizen of the United States requires that citizen to manifest what Mantell considers to be the correct attitude toward people. And that attitude is grounded on a presumption about people that might be true of some, but not all, and certainly not most people—especially those that come here illegally.

The Biden Administration, along with the many Political Progressives and outright Neo-Marxist Cultists in Congress, in State and local governments, in the Press and in social media, in the public schools and in academia, and the rank-and-file Leftists in our Country all demonstrate the danger in misunderstanding or misrepresenting the meaning of “Being an American.” And, it is clear from their actions, they don’t give a damn whether these aliens are decent sorts or not.

They just want them here: one, to bolster the number of Representatives in Congress for the Liberal States; two, eventually, to bolster the voting rolls; and, three, to tear down traditional institutional structures, destabilize society, and terrorize the populace in preparation for construction of a new Socio-Political Governmental structure grounded in the principles of Marxist Collectivism.

In a few months, through the election that will determine who will lead our Country, the Electorate will know whether the U.S. will regain its preeminence in the world as a truly free Constitutional Republic—the only one of its kind in the world—or whether we will continue down the road to Tyranny and subjugation.

This election truly is our Final Battle.

We will return to a state of grace as envisioned by our wise Founders or we will cast it aside, seduced by propaganda, cloaked in sickening sweet priggish sanctimony, lauded by Leftist politicians and a seditious Press and social media.

In the next few articles, we will discuss in depth what the word ‘American’ really means, from a legal and philosophical standpoint, devoid of ‘goody-goody phraseology of the sort espoused by people like Richard Mantell.

To highlight what I and my business partners at Arbalest Quarrel will be discussing, we offer this overview:

The word ‘American’ includes three salient components. Those components may also be construed as conditions that must be met.

The first is that a person is a citizen of the United States. The term ‘citizen’ is a legal term of art. It has a well-defined meaning.

No one who is not a citizen is an ‘American’ regardless of his or her feelings about the Country.

‘Citizenship’ is therefore a necessary condition for one’s status as an ‘American’ but it is not a sufficient condition.

The second component of the definition of ‘American’ or a condition that must be met for calling one an “American” requires that a person be willing to take up arms to protect the Nation from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

An American will not long suffer a foreign adversary forcing its will on the people, nor will an American long suffer Tyranny of Government at home. This bearing of arms, too, is a necessary condition, but not sufficient for a person to be considered an American.

The Third Component requires a person to adhere to the doctrine of Individualism that grounds the U.S. Constitution and the crucial “Bill of Rights.” While a person can espouse the ideology of Collectivism, as that is a person’s right under the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech, such ideology is inconsistent with the tenets of Individualism and the concept of Natural Law Rights, codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights. A person who does not honor our Nation’s Constitution nor cherishes our Bill of Rights and who knowingly, willingly violates Divine Law is not an American.

These three components, conditions, or attributes go together to define what it means to be an ‘American.’ In the next few articles, we will make our case.

__________________________________

MILLIONS OF AMERICA’S GUN OWNERS ARE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE. WHY?

The most important U.S. Presidential Election since the founding of our Republic is just a few months away. This isn’t an exaggeration. It is a fact.

The outcome of this Election will determine whether we Americans secure our Nation as a Free Constitutional Republic as the Framers crafted it, or we continue down the path Joe Biden and those behind the scenes have set for us: A Rancid Socialist Dictatorship ruled by Marxist Cultists and Neoliberal Globalist Technocrats.

Some Americans delight at the prospect of a United States reduced to subservience—a mere cog residing within a vast Collectivist Empire, encompassing the world, governed by the Dogmas of “DEI,” “CRT,” and Identity Politics. Many other Americans seem oblivious to the true horror unfolding before them and demonstrate disinterest if you were to point out what is in store for them and for the rest of us who do care. These people have likely not registered to vote, and if they had done so, they don’t plan to vote in the upcoming Presidential election anyway.

As for those falling into this last category, no rational person would expect to find people who cherish their fundamental, unalienable rights (especially the right of the people to keep and bear arms) to forego voting in an election where one Party has made patently clear an intention to ban firearms in common use.

Yet, millions of America’s gun owners are not registered to vote in the upcoming election.

This is surprising, shocking, and altogether unacceptable. Voting is a Sacred Right. It is also a tremendously important responsibility.

The Arbalest Quarrel looked into the failure of millions of gun owners to register to vote. We learned that Ten Million American gun owners have not registered to vote in the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.

This is no small number and can have a decisive impact on the outcome of Federal Elections.

In a recent article published on July 9, 2024, the New York Post had this to say,

More than 10 million hunters and gun owners are not registered to vote in America, according to a new grassroots voter-registration group firing warning shots at the GOP Vote4America data show that if Republicans don’t address political apathy among their gun-owning base in key swing states, they’ll have far fewer voters in their arsenal to score victories this November.

Vote4America data show that if Republicans don’t address political apathy among their gun-owning base in key swing states, they’ll have far fewer voters in their arsenal to score victories this November.

A breakdown of the data reveals a major shortfall in voter registration among gun owners in the states that will decide the 2024 election: 515,277 in Pennsylvania and around 370,000 each in Michigan and North Carolina. Georgia, Wisconsin, Missouri and Virginia all have more than half a million hunters and gun owners unregistered, and Arizona has the smallest shortfall at 133,000. 

Audiences have not always responded positively to Vote4America’s voter-registration efforts. Adviser to the group Baker Leavitt told District of Conservation podcast host Gabriella Hoffman in a recent appearance that the most common response in its outreach to gun owners is the sentiment “My vote doesn’t count, the system is rigged.”

Despite the pessimism, even marginal wins could pay big dividends come November. “​​If we could convert 2% of all licensed hunters and get them to vote, GOP would win in a landslide,” Leavitt told Hoffman. 

Hoffman noted that “a lot of hunters and gun owners, they’re very animated in social media, they have a lot of opinions, but they don’t go out to vote. They talk a great deal, often about preserving your rights, doing this — hunting — but a lot of people don’t follow through with voting.”

Democratic politicians have leaned on influencers in recent years — and before that Hollywood celebrities — to push liberal messaging to their built-in audiences of loyal followers.

Vote4America is hoping to tap into that strategy on the conservative side by partnering with more niche influencers in the hunting, pro-Second Amendment, first-responder and veteran communities.

Stephen Aaron, another of the group’s advisers, he says when it comes to winning over disengaged gun owners, the mission is clear and simple.

“Our goal is to make sure these people know that voting matters. The issues people worry about — attacks on personal freedoms, our crime problem, skyrocketing inflation — are all impacted by the people we put in office. This is an effort to help voters connect the issues impacting their daily life to decisions made by elected officials so people understand their vote really does matter and they engage. It’s time to make America feel like home again. . . .”

Competitive shooting champion and Women for Gun Rights founder Dianna Muller says she’s noticed that “specifically, hunters, for whatever reason, are totally apathetic. They are not only apathetic but almost averse to having a voice in the conversation.”

Asked why she believes that’s the case, Muller told The Post: “It’s become such a politically charged issue, like religion and politics, you don’t talk about it at the dinner table. You can throw guns in there, too. Guns and religion are taboo.

See also the article in “Shooting News Weekly” about this failure to vote.

Well, we know that Joe Biden isn’t averse to talking about his intention to ban millions of firearms in common use.

In an article published in the “Independent,”

“President Joe Biden called for AR-15 guns, the type used in the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, to be banned during a fired-up NAACP National Convention speech.

‘It’s time to outlaw them. I did it once, and I will do it again’, Biden said during his speech on Tuesday (16 July).

In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, prohibiting certain semi-automatic assault weapons as well as large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices. It expired in 2004.”

There is something decidedly perverse of Joe Biden to make a pretense of caring about Donald Trump’s health and well-being.

Plainly, Biden used the assassination attempt as a fortuitous happenstance upon which to make another pitch for banning civilian possession of millions of firearms in common use—a principal policy objective of the Biden Administration and of Progressives and others that despise our Bill of Rights.

And Biden’s speech to the NAACP and, by extension, to the Nation at large, as covered by the Press, was meant to serve  another purpose.

By directing attention to guns, Biden likely hoped to mask the utter failure of the Secret Service, under the leadership of the inept Director, Kimberly Cheatle, a Biden appointee, to protect Donald Trump.

Trump survived the assassination attempt only due to Divine Intervention, and not to any act of the Secret Service, before the fact, to neutralize the target. After all, the shooter got off several shots, killing one Rally Attendee, seriously injuring two others, and hitting Trump too, (within a few millimeters of killing him), before the Secret Service Counter Assault Team (CAT) got off a shot, killing the shooter.

Attention properly belongs on the Secret Service, not on this or that firearm the shooter used.

Had the shooter used a high-end, long range deer rifle, with expensive scope, would Biden have suggested banning deer rifles, too? Surely, his desire to ban civilian ownership and possession of firearms is extraordinarily expansive. Another term in Office, consolidating power further, will allow for that.

Nothing comes out of the maw of the Joe Biden, but anger and exasperation, vitriol and hatred—and all directed to those things that make us quintessentially Americans, including our fundamental, unalienable, Eternal Rights and Liberties; the belief in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual; our Nation’s Christian heritage; and concomitant Judeo-Christian ethical system instilled in us by the omnipotent, omniscient, omni-present, supernally benevolent, and morally perfect Divine Creator.

The perennially angry and bitter Joe Biden, and the caustic, stubborn, closed-minded supporters continue to ravage our Country through their every word and action.

They claim and maintain the Country must be destroyed because there is nothing worth salvaging. They loathe every aspect and institution of our Country, and intend to replace the entirety of it with an alien political, social, economic, cultural, and ideological framework the obverse of a truly Free Democratic Republic that the Founders’ of our Nation constructed for us, grounded on the tenets of Individualism.

Contrary to the gloomy rhetoric of Biden and the DNC, there is in Trump’s speeches, always a message of hope.

And it involves no effort on the part of Americans’ to make a bright future for our Country and the Citizenry, a Reality.

Trump makes clear that he cannot make America great again if he isn’t in Office.

Americans who cherish their fundamental Rights, especially the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms to prevent Tyranny MUST VOTE.

Trump says,

We're gonna turn our country around. We're going to quite simply make America great again. But one thing I'll say, and I say it as friends, we've gotta get gun owners to vote, because you know what, I don't know what it is, perhaps it's a form of rebellion, because you're rebellious people, aren't you? But — gun owners don't vote. . . . What is that all about? I've heard that, I heard it a few weeks ago. That if the gun owners voted, we would swamp them at levels that nobody's ever seen before. So, I think you're a rebellious bunch. But let's be rebellious and vote this time, okay? If you go out and vote, I understand exactly why you don't. But we have to win this election, it's the most important election in the history of our country.

The aforementioned comes from Portions of Trump’s Speech to NRA, delivered on May 18, 2024, as obtained from the website “Roll Call.”

See Trump’s Full Speech to NRA on CSPAN.

Trump’s mild admonishment to Gun owners is well-taken.

Sure, a lot of us Americans who cherish our most sacred right to armed self-defense, do vote and have voted for Trump in the last two elections and will do so again in the upcoming election.

Among those who support Biden and his Administration’s policy aims, are very powerful ruthless interests that hope those Americans who support Trump, will not trouble themselves to register to vote and to cast a vote in the upcoming Election. If they do, there will be a huge wave in support of Trump that will essentially guarantee his election as U.S. President in 2024.

That means our Country will remain a sovereign, independent Nation and Free Constitutional Republic.

The United States will then have the strength of will to repel any attempt to weaken its independence and sovereignty.

Nothing concerns the world empire builders more than the United States which has the strength of will to effectively resist those evil forces that would thrust our Nation into a world empire, requiring us to forsake our Sovereignty and Independence and our Bill of Rights.

A freedom-loving people, fiercely independent, obdurately resistant to Tyranny, insistent on bearing arms to maintain its sovereignty over Government and over attempts to subjugate them, will not meekly, surrender their arms.

We assume most Americans, certainly those who cherish their Fundamental Unalienable Rights, would agree with this sentiment.

A 2021 National Firearms Survey estimated that 81.4 million Americans owned firearms. See the article in “American Gun Facts.” Two years later that number increased. “Estimates show that 82,880,000 people own at least one firearm in 2023.” See the article in “Ammo.com.”  

According to the Pew Research Center,

“Roughly three-quarters of Americans who currently own a gun (73%) say they can’t see themselves ever not owning one, and this is the case among majorities of gun owners across demographic groups.

Perhaps not surprisingly, those who see owning a gun as central to their overall identity are particularly committed to gun ownership. For example, 89% of gun owners who see owning a gun as very or somewhat important to their overall identity say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun, compared with 58% of those who say owning a gun is not too important or not at all important their sense of identity.

And while 85% of gun owners who say the right to own guns is essential to their sense of freedom say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun at some point, 41% of those who don’t see the right to own guns as essential say the same.”

The perennially angry and bitter Joe Biden, and his caustic, stubborn, closed-minded supporters continue to ravage our Country through their every word and action.

They claim and maintain the Country must be destroyed because there is nothing in it worth salvaging.

They loathe every aspect and institution of our Country and intend to replace the entirety of it with an alien political, social, economic, cultural, and ideological framework the obverse of a truly Free Democratic Republic that the Founders’ of our Nation constructed for us, grounded on the tenets of Individualism.

Contrary to the gloomy rhetoric of Biden’s speeches, reflective of the insufferable temperament of his supporters, there is, in Trump’s speeches, always a message of hope.

And it involves no effort on the part of Americans to make a bright future for our Country and the Citizenry, a Reality.

Americans who cherish their fundamental Rights, especially the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms to prevent Tyranny MUST VOTE, but why do so many Americans resist? What explains this phenomenon?

But what accounts for the apathy among so many Americans who love their Country and who cherish their sacred rights but who do not vote?

If one is reluctant to let his views be heard around the family kitchen table or among his co-workers at the office, they don’t need to speak their mind. What does that have to do with refraining from voting?

When a person casts his ballot, that is a private affair. Nothing needs to be said to anyone. And voting is such an easy thing to do. There is no suffering in the act of casting one’s vote.

No other American has suffered the kinds of incessant vicious, vile assaults as Donald Trump. He has accepted this because he truly loves his Country. That cannot be reasonably denied. For the four years he served his Country as President, despite the barbs, the sabotage, the scathing virulence—and for the four years since—none of that scathing attack has stopped. His enemies are many and powerful and ruthless and they constantly craft new ways and refine old ways to torment Trump.

The assassination attempt is emblematic of the desperation and fatigue that has set in for these enemies of Trump (and, by extension, of “MAGA” Americans) and of a Nation that refuses to kowtow to the international world order.

The only thing that would stop Trump—that those who hate and fear his formidable fortitude, stamina, desire, and ability to truly Make America Great Again, have come to understand—would be a bullet to the head. That almost happened.

Only Divine Intervention prevented that. If the assassin had succeeded, our Country, a Free Constitutional Republic would have died at that moment, along with him.

But, fortunately, for us, Trump survived. He will not stand down, despite the toll on both him and his family: financially, personally, professionally, and emotionally.

Every American must vote. Trump has given and continues to give so much, including risking his very life for his Country and his fellow Countrymen. He asks so little from each of us in return.

And it is for our benefit and our Country, after all, that America’s gun owners register to vote if they haven’t already done so, and that all of us cast our vote for Trump so that he can serve our Country and us.

Every American should vote with the idea that his vote determines the outcome of the Election. That vote for Trump—1 + 1 + 1 +1 +1. . . = 100 million—will be part of a wave that no amount of illegal and unethical machinating by the ruthless forces that would dare to crush Trump, our Country, and our People, can withstand.

It is YOUR VOTE that will make the difference! And it is such an easy thing to do. You have no good excuse for not doing so.

Register as a Republican if you have not already done so. There isn’t much time left to do so. And, make sure that you do cast your vote in the upcoming Election and that you cast it for Donald Trump.

Our Republic is on the Line. This is our Last Chance, our Final Battle.

Do your small but vital part to Make America Great Again, and to Keep America Great for decades and centuries to come.

_______________________________________

“IT’S TIME TO PUT TRUMP IN THE BULLSEYE,” SAYS JOE BIDEN

Biden may have intended, as metamorphical, his statement about making Trump a target (see WSJ news article), but the would-be assassin, who intended to kill Trump and who did kill an attendee at the rally while seriously wounding two others and injuring Trump, plainly took Biden’s assertion literally. See the article in Reuters.

Biden, his aides, his Cabinet, and Congressional Democrats wanted to turn the political conversation and narrative back on Trump after Biden’s disastrous first debate (see, e.g., the articles in “Business Insider” and CBC News).

That didn’t happen, not by a long shot.

On the contrary, Americans will fixate, as they should, on the horrible trainwreck Biden and his Administration bear responsibility for.

The Country and the world have suffered incalculably. That will be Biden’s legacy and that will be the legacy of the Progressive movement that sought to transform our Free Constitutional Republic into a disastrous Social Welfare State—the polar opposite of what our Founders had intended.

In less than three short years, the Biden Administration and the Democrat Party, infested with selfish Neoliberal Globalists, Neo-Marxist Radicals, and “Goody-Goody” Progressives, and with the assistance of a Seditious Press and Social Media, have transformed the most powerful and prosperous Nation the world had ever seen into a laughing stock and pushover.

The Destroyers, of a once Great Nation, intend to complete the dissolution of it if they can somehow eke out a win for the decrepit brain-addled stooge in the Oval Office and the power-hungry “Democrat Party” machinery.

Most Americans have had enough of this rot infecting our Nation, people, and institutions.

If Americans need further encouragement to cast their vote in the upcoming election for Trump, they should be thankful they have the opportunity to do so. For, only by the Grace of God is Trump here with us. It is indeed a miracle.

It is now up to the Electorate to elect Donald Trump for a Second Term in Office.

This requires assistance from ten million gun owners who have not yet registered to vote in the upcoming election. Do they intend to do so? AQ will deal with this disconcerting state of affairs in our next article.

The Nation needs Trump. Our Free Republic will not withstand another four years with Democrats in control of the Executive Branch of Government.

Just compare the first four years of Trump’s successful tenure to the three-plus years of Biden’s to understand what is at stake for all of us.

Had Trump served these past three years, America’s strength, vitality, and prosperity would likely have increased a thousandfold, and our unalienable and eternal Rights would have been secured.

Instead, our Country and its institutions are in shambles. Americans can thank Joe Biden and his Administration for that!

Many Americans struggle to make ends meet due to runaway inflation.

Our Nation’s Southern Border is open. Millions of illegal aliens, crossing that Border, come from over one hundred and fifty countries. They stretch our financial resources to the breaking point. They disrupt our societal well-being and threaten the physical safety of our citizenry. Many Americans have lost their lives to vicious attacks from maniacs who had no right to be in our Country.

Bizarre dogmas like “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (“DEI”), and “Identity Politics,” and other artifices have permeated through all our institutions, including Education, corrupting our youth.

Our enemies have taken notice. A weak foreign policy and a weak military have created insecurity not only for America but for the world.

This volatility cannot be rationally explained as mere incompetence. It is by design: To break the back of the United States.

Most Americans know this. And one of these Americans, Donald J. Trump our 45th President, certainly knows this.

The perpetrators of this monstrous effort know this too, and they don’t like what a Trump Presidency portends.

Trump would end the Biden Administration’s diabolical plan to destroy our Country from within.

This is why for the last eight years the would-be destroyers of our Country have waged continuous war on Trump and his “MAGA” supporters. They will not stop. They have not stopped.

They have an enormous organizational structure, and substantial sums of cash to force their will on our Nation. They have worked feverishly, fanatically, and tirelessly, devising all sorts of stratagems to defeat Trump while he served as President and to prevent or discourage him from running in 2024. All their attempts have failed.

Did these ruthless forces embrace the final instrument—one emblematic of acute exasperation and desperation they hitherto would not dream of venturing into?

The attempted assassination of Trump may point to that. Trump may have alluded to it in his pronouncements to his supporters. He stated,

“They've launched one witch hunt after another to try and stop our movement, to thwart the will of the American people. . . . “At the end of the day, they’re not coming after me, They’re coming after you, and I’m just standing in the way.”

Donald Trump delivered those remarks at a rally on June 10, 2023, in Columbus, Georgia after the first injudicious indictment against him. See, e.g., the articles in Sky News and NBC News.

Trump would echo these assertions and bolster them at several rallies in the ensuing months. And those assertions would become prophetic.

Disturbing questions have arisen about this attempted assassination of a man whose probability of securing the U.S. Presidency in November 2024 has remained persistently strong and has increased substantially in the past few months.

Can Biden, his Administration, and Congressional Democrats be relieved that Trump escaped by a hairsbreadth, a bullet to the brain, plainly intended for him?

If the shooter had succeeded, Democrats’ chances of prevailing in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election would have increased exponentially. Who could Republicans possibly nominate at the last minute who would have the stature, fortitude, and indomitable strength of character of Donald J. Trump? The question is rhetorical.

This suggests that comments by Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Hakeem Jeffries have exuded false concern over Trump’s health and well-being.

Sure, they offer their prayers to Trump and condemn the violence (see, e.g., the article in USA Today). But it is what these people don’t say that should give all Americans pause and which reduces their seemingly magnanimous remarks to vacuous, pretentious, utterings.

And hearing this now, when Americans almost lost the one man who can secure our heritage, is excruciating. We would bet dollars to donuts that Democrats are less than exuberant at the failure to eliminate the one man who has the best chance to beat them in three and a half months.

None of them in their initial comments has called the attempt on Trump’s life what it is, an attempted assassination. After all, the shooter did hit Trump with a bullet. This is definitively an attempted assassination of the Republican nominee for U.S. President. The upcoming Convention is a mere formality.

Recall, it was the Press that added the words, ‘attempted assassination,’ to the Congressional Democrats’ remarks, as they demonstrated an odd reticence.

The Press did not doubt the precise nature of this act of terrorism. How can anyone rationally deny the attempt on Trump’s life as anything but an attempted assassination?

Yet, Joe Biden deliberately refrained from using the phrase ‘attempted ‘assassination’ when he delivered his first address (of two minutes) to the Nation. This was no accident because a reporter specifically asked Biden about that, and Biden responded he did not have enough facts. Really? See the BBC audio and video of Biden’s first remarks to the Nation on this.

Moreover, not one of these Politicians stated or suggested, at least in their initial remarks, that the DOJ/FBI and DHS should undertake an immediate and thorough investigation to discern whether or not the shooting is the final step in an elaborate, sophisticated operation involving powerful individuals or organizations. Again, why is that?

We suspect that, in the days and weeks ahead, Americans will hear no one denying the violent attack on Trump as anything other than “an attempted assassination.” But Americans should expect to hear Democrats and a compliant Press referring to the shooting as an isolated, one-off “lone wolf” happenstance, involving one disturbed young man. Recall the unanswered questions surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy sixty years before.

But the linguistic gyrations are of less significance at this moment in time. What is significant is that this assassination attempt happened at all and that, if it can happen once, it can occur again.

With the election just a few months away, the Destroyers of our Country are losing time and patience to rid themselves of Trump and that will make them increasingly dangerous and reckless.

What is the Secret Service doing about this?

Already, excuses are flying. The Secret Service is denying they did anything other than all they could to protect Trump. See the article from the Radical Left “Daily Beast.” But is that true?

How is it that the would-be assassin could climb onto a roof just 400 feet from Trump, outside the defensive perimeter, and take a clear shot at him, striking him, narrowly missing, by millimeters, what would have turned into a certain “kill shot?”

It is important to keep in mind the Secret Service Sniper teams set up their rifle mounts and neutralized the shooter only after the shooter had wounded Trump and killed one innocent Rally attendee with a headshot and seriously injured two others. So, the Secret Service did not do its job effectively. This is disastrous.

There is nothing for the Secret Service to be proud about. Much of the problem can and ought to be laid at the feet of Biden’s Director of the Secret Service, Kimberly Cheatle. Biden may place faith in her, but the American people should not. The New York Post writes of calls for her to resign.

Even if Trump’s Secret Service Detail could not be everywhere and even if his detail would not be as large as that of a sitting President, could not deficiencies in staffing be augmented through the use of Pennsylvania Police SWAT teams, positioned on all rooftops that have direct access to the stage where Trump spoke? This is just one pertinent question that begs for an answer.

Another question goes to those Democrats who dared to remove Trump’s Secret Service Protection altogether.

One such person, a Democrat Congressman from Mississippi, Benny Thompson introduced legislation to do just that See, e.g., Newsweek and New York Post articles.

Several other Democrats co-sponsored this infamous House bill, H.R. 8081.

Congressman Thompson’s aides reflect his penchant for endangering the lives of people he doesn’t like. Case in point, there is Jacqueline Marsaw.

This staffer for Thompson exhibits no reluctance in exclaiming her desire to see Donald Trump dead, and she wants the world to know that.

The New York Post writes,

A staffer for a Democratic congressman from Mississippi was fired for her inflammatory comments saying she hoped the shooter who targeted Donald Trump ‘wouldn’t miss next time.’

‘I don’t condone violence but please get you some shooting lessons so you don’t miss next time ooops that wasn’t me talking,’ Jacqueline Marsaw wrote on Facebook Saturday evening, shortly after Trump narrowly avoided being shot in the head during a rally in Pennsylvania. . . .

Marsaw also wrote that the shooting – which killed one rally attendee and critically wounded two others – ‘couldn’t [have] happened to a nicer fellow,’ though she insisted that it was a ‘staged’ incident.

‘That’s what your hate speech got you!’ she added in a third post, seemingly referring to Trump’s often-controversial takes on social and political issues.

As of Sunday morning, all of the posts had been deleted.

“Hate Speech?” Let’s talk about the true sponsors of “Hate Speech”—Biden, Congressional Democrats, and those Americans who consider themselves Political Liberals or Progressives.

Consider a few choice examples——

•  Equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler

• Creating the phrase ‘Christian Nationalist’ for use as a slur against Christians and Christianity  

• Treating the acronym ‘MAGA’ as an insult leveled against one-half the Country

• Castigating Whites as inherently Racist

• Referring to Political Conservatives as “Deplorables” and Fascists

After the attempt on Trump’s life, Biden and his Campaign are trying desperately to backpedal, as exemplified by Biden’s speech to the Nation, on Sunday evening, July 14, 2024, after the horrific events that unfolded the day before, in the afternoon of July 13, 2024. But it’s a little late in the day for that.

Three-plus years of incessant demagoguery and vitriol emanating from Biden and Congressional Democrats, and a sympathetic Press and Social Media cannot be instantaneously whitewashed away.

Americans are tired of a wimp for President and the policies that have debilitated our Country.

Trump has always represented strength both in character and deeds.

The many photographs of Trump injured by a would-be assassin’s bullet will forever memorialize him in the eyes of Americans, and those images will be remembered by our foes and allies alike for decades to come.

The American people must hold on as Trump has. It’s a simple task for Americans. We must vote for Trump. We must not become complacent about this. Otherwise, we and our Republic are doomed.

Trump’s statement “We Want a Landslide too Big to Rig,”—which his detractors in the Press scoff at—is not hyperbole. (See e.g., audio segment of speech on YouTube).

The Press constantly claims that Trump is lying about the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. He isn’t.

But, let’s make sure that, in the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election, Trump garners support at the ballot box so convincingly that nothing the naysayers say can prevent his inauguration as U.S. President in January 2025 (whatever the designation — 45th or 47th U.S. President — may happen to be.

__________________________________

A BEFITTING INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK, “VETERANS BENEFITS FOR YOU,” BY PAUL R. LAWRENCE, PH.D., ON THIS INDEPENDENCE DAY, JULY 4, 2024

A REVIEW BY STEPHEN L. D’ANDRILLI*

On this July 4th Holiday Americans must give consideration to America’s First Patriots—those Americans who placed their lives on the line to engage a powerful foe in mortal combat.

Those first citizen-soldiers realized the probability of victory was slim, but they knew taking up arms against Tyranny was necessary.

Their cause was just, and their aim was pure—To Obtain for Themselves and for Those Americans who follow them—Freedom and Liberty from the throes of Tyranny.

The Good Lord Above clearly blessed our First Patriots.

Despite the odds that favored Tyrant George III and his Empire, a seemingly coarse collection of colonies prevailed against that powerful monarch and that vast British Empire. America’s victory was absolute and complete.

After securing victory from Tyranny, America’s First Patriots were not done by a long shot. They faced another equally formidable, gargantuan task:

To make the promise of “Freedom and Liberty” True and Secure For Americans For All Time.

Among America’s First Patriots were those tasked with framing a Constitution—the Supreme Law of the Land. The purpose of crafting a Constitution was Two-Fold:

To enable the fledgling Nation to effectively resist attempts by a foreign adversary, at some future time,  that seeks to destroy America from the outside and To guard against Tyranny raising its ugly head from inside the Country. As for the second purpose, we have the absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Framers of the Constitution and the States eventually agreed upon a blueprint for a centralized “Federal Government” that would include a standing armed Governmental force that could effectively repel invasion from without.

The Antifederalists among the Framers insisted on including a Bill of Rights to ensure that the American people could effectively restrain a rogue Federal Government from imposing its own Tyranny on the American people, from within.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the purpose of the U.S. Constitution, but, more importantly, there is this, as made clear from the first words of the Preamble: Since it is the American People who created the Constitution, it follows by logical implication that it is the American People alone who may dissolve it as they wield sole sovereign authority over the Nation.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

One of the core purposes of the Constitution as elaborated in the articles of it is to “provide for the common defense.”

“The Common Defense” is ascribed principally to the armed citizenry. As applied to the idea of a continuous need to protect the Country from dangerous threats emanating from the outside, this has, through time, come to fall principally within the purview of the armed forces of the United States.

Americans have, since the earliest decades of the Republic, fought to protect the security of the Nation from foreign adversaries. Many have died doing so or have survived with grievous, severe, permanent injuries.

The U.S. Government has recognized an extraordinary responsibility to its veterans, from the earliest days of the Republic. Through time, this duty has evolved into the creation of a formal Administrative structure: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, colloquially referred to as the “VA.”

A major component of the VA is the Health Administration Agency (VHA).

The website sets forth, in part,

VHA operates one of the largest health care systems in the world and provides training for a majority of America’s medical, nursing and allied health professionals. Roughly 60 percent of all medical residents obtain a portion of their training at VA hospitals; and VA medical research programs benefit society at-large.

The VA health care system has grown from 54 hospitals in 1930 to 1,600 health care facilities today, including 144 VA Medical Centers and 1,232 outpatient sites of care of varying complexity.

Given the size and complexity of the VHA, America’s veterans have found it increasingly difficult to understand the full extent of health care and related benefits and services they and their families are entitled to. And, even if they do understand the basic nature of and extent of those benefits and services, they have found themselves faced with a difficult and, at time, impossible, task of navigating through this monolithic structure to obtain—and in a timely manner—the benefits and services to which they are entitled. All too often veterans and their families give up attempting to steer a course through this maze.

This is deeply concerning and problematic and begs for an efficacious resolution.

Paul R. Lawrence has sought to fill this need and succeeded admirably.

The author is well-positioned and well-versed in the topic he speaks about, as he makes plain in the Book’s “Introduction.”

He says,

I am an army veteran. I served for three years as a finance officer, fulfilling my Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) requirement. After completing my service, I became a management consultant. In each company, I worked with other veteran employees and leaders to champion veteran causes. In spring 2018, I had the opportunity to become a senior leader at the VA and make a real difference for veterans.

I was nominated by President Trump and unanimously confirmed by the Senate to serve as the VA’s under secretary for benefits in April 2018. I served as undersecretary for almost three years, until January 20, 2021 [when the Democrat Joe Biden improbably ascended to the Presidency]. . . .

To do my job effectively, I learned about the wide range of benefits available to veterans and their families. Each had its own set of rules and special features. It was easy to see how veterans could be overwhelmed and might not receive a benefit they had earned because they were unaware of it. . . . I found the overall process to be complicated, time consuming, and often frustrating.

Part of the reason for this is the way government works. . . .

While working at the VA, I provided information to veterans about the available benefits and reported regularly and publicly about how effectively these benefits were processed. Out of office, I thought more about the veterans’ benefit experience and hoped a book existed that provided needed information. Examining books about veterans’ benefits, I saw many were out of date, often incomplete because they addressed just a few of the many benefits or hard to decipher, providing limited practical help to veterans trying obtain their earned benefits.

I decided to write this book to provide needed information for veterans, answering many of the frequently asked questions that I heard as under secretary of benefits. I wanted to present this information in a straightforward manner so it could be used as a how-to manual for a veteran or family member trying to obtain benefits.

As a reviewer of this book, I wish to emphasize—as the author of “Veteran Benefits for You” pointedly asserts—this is a “how-to” information manual. It IS NOT an exposé on present and past travails of the VA, nor does it purport to be that. And THE BOOK ISN’T a polemic against those who have attacked the VA. And IT ISN’T a treatise on how the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, i.e., Congress, and the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, can improve the VA.

THE BOOK IS, THEN, A STEP-BY-STEP INSTRUCTION MANUAL. And it is extremely useful to veterans and their families in that regard.

The author takes the VA as it is, and he confines himself to explain how a veteran or his or her family members can effectively and efficiently navigate the system's thorny complexities and nuances.

The book cuts through all the journalistic and political claptrap and garbage. It gets to the crux of the matter at hand: Informing a veteran and his family of, one, the benefits to which a veteran or his family is entitled, two, the services available, and three, the processes for accessing each of the services to which a veteran or family is entitled.

Lawrence’s book was published by Humanix Books in 2023.

If more recent information is available, since the publication of this book, “Veterans Benefits for You” points the veteran or family member in the right direction.

The salient aim of the book is to ensure that a veteran or family member is aware of and receives all the services and benefits he or she is entitled to without exerting unnecessary time, money, and energy to obtain access to those services and benefits.

Before the publication of this book, veterans and their families have had to endure frustration, distress, and emotional and physical exhaustion, but no longer, now that this book exists.

This bureaucratic nightmare was and is unnecessary and undeserved; reprehensible and incomprehensible.

All American citizens owe this group of citizens their undying gratitude and respect for having placed life and limb on the line to secure and preserve our Nation’s Freedoms and Liberty—such fundamental Rights and Liberty that no other Nation on Earth possesses or even envisions.

Notwithstanding that “Veterans Benefits for You” is written for veterans and their families, non-veterans may also wish to read this book.

Lawrence’s book will help non-veterans gain an appreciation for the hurdles veterans and their families routinely face and must overcome to obtain the benefits and services sorely needed, clearly earned, and richly deserved.

______________________________________

*In a follow-up article, Roger Katz, Co-Founder of the Arbalest Quarrel, will provide the reader with a synopsis of each chapter.

______________________________________

“SACRED TRUST,” BY JODY HICE Reviewed by Stephen L. D’Andrilli

“Sacred Trust” is a good book, written by a good man, on an urgent matter affecting our Nation: “Election Integrity and the Will of the People” (the book’s subtitle).*

The author is a family man, humble and respectable, honorable and incorruptible. A devoted and loving husband and caring father, he is uncompromising in his Christian faith and unwavering in his ethical and moral convictions.

The author earned a bachelor’s degree from Asbury College, a Master’s of Divinity degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Doctor of Ministry from Luther Rice Seminary. He then served as a Pastor in Texas and Georgia, for almost 25 years.”

As a United States Congressman, Jody Hice represented Georgia’s 10th Congressional District for 8 years.

Hice was the host of radio’s “The Jody Hice Show” for over a decade and is now a frequent media commentator.

He presently serves as Senior Vice President of the Family Research Council and is President of “FRC Action,” the Council’s Legislative Affiliate.

Hice is an American Patriot in the truest sense of the word who loves his Country deeply and wishes to preserve and protect it in the form the Nation’s First Patriots gave to us. His book, “Sacred Trust,” reflects that fervent hope and desire.

The subject he writes about is of utmost concern and compelling importance to all Americans who love their Country, and who, like the author, recognize it is in grave danger of faltering and want to return it to its former greatness.

The upcoming 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, only a few months away, will determine the direction of our Nation.

The stakes could not be higher. We will either have a Country in the form the Founders gave us—a “Return” to a truly free Constitutional Republic—or we will continue on our present trajectory to a full-blown totalitarian dictatorship. This is our Nation’s “Final Battle.”

Hice points to the “threats against our culture and traditional way of life.”

He makes abundantly clear that “those elements that have historically set America apart from every other country in the world now seem to be hanging by a thread.”

It isn’t overstatement when he says, “Our beloved country is in a state of emergency!”

But how and why did we come to this condition? Did this emergency just happen or did it happen because destructive forces at work in our Country made it happen?

Hice makes clear this is no accident. He says,

The challenges we face are not caused by fate or the Bard’s ‘outrageous fortune.’ Every issue we face is the outcome of decisions, and these choices are being made by leaders. Just as decisions have consequences, leadership also has consequences.  And it is from this perspective that our current national ‘emergency’ has a degree of hope. Those leaders who have made poor decisions can and should be replaced with better stewards for America’s future. Our system of governance allows the people to elect new public servants who can reverse or alter old decisions and correct the outcome of harmful consequences. But this can only happen once a gut-check of reality and action is interjected.

Hice continues,

. . . [T]he ballot is the single most powerful tool Americans wield to hold their representatives accountable to policies that align with the majority, and policies that defend unalienable and constitutional rights that protect us all. If elected leaders fail to adequately represent their constituents, they should face the inevitable wrath of voters at the next election. They can and should be removed. It’s a beautiful and effective system we possess!

But how can Americans be assured the people they want in high Government office are the people they elected to high office?

Sure, Americans can vote out “leaders who have made poor decisions,” says Hice, but that can only happen if we have fair elections. The author knows this and it worries him that our elections may not be fair.

He says,

. . . [W]hat if our ability to replace inferior leaders is taken away? What if the voice of the people is denigrated and another person or group determines leaders for us. Just imagine, what if we had no voice at all. What if the constitutional right to be a self-determined society that chooses our own leaders, laws, and structure was strictly forbidden. What if our votes didn’t even matter and elections were effectively rigged? Worse yet, what if I told you that dystopian reality may be closer than you think?

This is distressing. Our votes must matter. But how do we make sure our votes will count?

Realizing a divided Congress is not doing its part, the Republican National Committee has taken up the slack.

Because of the crucial importance of this 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, the Republican National Committee (RNC) was compelled, for the first time, to establish a special “Election Integrity Program” to get the vote out and to ensure against voter fraud.

Hice would agree with the need for this. Preserving our Nation’s Free Constitutional Republic for ourselves, for our children, and those generations of Americans yet to come is the ultimate aim.

The author holds out hope, saying,

This book is not a prognosticator of doom; it is a Klaxon of hope and defiance. Our great nation is not beyond hope. Our challenges may be more complicated than those endured by past generations, but they can be solved.

Maintaining Election Integrity is the mechanism to accomplish that aim, and it is an ongoing process, not a one-off concern. As he says,

“America and the principles that make her great, are ultimately what this book is about.” But “the intent of this book is a treatise on integrity.”

It took a revolution in 1776 to create a Nation grounded on those principles.

But Americans have had to remain vigilant ever since to keep their Country and its sacred principles secure from the many threats that continuously sought the destruction of both. This requires strength of will and “integrity” of spirit.

Hice points to “threats against our culture and traditional way of life. . . . People are looking for answers; they are looking for hope. America is too great and too remarkable to finish this way. The world desperately needs a strong and healthy United States, and as individual citizens, we deeply desire to pass the priceless treasure of freedom to our children and grandchildren.”

We Americans, alive today, find ourselves at a crossroads, a once-in-a-lifetime juncture.

There is measured hope for the future juxtaposed against the real possibility of irreparable harm.

This tug between hope of redemption for our Nation and fear of irrevocable loss plays out in Hice’s accounts of events in his life as he relates in each Chapter.

Hice warns Americans “. . . that [a] dystopian reality may be closer than we think.”

What accounts for this dire forecast?

It is this: The dogma and cult of Secularism, promoted by the present Administration, infecting every institution of America.

Secularism is insinuating itself into the psyche of many Americans. Ruthless, evil people wielding vast power are responsible for this.

There is a deliberate, concerted effort afoot to transform our Nation into a thing unrecognizable and awful—a thing anathema to America and repugnant to our Nation’s Founders.

Our Nation was founded on and continues to thrive precisely because of our Christian values and principles, not despite them. This confounds and enrages the Secularists. They denounce Christianity and every aspect of it, and they do so vehemently. Their attacks become more and more flagrant and outrageous.

They no longer attempt to disguise their efforts, to couch their efforts in deceptive phrasing and nuance. They are now completely open about their aims and agenda.

Secularism has emerged in recent years as America’s New Religion and it has grown in influence given the power and money behind it. It has become a prominent cult in America, backed by a renegade Government, a sympathetic Press and social media, and an army of “influencers” forcing itself on the Country.

We see the bizarre, abhorrent effects of Secularism in Government, in our public education system; in our colleges and universities; in the Press, and cable and broadcast news organizations. We see the negative impact of Secularism in social media, and in sports and entertainment, and even in financial institutions.

Nothing remains sacred, revered, untouched. Everything is profaned by this plague of Secularism.

The dire effects of this plague are everywhere. It cannot be ignored. It is self-evident.

America has become a very different nation today than it was only a few years ago.

We have become a dangerously divided Country plagued by American’s fear and hatred toward one another over differences of opinions and ideologies.

The proponents of Secularism provoke and nurture this. They invite societal chaos in an orchestrated effort to confuse and demoralize people and to tear the Nation apart.

The issues of open borders, unvetted immigrants, random and rampant violent crime, and illegal drugs flooding our Country from outside, killing our children, consume us daily.

There is understandable mistrust of those presently in Government who are leading us. Government leaders and bureaucrats insist that our system of justice is fair and that all are equal under the law and that our Nation follows the “Rule of Law.”

But it is obvious Americans live under a two-tier system of justice. The Government’s lies are so blatant that Americans wonder whether the Government expects them to believe the lies told, or if the Government, so contemptuous of average Americans, simply doesn’t care whether they believe the deceit and deception or not.

Americans are experiencing the pain of spiraling, uncontrolled inflation because of the Government’s exorbitant, careless spending of hard-earned taxpayer money; trillions of dollars in national debt, and cost of living increases, are destroying the middle class and driving many Americans into penury.

The Government denies this too even as the Nation suffers under the weight of runaway inflation and the Government blithely continues to churn out worthless paper currency.

Unbridled Government corruption; misuse of its power and authority, heedless intrusion into the rights and liberties of the American people; justifiable concerns over quality education, health care, jobs, and the economy; massive energy inefficiencies; growing threats of terrorism at home; new wars and violent upheaval around the world; military unpreparedness; the breakdown of the family as a cohesive unit; blatant, incessant attacks on Christianity; the propounding and dissemination of alien dogmas on Americans, such as wokeness, identity politics, disparate impact thinking, and transgenderism; and the use of tools like censorship, cancel culture, shadow banning, and doxing to hurt people and to crush dissent; and a host of other matters and issues pervade and continue to trouble us.

All this, and a host of other serious matters, issues, and concerns pervade and continue to trouble us deeply.

The Country is falling apart at the seams. And it is all by design. But the Government and the Secularists deflect responsibility, directing it consciously and unconscionably on the most innocent of institutions, the Christian Church.

These would-be Secularist destroyers, of everything we cherish and hold dear, systematically and unceasingly attack Christianity, the Judeo-Christian ethic, and believers’ faith in God.

They do this because they despise and reject out-of-hand the idea of “Moral Truth” as a thing “Absolute and Eternal.” For them, there are no fundamental “Moral Truths.” They reject the concept of ‘Moral Truth’ out of hand.

The Secularists perceive Morality as Relative: “Conditional, Temporal and Impermanent,” relevant only to particular people at a particular time and a particular place, and subject to revision at the Government’s whim at the drop of a hat.

Proponents of Secularism are inherently suspicious of and jealous of the idea of power and authority higher than that of the State and seek to crush anyone they perceive as an enemy.

A tyrannical Government allows Secularists to do this callously, caustically, and injudiciously, and engages in this, itself.

Despite the despicable actions of these malevolent forces, they cannot dent the fact of “Moral Truth.” For it springs from and resides solely in God, not in the State.

Further, Natural Law Rights, codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights, are bestowed on and in man by the Divine Creator, and rest far beyond the lawful power of the State (Government) to abrogate, denigrate, eradicate, alter, or ignore.

The Tyrannical Executive Branch of the Federal Government presently in control of the Country, along with its army of Secularists, persist in their efforts to destroy America’s indomitable spirit.

These constant, withering attacks on the Country and the psyche of Americans do have a deleterious effect that is undeniable. But there is notable aggressive pushback.

The results of the 2024 Presidential Election, if fairly conducted, will tell the world that Americans have rejected Secularism and the things the Cult of Secularism is inextricably tied to: Tyranny and Despotism.

Instead of relenting during this Election cycle, they are doubling down on their efforts to impose their will on the Country and the American people. They can’t help but do this. They are vacuous shells, empty husks because they have rejected the Divine Creator. And these foul beings would dare to instill their depravity on all Americans and the rest of the world as well.

Those who seek to annihilate a Free Republic, and to erect a despotic Government in its stead, insist on dictating law and morality to the public as they wish. They see both law and morality as ad hoc things useful as agents of control. They are doubling down on their efforts to impose their will on the Country and the American people.

Secularists are incapable of recognizing a spiritual, timeless dimension to life and consciousness. They only perceive the physical and transitory.

Hice finds this deeply troubling, and is urged to say, “. . . although it is not the focus of this book, America is facing a spiritual problem.”

Yet, “Sacred Trust” is not and isn’t meant to be a religious tract.

Still, the notion of integrity, as a virtue, is the central theme of the book and that concept is not distinct from but is integral to God as the embodiment of Moral Perfection. This is tied to spirituality—things beyond the physical.

Integrity is mentioned in every chapter, and the matters discussed encapsulate a lesson that Americans should ponder.

Any serious discussion of integrity necessarily embraces spirituality. Embracing “Integrity” is the ammunition to be employed against the forces of Secularism.

How do Americans successfully wage war against the unholy forces of Secularism? They must infuse themselves with the virtue of “Integrity.” If Americans embrace integrity, they will demand the same of Government servants and all their institutions, including the Electoral System.

Embracing “Integrity” is the ammunition to be employed against the forces of Secularism.

Integrity, as a virtue, is inextricably linked to the subject of morality and the concept of “Good” and “Evil.”

God imbues man with the gift of Morality, with the knowledge of Good and Evil, as opposites.

As a being of Free Will, Man knows the difference between right and wrong, and between good and evil. He may choose either.

If he strives to be virtuous, to be seen by other men as a person who is true to his word—as a man of integrity—he would hope that other men and the leaders of the Nation would do the same.

If so, our Nation will remain true to the precepts upon which it is grounded, the U.S. Constitution. If not, the Nation will fall and disintegrate, and it is beginning to disintegrate from within.

Is this to suggest that our Nation must or ought to be perceived as a theocracy to survive as a Free Republic? No.

Hice says this:

The United States is not a theocracy, but it is a nation whose principles and philosophy are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. America’s founding seems to clearly reveal that biblical principles are intended to inform, without dictating the laws of this land. Leftists balk when you bring up such assertions. They maintain that secular morality is superior and that any Christian influence on laws should be barred under the principles of separating church and state. I’m not arguing for a biblical state, but a nation must have a set of morals. It must have shared ideas and common ideology of freedom, liberty and individualism. Without that foundation of integrity and unified moral underpinning, the American system of government, impressive though it may be, is ultimately no more than a city built on sand.”

What Hice discusses here is crucially important. It involves a legal as well as a moral issue that catapulted him from the pulpit to Congress. And it is an issue continuing to play out today.

The issue involves the “Ten Commandments.” Hice relates this experience at length for the reader in his book. And it is cited at length below.

Following a few moves to different churches, I eventually became the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Georgia. . . . The church started to grow rapidly. . . . Amid the growth, we attracted a wide range of people, including several involved in local politics, including county commissioners. Upon discussion and approval by the congregation, our church decided to purchase a large copy of the Ten Commandments and donate it to the county for display in the courthouse. In accordance with county commission policy, they held public meetings and debates about the gift, and following all the procedural requirements, they voted to approve the display.

Everything was fine until one day in June 2003 . . . [one of the county commissioners] . . . with deep concern in his voice . . . informed me that the ACLU had filed a lawsuit against Barrow County to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse as a matter of ‘separation of church and state.’ . . . it would cost a fortune to defend the case and the county did not have the financial ability to protect itself.

. . . I was not blind to the greater principles at stake. The First Amendment guaranteed our right to display the Ten Commandments, and we would not be told otherwise. No matter the legal fees or lawyer tricks of the ACLU, we would defend our rights.

. . . The legal battle lasted approximately three years and cost about $300,000. I kept my promise, and the Barrow County taxpayers didn’t have to pay for the lawsuit. In the end, we lost the case, and the Ten Commandments were ordered out of the courthouse. Seeing the Word of God expelled from the house from whose laws it was derived was a sad and dark day. How could this be? The Ten Commandments are present in multiple places in our nation’s capital. They are the foundation from which our laws emerge. . . every dollar America mints clearly states, ‘In God We Trust.’

Nonetheless, the Decalogue was removed from the courthouse and we had to determine our next move. . . . Then on May 7, 2012, after six years of dedicated involvement that resulted in an equal share of reassuring and disappointing days, our toils finally bore fruit. . . . I was invited by Governor Nathan Deal to join him and others in a signing ceremony of a new law (HB766) that declared a nine-document historical exhibit, which includes the Ten Commandments, as legal to display in any government building in the state of Georgia. . . . The bill served as ‘a stake in the ground’ for other counties to follow.”

Jump forward to 2024, twenty-one years after the ACLU filed suit against the placing of the Ten Commandments in Pastor Hice’s Church. The ACLU has stated its intention to file a lawsuit against Louisiana for passing a law mandating the Ten Commandments be placed in every public school in the State.

Once again, the ACLU will proclaim that the State Law violates the “Separation of Church and State” Clause of the First Amendment. See, e.g., the article on the local Louisiana news station WCNT.

This case will receive National attention and is likely to eventually wend its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is singularly odd and disturbing that the ACLU becomes unhinged with the display of the Ten Commandments in Churches and in public schools, but sees nothing amiss in the placing of “Pride” Flags and “Black Lives Matter” signs in public classrooms.

Why is it and how is it that symbols of this new Secular Religion that most Americans find repugnant and appalling are proclaimed to fall within the purview of the First Amendment’s “Freedom of Speech” Clause and must be thrust on all of us to suffer firsthand?

Yet, at the same time, we are told the “Word of God” is found, oddly, undeserving of protection under that same First Amendment of the United States which Americans venerate and cherish: The right to “Freedom of Speech?”

Why should the profane and perverse be deserving of protection under our Constitution but the sacrosanct and inviolate not be deserving of that same protection? Such an idea is not only logically unsound, it’s absurd.

Are we Americans expected to abide by Secularism’s embrace of symbols that offend Christian values dating back millennia to the time of Christ, and that are reflected in our Nation’s heritage and our core values going back over two centuries to the dawn of our Republic? If so, why is that?

Who are these Secularists in the ACLU, in Government, and in saccharine sweet, sanctimonious “Blue States” to dictate morality to the entire Country?

Such are the depths of insanity the Secularists would dare to plummet our Country. And such is the arrogance they exhibit and the disdain they have for the majority of Americans.

How long must our citizenry tolerate their endless insolence, invective, and grandiosity?

Are we to allow our sacred symbols and emblems that have defined Americans as Christians and that have defined America as a Christian Nation since its founding, enshrined in our history, heritage, and culture, to be side-lined and eventually erased, ostensibly in adoration to an obscenity—the deity of crass and coarse Secularism?

Are Americans expected to endorse irreverent and bizarre Neo-Marxist emblems that brazenly embrace a “Neo-Black” racism directed against “Whites?” And are we to accede to flags and other emblems that extoll, as virtues, unnatural, sinful conduct?

Is the flaunting of these coarse, vulgar, depraved symbols and emblems to go unchallenged without a whimper of disapproval, let alone outright condemnation as things both alien and antithetical to our Nation’s core ethical values and principles?

Are Americans expected to remain silent as the Secularists usher in a new socio-political era for America, promulgated on the ideology of Neo-Marxist Collectivism and the Anti-ethical system of Moral Relativism?

Are we to suffer the injudicious plastering—hither and yon throughout the Land—of the symbols of alien ideologies and perverse belief systems, antithetical to Christianity and to the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism that are the foundation of our Free Constitutional Republic and of our Fundamental, Unalienable, Eternal Rights and Liberties?

Americans must take a stand against the dangerous nonsense the Secularists proselytize. They will have a chance to do so at the Ballot Box this November.

The irrationality of a Secularist organization like the ACLU is apparent in the way they use the First Amendment as a cudgel against Christians. The ACLU treats the “Freedom of Speech” Clause of the First Amendment as antagonistic to the “Separation of Church and State” Clause. They are not. “Freedom of Speech” and “Separation of Church and State” are not mutually antagonistic. They cohere.

An American’s display of the Ten Commandments in our Nation is protected speech.

To suggest that spiritual symbols, emblems, and artifacts must be construed within the confines of “Separation of Church and State” involves a severely constricted, distorted, and constrained view of the parameters of the Fundamental Right to “Freedom of Speech,” which are, contrary to the ACLU’s strained interpretation, extraordinarily broad.

If not, then, shall we not infer by logical implication that symbols and emblems and paraphernalia of Secularism and Satanism are to be construed as “Religious” things (Anti-Religious, rather than Non-Religious) as well, and therefore must also be subject to “Separation of Church and State” legal analysis? How does the ACLU respond to that?

I would hazard a guess that many more Americans would (and do) abhor the installation of idols reflecting demon worship, loathe Flags and Signs extolling a Racist-Marxist group such as BLM or Flags of the nations of our enemies, and detest “Gay” and “Transgender” “Pride Flags much more so than they would object, if at all, to public display of overt Christian symbols or a Judeo-Christian symbol such as the “Ten Commandments.”

Hice is forthright when he says, “We live in the greatest country in the world.”

But will it remain so in the face of the powerful, ruthless forces marshaled against us that intend to destroy us?

Hice continues,

These United States of America are worth fighting for, and unless people take a stand, right now, there is so much that will be lost. And once gone, it will never be restored. America, and the principles that make her great, are ultimately what this book is about. We cannot sit idly by while the foundations of the country are being tampered with and gradually destroyed. But, for our efforts to succeed there must be election security, and election security’s most fundamental component is integrity. 

Hice is correct.

He says emphatically, “Without integrity, elections cannot be secure. Without integrity, neither the government nor any other sector of our society can long avoid corruption and abusive behavior. Indeed, integrity is essential for any civil society.”

Jody Hice sees all of this and wishes to do something about it.

His book serves as an incisive weapon of truth against the flurry of lies, and deceitful actions by those in Government and outside it who hate our Nation, wish to tear it apart, and bring it down.

A Country that has no firm moral footing in God, is doomed eventually and inevitably to annihilation from within, as the people of that Country will take on themselves the inherent moral flaws of that Country as they become indoctrinated in the falsehoods and propaganda perpetrated on them by the Government and by groups with personal agendas antagonistic to the well-being of our Country, its Christian principles, and its people.

This is occurring more and more rapidly in our Country.

The author’s message is clear, categorical, and unequivocal. A truly moral man will seek to act by that morality, and will stay true to the virtue of “Integrity.”

And, if men are imbued with integrity, then their institutions will reflect that virtue as well, and the Country will be Fair and Just and both Country and people will prosper.

But, if men are not imbued with integrity, that will be reflected in their institutions, and that bodes ill for the Nation and its people. Nation and people will suffer horribly. America will effectively cease to exist. The forces of darkness will have triumphed.

Integrity must therefore pervade every institution of the Country and must be fixed in every American’s being if the Nation is to prevail against the forces of darkness that, at present, have the upper hand.

If more of the Electorate embraces Integrity, then they will see through the evil of the present Biden Administration, will not be duped into voting for Biden for President in 2024, but will reject him out of hand. They will vote for Trump. But will Americans’ vote for Trump be enough? It will but only if the Presidential Election is fair.

What can the American people do?

First, they must inculcate integrity. That will protect them against the deceptions, distortions, and outright lies perpetrated by a seditious Press and social media, and will maximize voter turnout for Trump, overwhelming the small group of cultists and uninformed.

Second, they must insist on the integrity of their elections.

The present evil leaders of our Country intend to stay in power.

They will try to manipulate the 2024 Presidential election to ensure they remain in power. No one reflecting on this would seriously doubt it. Manipulation of the ballots must be stopped in its tracks.

Hice says the American people must take an active part to prevent this. They must insist the Election is conducted fairly.

The author ends his book with this plea:

“So the calling is clear, and the responsibility is undeniable. We cannot simply talk about election security; we must be involved to ensure that it is protected at all costs. I plead with you, jump into the arena!”

______________________________________________

*This Book Review serves as a preface to a comprehensive analysis of “Sacred Trust” the Arbalest Quarrel is working on. It is a remarkable book and requires thorough treatment. We are doing that and will post our analysis on completion as a separate article on our website.  

MY FIREARMS ARE MY PROPERTY! NOT THE STATE’S!

When Americans challenge State actions that unlawfully target the fundamental right to armed self-defense, they universally point to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights where the fundamental, eternal, and unalienable right is codified.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is concise, clear, coherent, and categorical.

But there is another right, equally important. Yet, it is one that gets scant attention.

It is a fundamental, eternal, unalienable, and unassailable right NO less sacred and profound than the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

It is a Right contiguous to and one that complements the Right contained in the Second Amendment. In fact, without it, the Right to armed self-defense is incomplete, attenuated, and devoid of effect.

It is the right of Americans to the exclusive ownership, possession and enjoyment of and sovereign dominion over their property.

Americans will find the codification of this Natural Law Right in the last portion of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment says,

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The portion of the Fifth Amendment we direct our attention to here  is referred to in law as the “Takings Clause.”

Several State Governments, and the Federal Government too, have, through the passing years and decades, denied individuals the right to own and possess firearms and component parts of firearms, such as, but not limited to ammunition magazines, suppressors, and, yes, “bump stocks.”

This Government action violates the “Takings Clause” and “Due Process Clause” of the Fifth Amendment, and it is in violation also of the “Equal Protection Clause” of the Fifth Amendment (which is tacitly invoked in the Due Process Clause of that Amendment). And it is in violation of the “Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But of all the Natural Law Rights of Man—those enumerated in the First Eight Amendments and in the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights and those unenumerated Rights established in the Ninth—a few are front and center because they are central to maintenance of one’s physical safety and individual autonomy.

They are:

• The Natural Law Right of Self-Preservation (of Mind, Body, Spirit, and  Soul) through any means necessary to secure that Right (of which the keeping and bearing of arms was, for centuries, and remains today, the best and most effective means available to secure self-preservation), and

• One’s Independence of Thought (manifested in the Natural Law Right of Free Speech), and

• One’s exclusive Right of Ownership and Possession of, and the Enjoyment of, and Dominion over his Property.

The Right of Free Speech and the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms are well known. The Right to own and possess property is less so.

But is the import of the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment truly pertinent to and crucial to the exercise of the right to armed self-defense? It is.

Consider, what would it mean for the Common Man to have an individual right to keep and bear arms if he can be readily deprived of that “property interest” in those arms through State action.

Does that not serve to nullify the notion of an absolute, exclusive ownership of (sole title to) and possession of and enjoyment of the arms he keeps and bears?

Plainly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to have an exclusive ownership and possessory interest in those firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, and all the other paraphernalia and accessories associated thereto, would severely, negatively impact the right to armed self-defense.

That brings us to the meaning of the “Takings Clause.”

What is it, how does it operate, and why do Americans hear so little about it?

To get a handle on this, it helps to look at the salient parts of it, as written in the Fifth Amendment:

•  “Private Property”

•  “Taken” (“To Take From”)

•  “(For) Public Use”

• “(But Only If there is) Just Compensation (For The Taking)

Some of the terminology seems clear. Some of it doesn’t.

The conjunction of two or more of the expressions is just as confusing for the average person, and no less so for lawyers and jurists.

The Federal Government, and many State Governments— those in “Blue” States, of course, but some “Red States” too—demonstrate marked suspicion of the Common Man, and convey a dismissive attitude toward, or otherwise exhibit an outright abhorrence of, the notion of ‘Individual Rights’ and the notion of “Natural Law Rights.”

This explains why Governments routinely blatantly ignore our Nation’s Bill of Rights and run roughshod over them and the Common Man.

Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition) defines each of these expressions.

The expression ‘Private Property’ means, property “protected from public appropriation.”

This is interesting when one comes to see just how blatantly, flagrantly, and cavalierly the State and Federal Governments routinely take private property away from America’s citizens—sometimes appropriated for the public use and sometimes not.

In law there are many kinds of Private Property. When talking of Private Property, unlike discussions about Public Property, we are concerned with property belonging to individuals, and what that means.

There are two broad groups of ‘Private Property’: ‘Real Property’ and ‘Personal Property.’

‘Real Property’ means ‘land and anything grown on it, attached to, or erected on it, excluding anything that can be severed without injury to the land.’

‘Personal Property’ means a movable [tangible, physical object] or intangible thing [such as a trademark, tradename, copyright, and patent] that is subject to ownership and not classified as real property.

‘Take’ or ‘Taken’ (i.e., the ‘Taking’ of, appropriating Property’) means ‘to obtain possession or control [over] whether legally or illegally;’ ‘seize with authority, to confiscate, or apprehend;’ ‘to acquire for public use by eminent domain (of a governmental entity.’

‘Public Use’ means ‘application or employment of something, especially a long-continued possession . . . as distinguished from possession or employment that is temporary or occasional.’

‘Just Compensation’ means ‘. . . a payment by the government for property it has taken under eminent domain—usually the property’s fair market value, so that the owner is theoretically no worse off after the taking.’

Since the “Takings Clause” is most often used in connection with the concept of ‘eminent domain,’ we need to define that expression as well even though it isn’t mentioned in the Fifth Amendment.

‘Eminent Domain’ means ‘the inherent power of a governmental entity to take privately owned property, especially land, and convert it to public use, subject to reasonable compensation for the taking.’

The question for us, as supporters of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is two-fold:

First, since the Founders recognized the Natural Law Right of one to own property, did the notion of Government Taking of Property apply to every kind of property conceivable that a person may own in his individual capacity? Specifically, if a person has a Natural Law Right to own and possess firearms—a right that shall not be infringed—under what set of circumstances is a State taking of that Property (firearms, or ammunition, or component parts of firearms, or any related paraphernalia in connection with firearms) lawful, if ever?

Second, assuming arguendo, the State can lawfully “take” one’s firearms and component parts, and ammunition, etc., must it provide just compensation (or, for that matter, any compensation) to the injured American citizen, just as the Government must do so when exercising the “power” of Government under the principle of eminent domain (even if it does not have the “right” of “eminent domain) (or does “might (power) equal right”))?

Courts have dealt with these matters, but rarely in a comprehensive or sound, analytical, legal and logical way. And unfortunately, often in a slipshod, inconsistent, and even underhanded manner.

Courts set their imprimatur on Executive Branch of Government action that is dubious or outright illegal. That imprimatur operates as a makeweight to give the appearance of Governmental conduct that is lawful when it isn’t.

Governments have agendas. Those agendas are grounded in belief systems and ideologies antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and to Natural Law.

Because the “Taking” of private property is an arcane and nebulous issue, unscrupulous Governments, both State and Federal, operated by ruthless, immoral or amoral men, deliberately obfuscate, skirt over, or openly defy the import and purport of the Constitution and the fundamental, unalienable Rights and Liberties of the people.

The U.S. Supreme Court needs to address and clarify the obscure points of the “Takings Clause” given its dire impact over the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, and the inexorable weakening of the Sovereignty of the American people over Government.

This manifests when Government executive officers and Courts routinely misuse the “Takings Clause” and usurp the authority of the American people over Government by using powers beyond the scope established in the Constitution.

A reckoning is past due.

We may begin with these truisms:

“The right of a person to own property, like the right to armed self-defense, predates man’s crafting of government; it does not rely on the Constitution for its existence.

The Bill of Rights codifies rights pre-existent and therefore internal and intrinsic to Man’s being and essence and are therefore removed from State control and interference.

The right to armed self-defense is inextricably bound to the unalienable, unassailable right to self-defense, that is to say, self-preservation. Firearms are the best means available today as in the distant past to best secure one’s survival when threatened by beast, by man-beasts, and by the man-beast of Government. Armed self-defense, then, is not distinct from the general right to self-defense. It is subsumed in it.

Similarly, the Right of a person to own, and possess private property, and to be free from Government intrusion into one’s exclusive ownership of firearms, ammunition, and accessories, is and must be absolute as must his dominion over that property. Therefore, Government encroachment on one’s absolute title over and enjoyment of his property is and must be unalienable and unassailable.

As one Law Professor writes, pointing to the preexistence of the Natural Law Right to own and possess property:

The Takings Clause, presumes the preexistence of something it refers to as ‘property.’ The Constitution does not purport to create property. . . . The Constitution uses the word ‘property.’ The Constitution certainly did not invent the word ‘property.’ The word ‘property’ predates the Constitution. The meaning of the word ‘property’ predates the Constitution. Without the Constitution, property, particularly private property, exists and would exist. No grant or privilege or law of the United States creates ‘property.’ ‘Property’ does not owe its existence to the government any more than human beings (people) owe their physical existence or their rights [like the right to armed self-defense] to the government. This Pre-Existence Principle provides part of the foundation to the Takings Clause.

The principle of pre-existence of ‘property’ leads to the second Takings Clause principle, one regarding government power. From the power to wage war to the power to regulate commerce, these powers, which often require government use of property, cannot be exercised through taking property unless the government pays compensation. To suggest a specific example, the Constitution expressly authorizes the creation of post roads and post offices. In order to create post offices and post roads, the United States government needs land, needs to use land. Inasmuch as it did not have land for post roads or post offices at the founding, it would be required to acquire that land. Notwithstanding the very specific power  to acquire land, the Constitution declared that such acquisition power should be subject to, perhaps subservient to, private property, prohibiting taking without payment of just compensation. This discussion leads to another foundational principle: private property expressly limits government power.”

3 Ala. C.R. & C.L. L. Rev. 25, 66-67 (2013), by Stephen Durden.

While the taking of Private “Real” Property (as opposed to Private “Personal” Property)—when necessitated for public use—has a long-standing jurisprudential history, the taking is lawful only so long as the Government provides “Just Compensation” to the owner harmed by the taking and there is a legitimate Public Use for it.

This invariably or almost always involves the taking of “Real Property.” And the questions that arise are whether there is a public use for the property that overrides the owner’s legal title to and possessory interest in that property and whether the owner receives just compensation (generally understood as “fair market value”) for it.

The application of “Takings” of personal property when the Government has no public use for it and provides no compensation to the person is another matter entirely.

The “Taking” of that “Personal Property” is a stretch that doesn’t pass Constitutional muster, especially when the property at issue is inextricably tied to another unalienable, unassailable right, namely and specifically, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Yet, Courts in “Blue” State jurisdictions routinely take that property in the absence of providing “Just Compensation” for it and in the absence of any Public Use for it. But there is an issue that takes precedence over this one: Is the taking of a person’s firearms or components of those firearms ever Constitutionally permissible even if, theoretically, the State did provide “Just Compensation” for the property, and a legitimate public use did exist to meet the Fifth Amendment requirements?

The salient problem thus remains because such “Taking” will always collide with the right omnipresent in the Second Amendment.

When faced with an actual challenge to a Government action grounded on a Fifth Amendment “Taking” of firearms or firearm accessories, sans “Just Compensation to the owner, of the property, and when there is presumptively a lack of public use for the property, Courts brazenly rule the action legal and Constitutional anyway.

They do this even though on its face such action violates the Fifth Amendment “Takings Clause,” and, by logical implication, violates the Second Amendment as well.

Let’s consider a couple cases.

First, we consider the case, Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs vs. Attorney General of New Jersey, 910 F.3d 106 (3rd Cir. 2018).

This case involved a challenge to New Jersey’s LCM Ban. The Court justifies (really rationalizes) the ammunition magazine ban on “Mass Shootings.”

“New Jersey has made it illegal to possess a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.”

“Mass Shootings “ from 2006 to 2015 served as the pretext for this law in NJ and in nine other States. And by bringing up the pretext for the Act as the first matter discussed in the Court opinion, a person can already see where the Court’s rulings are headed.

Civilians are not permitted to continue to own and possess magazines defined as ‘LCM’ (Large Capacity Magazines).

And take note of the fact, as the Court points out: both retired New Jersey Police officers and active duty officers are exempted from the ban. Fancy that!

How does the average Common Man who is not an active duty or retired police officer comply with the Act?

The Court says this:

The Act provides several ways for those who are not exempt from the law to comply. Specifically, the legislation gives LCM owners until December 10, 2018 to (1) modify their LCMs ‘to accept ten rounds or less’; (2) render firearms with LCMs or the LCM itself inoperable; (3) register firearms with LCMs that cannot be ‘modified to accommodate ten or less rounds.’ (4) transfer the firearm or LCM to an individual or entity entitled to own or possess it; or (5) surrender the firearm or LCM to law enforcement.

On the day the Governor signed the Act into law, Plaintiffs, NJ Rifle and Pistol Clubs and two individuals filed suit under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, alleging violations of the Second Amendment, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Two of the three judges found for the NJ-AG, with the third judge dissenting.

On the Fifth Amendment challenge, the Court Majority ruled that the Government’s Fifth Amendment Taking of the LCMs is neither a physical taking by the Government nor a constructive, onerous “regulatory” Taking and thereupon concluded the New Jersey Government did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Huh?

The Government is infringing on a person’s ownership and possessory interest in a major component of his firearm.

The owner must either modify the magazine at his expense or destroy it. If he chooses to modify the “LCM,” this reduces the effectiveness of it.

Moreover, this act will likely void the manufacturer’s warranty since the magazine is an integral component of the weapon made to function in accordance with the manufacturer’s design and engineering of it.

If the property owner sells the ammunition magazine, that sale is made under duress. He is therefore unlikely to receive fair market value for it.

If he surrenders the magazine to the police, under compunction of State law, he receives no compensation for it.

If he cannot modify it, and cannot readily obtain a fair value (Just Compensation) for it, and wishes to retain possession of it, but without rendering it inoperable, he has to make the case that he cannot modify it without effectively destroying it.

In that event, he must register the “LCM” separately from the weapon even though it is an integral part of it. That places both him and the banned component under a perpetual microscope.

Registration effectively infringes the New Jersey owner’s absolute control over the magazine, as the State demands that his right to exclusive ownership is conditioned on the owner’s compliance with mandatory and draconian law enforcement procedures. Such registration procedures had not hitherto existed. The Government acquires constructive title over it. And, of course, the Government could eventually modify the law, requiring “the owner” to surrender or destroy the magazine anyway, during his lifetime. And, what happens after the individual dies? The Government encroaches on the owner’s right to bequeath the “LCM” to an heir, thereby further weakening one’s exclusive right over the property.

In the event of the original owner’s death, the owner’s heir cannot reregister the LCM in the heir’s name. Under State Statute, he must render it inoperable, or transfer it to a person or entity who is entitled to own or possess it, or surrender it to law enforcement.

Note the absence of any discussion of “Public Use” here as the Government tacitly says the LCM has no Public Use.

And, by dictating how “the owner” must comply with the law, the Government is denying the fact of a “Private Use” for the LCM, as well.

This New Jersey law violates one’s Natural Law Property Right in the ammunition magazine. The State Law therefore also operates as a violation of the Natural Law Right to Armed Self-Defense.

In another case, this one out of Rhode Island, Ocean State Tactical, LLC vs. Rhode Island, 646 F. Supp 3d. 368 (D.R.I. 2022), the Court ruled a ban on LCMs without compensation (whether fair or not) does not violate the Takings Clause requirement for Just Compensation requirement because of other considerations that presumptively and effectively nullify the Fifth Amendment requirement.

The Court took it as axiomatic that, where a State acts under the auspices of its “Police Power,” such action overrides Fifth Amendment concerns. How exactly? The Court doesn’t say.

But, as ostensible support for the decision, the Rhode Island Court judge cites several sister court jurisdictions that have upheld bans on all manner of firearms accessories, including bump stocks. However, those findings are not legal precedent in Rhode Island.

In any event, unconstitutional actions of a multiplicity of States do not ipso facto as if by magic, evolve into a constitutional action, overriding the Bill of Rights.

The Court finds the LCM Ban to be a valid exercise of the police power. Statutes similar to Rhode Island's, which outlaw possession of LCMs with no provision for compensation, have been upheld against Takings Cause challenges, as have a number of laws prohibiting particularly deadly firearm accessories. See Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, 910 F.3d 106, 124-25 (3d Cir. 2018), vac. on other gnds sub nom, Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., v. Bruck, 142 S. Ct. 2894, 213 L. Ed. 2d 1108 (June 30, 2022) (LCMs); Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th at 1112 (California statute similar to Rhode Island's); Wiese v. Becerra, 306 F. Supp. 3d at 1198 (California prohibition of LCMs); Cf. Akins, 82 Fed. Cl. at 622-23 (no taking by the ATF's classification of a certain weapon as a "machine gun," thus prohibiting its sale to civilians); Fesjian, 399 at 866 (D.C. 1979) (Firearm Control Act of 1975 prohibiting registration of machine guns not a 5th Amendment taking); Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan, 353 F. Supp. 3d 400, 417 (D. Md. 2018) (ban of bump stocks and other rapid-fire trigger activators not a taking); McCutchen v. United States, 14 F.4th 1355, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (inclusion of bump stocks in category of prohibited machine guns not a taking, even though ATF changed its position); Mitchell Arms, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1, 5 (1992), aff'd, 7 F.3d 212 (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert. den., 511 U.S. 1106, 114 S. Ct. 2100, 128 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1994) (declaration by ATF that semiautomatic assault-type rifles were not suitable for ‘sporting’ purposes, which made them not importable, not a taking); Roberts v. Bondi, No. 8:18-cv-1062-T-33TGW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141261, 2018 WL 3997979, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (prohibition of bump stocks not a taking); Rupp v. Becerra, No. 8:17-cv-00746-MLS-JDE, 2018 WL 2138452, at *8 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2018), rem. for cons. of Bruenth Cir. June 28, 2022) (prohibition of ‘bullet buttons,’ which allowed a quick detaching and replacement of magazine, used in San Bernardino 2015 mass shooting to shoot thirty-six people in less than four minutes, not a taking).”

The cases cited turn the sanctity of the Takings Clause on its head.

Plainly, State Governments that take a person’s private property without any compensation, let alone “fair compensation” make a mockery of the very notion of private personal property rights.

Yet, it begs the very question at issue to say no violation of the “Takings Clause” ensues because Public Policy, “Public Safety,” and the Police Powers of the State render one’s private property considerations moot, even irrelevant.

When the property under attack is necessary to effectuate the most important right of any person, self-preservation, the insouciance exhibited by these State Governments is unsufferable.

These States make patently clear they don’t give a damn about the value of human life.

The fact they don’t even provide for the public safety that they incessantly go on about makes their attack on one’s basic right to take responsibility for his own Personal Safety that much more egregious.

The American who wishes to exercise his right to armed self-defense is asking nothing of the State but to be left alone.

By preventing a person from being left alone, a State is saying one’s life is not his own. A person slowly devolves into a thing, an object. He becomes as much the property of the State as those things, his firearms and accessories, that once were his own.

______________________________________

WHO IS REALLY TO BLAME FOR THE ATF BUMP STOCK BAN RULE?

The Cargill bump stock case decision is worthy of celebration, true. But, had the DOJ-ATF not promulgated the ban, the events leading up to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court, proceeding then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and ultimately to the Supreme Court, would never have happened. There would be no need for the costly, time-consuming lawsuits, for the hand-wringing, and for the righteous rage that arose because of this ban on a perfectly legal semiautomatic rifle component.

So, then, why did the ATF promulgate a rule banning bump stocks? More to the point, who in the Executive Branch of Government at the time ordered the ATF to craft a rule banning them?

To ask the question is to invite deep reflection on it and the need to secure a satisfactory answer for it.

The question submitted is the proverbial “elephant in the room.” Many people fail to notice the elephant and those who do, make a pretense of not noticing it. They walk gingerly around it.

But the elephant must be dealt with head-on. We are dealing here with our most important God-given right, without which our Free Republic cannot exist: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We do not want to see a repeat of this!

The problem is this: The DOJ-ATF ruling came on Donald Trump’s watch, not on Joe Biden’s.

It was Donald Trump who ordered the crafting of the illegal Rule.

Why did he do this? What motivated him? Is there a rational explanation for his action? Is it due to legal or political concerns? If so, does that matter? Is Trump’s action Justifiable? Is it Reasonable? Is it Rational? If not, were there at least pragmatic grounds for it?

Remember, Trump campaigned in 2016 and he continues to campaign today on his avid, unswerving support for the fundamental right of Americans to armed self-defense.

But here he was, using the ATF in a manner reminiscent of Joe Biden, someone who abhors the Second Amendment, who is suspicious of the armed citizen, and who uses Executive Branch departments and agencies to chip away at the exercise of our most important unalienable right.

The Rule banning bump stocks took effect in 2019. At that time, Matt Witaker was acting Attorney General.

He took over as head of the DOJ after Trump had justifiably rid himself and the Nation of Jeff Sessions, the weak AG, originally appointed by Trump, and who then, like a jackass essentially ceded control over the Department to those who used it in a failed  attempt to destroy the Trump Presidency.

Recall the expensive, imbecilic Mueller investigation.

Likely, Witaker wasn’t thrilled with the task to promulgate an agency rule to ban bump stocks but he did so as he had been ordered.

Below is the crux of the mess that started the chain reaction, leading inevitably, inexorably to the Supreme Court Cargill vs. Garland decision that redressed the problem.

The ATF website sets forth:

“On December 18, 2018, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law, as such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. [Note: the phrase ‘single pull of the trigger,’ made to appear that bump stock operation coheres with the Statutory Definition of a machine gun, but ‘a single pull of the trigger’ is not in the statutory definition. The operative phrase is ‘a single function of the trigger.’]

Current possessors of bump-stock-type devices must divest themselves of possession as of the effective date of the final rule (March 26, 2019).

One option is to destroy the device, and the final rule identifies possible methods of destruction, to include completely melting, shredding, or crushing the device. Any method of destruction must render the device incapable of being readily restored to function.

Current possessors also have the option to abandon bump-stock-type devices at the nearest ATF office. ATF advises that it is best to make an appointment beforehand with the nearest ATF office.”

The Rule itself is found in the Code of Federal Regulations, an adjunct of the United States Code: 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479

Administrative Agencies are tasked with creating operational rules to effectuate Congressional Legislation, under the Administrative Procedures Act. That doesn’t always happen.

Unfortunately, through time, as evidenced here, agencies go rogue. Instead of confining their rule-making authority to Congressional Legislation, and the parameters of that Legislation, they craft rules that go beyond the Legislation.

The rules promulgated not only do not effectuate the will of Congress but transgress that will. That happened here, and Trump bears some but not all the blame for it or even for most of it.

Trump did not want this Rule but he ordered it anyway.

He did so at the strong prodding of NRA officials, namely the Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, and Chris Cox, Executive Director of the NRA-ILA.

Fortunately, neither one of those men is with the NRA any longer. They did enough damage to the reputation of the NRA and, worse, betrayed its members.

The Bump Stock travesty rests primarily on their heads, not on Trump’s.

What is the evidence for this? Curiously, that evidence comes not from an inside whistle-blower, but from a Left-wing news organization, NBC News.

NBC didn’t report this when you might expect, on December 18, 2018, when the DOJ-ATF posted the Rule to the Nation. It reported this matter on June 14, 2024, the day the Supreme Court released the Cargill decision. Why did it wait so long? The reason is found in the NBC News account.

This is what it said:

Former President Donald Trump didn't really want to ban bump stocks. When he did, he knew the Supreme Court was likely to overturn his action.

In a 6-3 decision Friday, that's exactly what the justices did.

The ruling revealed Trump's true feelings on the issue after a seven-year political drama, as he accepted the court reversing him, with his spokesperson saying that Americans should respect the decision.  

It is possible that the Supreme Court — at a lower level but in similar fashion to its decision to overturn abortion rights — will unleash a backlash that helps President Joe Biden and hurts Trump in their November rematch.

But for the time being, Trump's strategy for sidestepping a lasting response to the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting appears to have played to plan.

In the immediate aftermath of that massacre, which claimed 58 lives and resulted in hundreds of injuries, Trump found himself faced with a thorny political dilemma.

Shocked and outraged by the murders, roughly 4 in 5 Americans said that the government should cut off access to bump stocks, the style of shoulder-pad device that allowed the killer, Stephen Paddock, to fire a semiautomatic rifle at the speed of a fully automatic weapon. Democrats, then in the minority in both chambers, demanded congressional action, and some Republican lawmakers agreed with them.

Trump was faced with an unpalatable choice: do nothing and alienate mainstream voters or push Congress to legislate a ban, which would infuriate some gun-rights voters in the GOP's base and highlight divisions within his own party. . . .

Taking a cue from the National Rifle Association, Trump used his executive authority to write a Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives regulation banning bump stocks.

‘I went with them,’ Trump said of the NRA in a 2023 interview on CNN.

Like him, the gun lobby's biggest player wanted to avoid both a new firearm-control law and the perception of inaction in the face of the Las Vegas massacre. It would be harder to repeal a law than roll back a regulation, and the legislative process is messy enough that a new law might have ended up including other restrictions on firearms.

Top executives at the NRA said the ATF should look at whether bump stocks conformed to federal law.

‘The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,’ Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, then of the NRA, said in a statement at the time, stopping short of explicitly concluding that bump stocks in fact do just that.’

It was exactly that language that Justice Clarence Thomas homed in on in writing Friday's majority opinion. . . .

Trump followed the gun lobby's lead in relying on the court to ensure that shooters have access to bump stocks. It took seven years for that plan to come together. But it did.” [Emphasis our own].

See also this NBC News report, published the same day.

The Report does much to explain an inconsistency between Trump’s promises and his actions, and it should placate those of us who might otherwise feel betrayed, rightfully, but for this news.

But this mainstream media network had no intention of calming the waters for Trump supporters. It intended to roil those waters, to encourage the Anti-Second Amendment crowd to stick with Biden in the upcoming election on the ground that Trump remains a diehard Second Amendment proponent despite his action on bump stocks.

Now that the truth is out, and no one in America can reasonably deny “the huge elephant in the room,” a flurry of other Left-wing News reports have followed.

These include ABC News, Associated Press (AP), USA Today, and many other national outlets.

They are all pointing to Trump’s attempt to back-peddle over his apparent non-support of the citizen’s unalienable God-given right to armed self-defense.

These news reports are meant to slice into Trump’s base of supporters and, simultaneously, to shore up support for the corrupt, demented, dementia-riddled puppet, Joe Biden—a National embarrassment, and a danger to the Security of a Free State to boot.

Democrats and the shadowy powerful forces propping up this cadaver have much to worry about. See, e.g., the article in the Telegraph as reposted by MSN News.

The Press and social media blitzkrieg against Trump is vacuous, and it is nothing new. What is new is that Democrats do not have even a pretense of positive news to give Americans.

The only thing that manifests is their bitter loathing of every aspect of our Nation: its history, heritage, culture, and core beliefs, and its institutions, emblems, and visible contempt for the Common Man. Quite a peg to hang a hat on!

_______________________________________________

SCOTUS STRIKES DOWN ATF BUMP STOCK RULE

INTRODUCTORY QUOTE

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ . . . Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.” ~ A sarcastic, impudent, inane, and irrelevant quotation from Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the Dissenting Opinion in Cargill vs. Garland. The New York Times cited this on June 14, 2024, the day the U.S. Supreme Court published its decision.

A Duck is a Duck that quacks and quacks, and a horse is a horse, of course of course.

But, although coots, grebes, and loons are all waterfowl that have some of the characteristics of ducks, they aren’t ducks. And, although mules and donkeys may have characteristics of horses and are related to horses, they aren’t horses. And there are nonvenomous snakes that “mimic” venomous snakes. But the one is not the other. See, e.g., the article in wildlifesos.

And semiautomatic rifles accessorized with some features found on selective fire assault rifles aren’t assault rifles notwithstanding that some people will treat them like assault rifles anyway. They will invent a name. They will call them “assault weapons” since the name carries emotional weight, or they will use that expression interchangeably with ‘assault rifle’—because “assault weapons” mimic “assault rifles” and how many members of the public would know the difference anyway?

A semiautomatic rifle accessorized with a “bump stock” may mimic a machinegun but it remains a semiautomatic rifle, not a machinegun, notwithstanding. But wait a minute.

Doesn’t a device that increases the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle to “mimic” a machine gun change the nature of it so that, for all intents and purposes, the semiautomatic rifle, so reconfigured, is legally” a machine gun?

After all, increasing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle is that aspect of a transformed semiautomatic rifle that changes its essential nature of it so that it becomes a machine gun—Right?

In other words that is what makes a Duck a Duck at least according to the Liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court.

But taking that assumption as self-evident true isn’t sound in law or logic.

On the contrary, what is empirically true and legally sound is this:

Increasing the rate of fire of a rifle with a “bump stock” doesn’t change the nature of the rifle.

See this simple even simplistic narrative from Northeastern Global News that nonetheless aptly demonstrates the idiocy of calling a bump stock a machine gun.

The seditious New York Times, likely, unwittingly, acknowledges the truth:

“The bump stock allows a weapon to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun without technically converting it to a fully automatic firearm.” [emphasis our own].

Well, technically then, a semiautomatic rifle accessorized with a bump stock isn’t legally a machine gun. Right? Right!

But even with true machine guns, the rate of fire ranges dramatically among them. Compare, e.g., the rate of fire of an M-16 assault rifle to an M134 Minigun.

An old model, originally patented Gatling gun has a high rate of fire but it isn’t a machine gun. But, it isn’t a machine gun. See the article in gatdaily.

“By law, a Gatling gun is not an NFA regulated weapon. You can order one and transfer it through your normal FFL; no SOT or tax stamp is necessary. Tippman makes Gatling guns in 9mm and .22LR, and they are considered semi-auto firearms. The crank requires the user to operate movement to fire, and a machine gun, by law, requires a trigger that must be continually pressed to fire. Yet, Gatling guns were called machine guns back in their day. They certainly have the rate of fire of a machine gun.”

So, then, here’s a question for astute readers: When does a semiautomatic rifle truly “become” a “machine gun?”

THE ANSWER:

It’s simple: When a semiautomatic rifle is “legally” converted into a machine gun. Okay. Fine. But this raises a thorny question:

What CONSTITUTES a “conversion” (transformation (?), say, or a transmutation (?), or transmogrification (?) of a semiautomatic rifle such that—IT IS NOW LEGALLY A MACHINE GUN?

Ah, that’s the rub because Congress only defined what a machine gun IS, and NOT what constitutes a change in a semiautomatic rifle or any firearm for that matter sufficient for it to BE CONSIDERED or CONSTRUED “legally”—a machine gun.

Wouldn’t the statutory definition of ‘machine gun’ need to be amended to point to the type of conversions that satisfy calling the non-machine gun a machine gun?

But, on further thought, is it necessary for Congress to be required to systematically lay out the nature of the changes necessary for a semiautomatic rifle’s nature—its essence—to be changed so that legally it is a machine gun? Is not the answer already implied in the definition of a machine gun? Let’s see.

The Federal Statutory definition of ‘machine gun’ is found in the Internal Revenue Code Section of the United States Code.

Under 26 USCS § 5845——

The term ‘machinegun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

This legal definition of ‘machine gun’ is plain, succinct, categorical, coherent, and unequivocal.

The operative phrase, here, is “single function of the trigger.” Note: Congress never changed the definition of ‘machine gun’ since first enacting the statute, which became effective on November 1, 1968—almost fifty-six years ago.

Does not that phrase explain the essence of what makes a weapon a machine gun? If so, Congress need not expand further on it to discuss whether this or that modification of a semiautomatic rifle suffices to transform its essence from a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun.

It’s important because machine guns fall under the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Semiautomatic rifles do not.*

But——

Why should this be of pressing concern to Americans who have semiautomatic rifles? It is of concern because of this ruling of the ATF:

On December 18, 2018, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law, as such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. [Note: the phrase ‘single pull of the trigger,’ made to appear that bump stock operation coheres with the Statutory Definition of a machinegun, but ‘a single pull of the trigger’ is not in the statutory definition. The operative phrase is ‘a single function of the trigger.’]

Current possessors of bump-stock-type devices must divest themselves of possession as of the effective date of the final rule (March 26, 2019).

One option is to destroy the device, and the final rule identifies possible methods of destruction, to include completely melting, shredding, or crushing the device. Any method of destruction must render the device incapable of being readily restored to function.

Current possessors also have the option to abandon bump-stock-type devices at the nearest ATF office. ATF advises that it is best to make an appointment beforehand with the nearest ATF office.

An Administrative Agency (ATF), comprising nonelected Bureaucrats—NOT ELECTED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS—outlawed “Bump Stocks.” Unsurprisingly, this angered more than a few Americans. One of them was Michael Cargill, an Austin Texas gun shop owner. See the article in Texas Tribune.

Assiduously mindful of the law, and not under any disability that would prohibit him from possessing firearms, Cargill dutifully surrendered his two bump stocks to the ATF and then filed suit against the agency.

Plaintiff Cargill filed his complaint in Federal District Court on March 25, 2019. In support of his petition for injunctive relief, Cargill argued, one, that the ATF lacked legal authority to promulgate a rule banning bump stocks under the Administrative Procedures Act; two, that, in promulgating the Rule, the ATF violated the separation of powers doctrine by engaging in a legislative function—a power that only belongs to Congress; and three, that the Rule promulgated is inconsistent with the statutory meaning of ‘machine gun.’

The Federal District Court dismissed all counts on November 30, 2020. Cargill appealed the adverse decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Circuit Judge affirmed the decision of the lower District Court on all counts, on December 14, 2021. Cargill didn’t give up. He requested a hearing of the full complement of Judges (en banc) which was granted on June 23, 2022. The Fifth Circuit granted Cargill’s Petition, reversing the lower District Court’s ruling and its own initial ruling that favored ATF.

As an aside, the reader might reflect on a couple of interesting facets:

First, of no real surprise, Higginson was one of the three Fifth Circuit Judges who dissented from the decision of the Circuit Court Majority. But he also penned the Dissenting opinion in the en banc case.

Second, the ATF bump stock ruling came on Trump’s watch as U.S. President. Why did he take this stance as an avowed supporter of the Second Amendment? He did so less because of massive public pressure and less because of the instigation of a seditious Press, harping on the Las Vegas shooting incident, but because Wayne LaPierre, then Executive Vice President of NRA had betrayed its members.

An NBC News Report that came out, not years ago, but oddly only recently, on June 14, 2024, perhaps as an ostensible assist to Biden, who is failing miserably at the Polls and in every other conceivable way, and an oblique attack on both Trump and on the Conservative wing of the Supreme Court, particularly Justice Thomas, who penned the Majority opinion in Cargill.

NBC News said,

Former President Donald Trump didn't really want to ban bump stocks. When he did, he knew the Supreme Court was likely to overturn his action.

In a 6-3 decision Friday, that's exactly what the justices did.

The ruling revealed Trump's true feelings on the issue after a seven-year political drama, as he accepted the court reversing him, with his spokesperson saying that Americans should respect the decision.  

It is possible that the Supreme Court — at a lower level but in similar fashion to its decision to overturn abortion rights — will unleash a backlash that helps President Joe Biden and hurts Trump in their November rematch.

But for the time being, Trump's strategy for sidestepping a lasting response to the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting appears to have played to plan.

In the immediate aftermath of that massacre, which claimed 58 lives and resulted in hundreds of injuries, Trump found himself faced with a thorny political dilemma.

Shocked and outraged by the murders, roughly 4 in 5 Americans said that the government should cut off access to bump stocks, the style of shoulder-pad device that allowed the killer, Stephen Paddock, to fire a semiautomatic rifle at the speed of a fully automatic weapon. Democrats, then in the minority in both chambers, demanded congressional action, and some Republican lawmakers agreed with them.

Trump was faced with an unpalatable choice: do nothing and alienate mainstream voters or push Congress to legislate a ban, which would infuriate some gun-rights voters in the GOP's base and highlight divisions within his own party. . . .

Taking a cue from the National Rifle Association, Trump used his executive authority to write a Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives regulation banning bump stocks.

‘I went with them,’ Trump said of the NRA in a 2023 interview on CNN.

Like him, the gun lobby's biggest player wanted to avoid both a new firearm-control law and the perception of inaction in the face of the Las Vegas massacre. It would be harder to repeal a law than roll back a regulation, and the legislative process is messy enough that a new law might have ended up including other restrictions on firearms.

Top executives at the NRA said the ATF should look at whether bump stocks conformed to federal law.

‘The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,’ Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, then of the NRA, said in a statement at the time, stopping short of explicitly concluding that bump stocks in fact do just that.’

It was exactly that language that Justice Clarence Thomas homed in on in writing Friday's majority opinion. . . .

Trump followed the gun lobby's lead in relying on the court to ensure that shooters have access to bump stocks. It took seven years for that plan to come together. But it did.”

Had Trump served in the White House for a second term, as he rightfully should have, he would not have authorized the DOJ-ATF to take the case up to the High Court because he already had the decision of the Fifth Circuit, en banc.

Yet, ironically, a U.S. Supreme is one Court decision better because this Court decision works in the favor of the entire Nation, reconciling the squabbling among the Circuits about whether a “bump stock” is or is not a machine gun.

The DOJ-ATF under Joe Biden now had to sweat as Petitioner in a case they had lost when the full complement of Judges in the Fifth Circuit found for the Plaintiff Cargill.

The DOJ-ATF filed its Writ of Certiorari, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Writ on November 3, 2023.

The case was argued on February 14, 2024, and decided in favor of Cargill on June 14, 2024, affirming the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The sole issue in the case concerns whether a bump stock is a machine gun as defined under the Federal Statute.

Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority, said,

“We granted certiorari, 601 U. S. ___ (2023), to address a split among the Courts of Appeals regarding whether bump stocks meet §5845(b)’s definition of ‘machinegun.’”

That in a nutshell, is the issue that the High Court wrestled with in Cargill vs. Garland.

BUT, ONCE AGAIN, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT IS THE ONLY ISSUE, contrary to what the Liberal Wing of the Court and the seditious newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times may think.

The facts of the case are not in dispute.

The decision turns solely on a matter of law, namely the definition of ‘machine gun’ as defined by Congress.

A consideration of that definition was the High Court’s starting point and ending point of resolution of the case.

IS A BUMP STOCK A MACHINE GUN?

The Conservative wing majority answered with a definitive, “no.”  Contrariwise, the Liberal wing minority answered with a definitive, “yes.”

The Conservative wing ruled that——

A semiautomatic rifle accessorized with a bump stock does not convert that rifle into a machine gun. Swapping out a stationary rifle stock for a bump stock may, at best, simulate a machine gun, but in operation, that semiautomatic rifle doesn’t function like a true machine gun. Hence it isn’t a machine gun. It remains a semiautomatic rifle. The definition is singularly important and crucial to resolution of the sole issue in the case.

Semiautomatic rifles accessorized with bump stocks do not convert or transform those rifles into machine guns. And bump stocks in and of themselves are not machine guns.

Therefore, neither semiautomatic rifles accessorized with bump stocks nor bump stocks alone fall under the purview of the National Firearms Act.

The reasoning of the Majority and the inference drawn from that reasoning is sound, coherent, and unequivocal. The ATF Rule is inconsistent with the plain meaning of Congressional Statute and must therefore be struck down.

The Liberal wing, true to form, demurred, arguing——

“Bump Stocks” are machine guns, and that semiautomatic weapons accessorized with them are machine guns. Thus, both fall under the purview of the NFA. This conclusion is in contradistinction to the finding of the Conservative wing majority, point for point.

Unlike the Liberal wing Dissenters, the Conservative wing looked at the Congressional Statute and abided by the plain meaning of the Statute.

The Conservative wing Justices found the Congressional language of the Statute defining ‘machine gun,’ concise, precise, categorical and unequivocal—unambiguous.

Where, as here, the language of a statute is plain, an administrative agency does not have wiggle room to maneuver around it, crafting a rule that defies the import of it. The High Court warns agencies not to transgress this.

Agency transgression unlawfully invades the province of Congress (The Legislative Branch) by the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch makes the law. That is an Article I task. The salient task of the Executive Branch, under Article II, is to execute those laws that Congress (all of whom are elected by the people) enacts.

Administrative agencies (all of which are part of the Executive Branch) comprise unelected bureaucrats who tend to go their own way, like ATF. The Conservative wing of the High Court frowns on this. It should.

But Executive Branch usurpation of the functions of Congress also invades the purview of the Judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court whose singular power and authority is outlined in Article III of the Constitution, and the seminal case Marbury vs. Madison, which established, in 1803, the Doctrine of Judicial Review, a fact never contested. Only the Third Branch of Government has the ultimate authority to say “what the law is.”

The judge-made canon the Supreme Court uses against wayward agencies that promulgate transgressive illegal and unconstitutional rules that transcend the import of a Congressional Statute is referred to as the “canon of narrow construction” of statutes. The legal word for this canon is ‘Lenity.’

The Conservative wing abides by this canon of “narrow construction of statutes” (“Lenity”), where for example the language of a statute is ambiguous. How would this apply in the case at bar?

Suppose the Majority found the Statutory definition of ‘machine gun’ to be ambiguous. In that event, the canon or principle of Lenity would require the Court to find for the aggrieved Party, Cargill, that a bump stock is not a machine gun and a semiautomatic rifle accessorized with a bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

The Liberal wing does not abide by this canon to rein in injurious, unconstitutional agency rules.

High Court application of Lenity operates to rein in the attempts of rogue agencies to justify the crafting of expansive rules beyond the rule-making authority they have by claiming that a Congressional statute is ambiguous.

The rogue agency, ATF, claims ambiguity of statutory language. It then uses ambiguity to engage in the act of legislating—an activity beyond the authority of the Executive Branch of Government. And, the Liberal Wing of the U.S. Supreme Court enables this unlawful behavior because it sympathizes with the agenda to chip away at civilian possession of firearms.

Since administrative agencies fall within the Executive Branch, these agencies do not have Article I authority because the President has no Article I powers or authority. But as we see Presidents often use agencies as quasi-legislative instruments to maneuver around Congress. They illegally piggyback on Congressional Statute NOT to make operational rules to effectuate Congressional intent which they are supposed to do, but, instead, to craft operational rules that supersede Congressional intent in pursuit of unconstitutional aims and objectives.

Such ulterior aims and objectives, contrary to Congressional intent as manifested in the language of a statute have no place in our Free Constitutional Republic.

The Administrative State doesn’t care. It goes, blithely ignoring the will of the people, reflected in Congress, the people’s elected representatives.

The Cargill case should have been decided 9-0, not a 6-3 decision.

This didn’t happen because the Activist Liberal wing enables unconstitutional agency rule-making when it is in sympathy with the agenda and aims of those agencies, as is the case here.

The intention to place personal predilections over judicial responsibilities is what turns these Liberal wing Justices into injurious Activists—the robe they wear—instead of Judicious Jurists.

FURTHER REMARKS

Although the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Cargill redresses a massive wrong, it is easy to lose sight of a couple of legal matters that Plaintiff Cargill asked to be taken up by the District Court and then by the Fifth Circuit:

Did the ATF overstep its authority by intruding on the Article I authority of Congress by legislating and, in so doing, violate the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government?

While these issues may not be considered important to the sanctity of a Free Constitutional Government and the sovereignty of the American people over Government in the short term, they are problems in the long term.

Agency transgression of the legislative function unlawfully invades the province of Congress (The Legislative Branch) by the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch makes the law. That is an Article I task. The salient task of the Executive Branch, under Article II, is to execute those laws that Congress (all of whom are elected by the people) enacts.

Administrative agencies (all of which are part of the Executive Branch) comprise unelected bureaucrats who tend to go their own way, like ATF. The Conservative wing of the High Court frowns on this. It should.

As mentioned, supra, the judge-made canon the Supreme Court uses against wayward agencies that promulgate transgressive illegal and unconstitutional rules that transcend the import of Congressional Statute is referred to as the “canon of narrow construction” of statutes: ‘Lenity.’

High Court application of Lenity operates to rein in the attempts of rogue agencies to justify the crafting of expansive rules beyond the rule-making authority they have. Such transgressive rules serve an agenda.

The rogue agency, ATF, claims ambiguity of statutory language. It then uses ambiguity to engage in the act of legislating—an activity beyond the authority of the Executive Branch of Government.

Since administrative agencies fall within the Executive Branch, these agencies do not have Article I authority because the President has no Article I powers or authority.

But as we see, Presidents often use agencies as quasi-legislative instruments to maneuver illegally around Congress.

They illegally piggyback on Congressional Statute not to make operational rules to effectuate Congressional intent which they are supposed to do, but, instead, to craft operational rules that supersede Congressional intent in pursuit of unconstitutional aims and objectives.

The Liberal Wing of the High Court does not deter illegal agency action when that action, although antithetical to the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers coheres with their socio-political belief system. That is what makes them Political Activists instead of Jurists.

One need only consider the damage that Merrick Garland has done to this Country as a lackey of the Biden Administration as head of the DOJ, and of the shadowy, sinister forces that the Administration is beholden to. Imagine the more extensive and long-standing damage that Garland could have done were he sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court. And, it is within the realm of possibility that Garland may get his chance if Biden or some other Democrat Party stooge wins the U.S. Presidency this November 2024.

The decision in Cargill would have been the reverse of what we have. A Liberal-wing majority would chip away at Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. The Court would consider taking up Second Amendment cases and Administrative Law cases just to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

This fact is decisive on whether a weapon is readily available to Americans not under disability, i.e., not subject to disqualification from the keeping and bearing of firearms, under State or Federal Law.

A semiautomatic rifle accessorized with a bump stock does not convert that rifle into a machine gun.

Swapping out a stationary rifle stock for a bump stock may, at best, simulate a machine gun, but in operation, that semiautomatic rifle doesn’t function like a true machine gun. Hence it isn’t a machine gun. It remains a semiautomatic rifle. The definition is singularly crucial to the resolution of the sole issue in the case.

What is so difficult about it? Nothing, really, except that activist Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Judges on both lower State and Federal Courts, tend to render their decisions and ground their reasoning on personal predilection, on ideological bent, and in the furtherance of a socio-political agenda. That goal and the means to attain it, i.e., the agenda, are directed to the confiscation of most civilian firearms and tight regulation and registration of the few remaining in the hands of the public.

This is irresponsible and unconscionable. Anti-Second Amendment Justices, Judges, Government officials, and members of the public who scoff at and rebuff the fundamental and unalienable God-given right to armed self-defense demonstrate naked contempt instead of deference for the sanctity of our Constitution and for our Nation’s laws. All of them pervert the very institution whose purpose is to give efficacy to the Constitution as the Founders intended, and to the plain meaning of the Laws of Congress, as enacted.

They perfunctorily and arrogantly dismiss over two centuries of definitive well-honed American jurisprudence, and exhibit a lack of judicial restraint. None of this troubles them, but it should.

This deliberate, concerted effort to defy our Constitution and Laws bespeaks scarcely disguised hatred toward or blithe indifference to  our most sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms to protect self and family from predatory man, predatory beast, or the predatory man-beast of Government.

Fortunately, the Conservative wing of the High Court does what it can to keep the Liberal wing activist Justices on the Court and in the myriad Federal and State Courts throughout the Land, in check. It is a formidable task.

The Conservative wing of the High Court operated conspicuously consciously, and meticulously to cohere to their duties under the Constitution. The liberal wing unsurprisingly went off on a tangent.

Penning the Majority Opinion, Justice Thomas laid out cogently, succinctly, and unerringly, the sole issue at bar and the holding of the Court. He said, at the outset,

“Congress has long restricted access to ‘machinegun[s],’ a category of firearms defined by the ability to ‘shoot, automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger.’ 26 U. S. C. §5845(b); see also 18 U. S. C. §922(o). Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns. This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semiautomatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a ‘machinegun.’ We hold that it does not and therefore affirm.”

Justice Thomas then proceeded to lay out clearly, comprehensively, and cogently why a bump stock is not a machine gun and why a semiautomatic rifle does not become a machine gun when that rifle is accessorized with a bump stock.

He writes, in pertinent part,

Shooters have devised techniques for firing semiautomatic firearms at rates approaching those of some machineguns. One technique is called bump firing. A shooter who bump fires a rifle uses the firearm’s recoil to help rapidly manipulate the trigger. The shooter allows the recoil from one shot to push the whole firearm backward. As the rifle slides back and away from the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, the trigger is released and reset for the next shot. Simultaneously, the shooter uses his nontrigger hand to maintain forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip. The forward pressure counteracts the recoil and causes the firearm (and thus the trigger) to move forward and ‘bump’ into the shooter’s trigger finger. This bump reengages the trigger and causes another shot to fire, and so on.

Bump firing is a balancing act. The shooter must maintain enough forward pressure to ensure that he will bump the trigger with sufficient force to engage it. But, if the shooter applies too much forward pressure, the rifle will not slide back far enough to allow the trigger to reset. The right balance produces a reciprocating motion that permits the shooter to repeatedly engage and release the trigger in rapid succession.

Although bump firing does not require any additional equipment, there are accessories designed to make the technique easier. A ‘bump stock’ is one such accessory. It replaces a semiautomatic rifle’s stock (the back part of the rifle that rests against the shooter’s shoulder) with a plastic casing that allows every other part of the rifle to slide back and forth. This casing helps manage the back-and-forth motion required for bump firing. A bump stock also has a ledge to keep the shooter’s trigger finger stationary. A bump stock does not alter the basic mechanics of bump firing. As with any semiautomatic firearm, the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot.”

The reader should note Justice Thomas’ recitation is matter-of-fact, complete, and objective, without personal embellishment.

He acknowledges at the outset that bump stocks, like other devices, allow “for firing semiautomatic firearms at rates approaching those of some machineguns semiautomatic rifle,” knowing that rate of fire is the centerpiece of the dissenting Justices argument against bump stocks and semiautomatic rifles accessorized with them. However, the rate of fire is not relevant to the legal issue here.

We must reiterate that: The “Rate of Fire” is not a relevant or legitimate legal issue in Cargill. It has nothing to do with the issue of statutory construction.

But the Liberal wing minority insists on making “Rate of Fire” the centerpiece of their argument that bump stocks and rifles accessorized with them are machine guns even if it tends to skirt gingerly around the issue.

What is relevant and dispositive of the issue is found in this portion of the Conservative wing Majority Opinion:

“A bump stock also has a ledge to keep the shooter’s trigger finger stationary. A bump stock does not alter the basic mechanics of bump firing. As with any semiautomatic firearm, the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot.” [emphasis our own].

The New York Times, albeit for ulterior purposes, provides a decent simulation of a bump stock in operation, in an article updated on June 14, 2024, when the Cargill case came out. But, it doesn’t help to make a legal case for inferring bump stocks are machine guns. Rather, it serves to support the holding of the High Court, that bump stocks are not machine guns.

The key to the Court’s ruling is consistent with the key phrase in the Statute’s definition of a ‘machine gun’:

“Single Function of The Trigger.” There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this, yet the Liberal wing of the High Court would make it so.

The importance of this phrase in the definition cannot be overstated The U.S. Court of Appeals in its en banc decision had much to say about this and the Conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court was obviously much impressed by the cogency and comprehensiveness of that Court of Appeal’s Opinion and incorporated much of that reasoning in the High Court’s own Opinion.

We cite that portion of the Fifth Circuit Court’s opinion at length below:

[Cargill v. Garland, 67 F.4th 447 (5th Cir. 2023)]

The first phrase we consider is "by a single function of the trigger." At the time the statute was passed, "function" meant "action." Webster's New International Dictionary 1019 (2d ed. 1934); see Guedes, 920 F.3d at 43 (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Aposhian, 989 F.3d at 895 (Tymkovich, C.J., dissenting). Thus, the relevant question is whether a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock fires more than one shot each time the trigger "acts."

It does not. As illustrated above, a semi-automatic weapon utilizes a simple mechanical process: the trigger disengages the hammer from the sear, the hammer strikes the firing pin, the bullet fires, and the recoil pushes the hammer against the disconnector, which resets the trigger. This process happens every single time one bullet is fired. To be sure, a non-mechanical bump stock increases the rate at which the process occurs. But the fact remains that only one bullet is fired each time the shooter pulls the trigger.

The Government contends that "single function of the trigger" means "a single pull of the trigger and analogous movements." 83 Fed. Reg. at 66553. That is, according to the Government, "function" means "pull." But that argument fails on its face because  a shooter still pulls the trigger of a semi-automatic weapon equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock each time he or she fires a bullet. Without a bump stock, the trigger activates because the shooter flexes his or her finger; with a bump stock, the trigger activates because the recoil of the previous shot re-engages the trigger and the shooter's maintained force on the gun's forebody bumps the trigger against the shooter's finger. This is a distinction without a difference—the end result in both cases is that the trigger is pulled. See Guedes, 920 F.3d at 48 (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("A semiautomatic rifle shoots a single round per pull of the trigger and the bump stock changes only how the pull is accomplished."); Gun Owners of America, 992 F.3d at 469-73, vacated, 2 F.4th 576. Even if "single function" meant "single pull," the definition would still not include a non-mechanical bump stock. Moreover, even though pulling the trigger can sometimes begin the bump firing sequence, the process is more typically begun by pushing forward on the fore-body of the firearm.

For several of our sister circuits, however, the plain language is not so plain. They reason that single function of the trigger "could mean 'a single pull of the trigger from the perspective of the shooter.'" Guedes, 920 F.3d at 29; see also Gun Owners of America, 19 F.4th at 905 (White, J., in support of affirmance). Considering the definition of "function," one court understood the issue as such: "[T]hat definition begs the question of whether 'function' requires our focus upon the movement of the trigger, or the movement of the trigger finger. The statute is silent in this regard." Aposhian, 958 F.3d at 986. According to that logic, for a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock, the act of pulling the trigger—which begins the bump firing sequence—is a single pull for purposes of the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.

The problem with that interpretation is that it is based on words that do not exist  in the statute.  The statute "uses 'single function of the trigger,' not single function of the shooter's trigger finger." Guedes, 920 F.3d at 48 (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also Aposhian, 989 F.3d at 895 (Tymkovich, C.J., dissenting) ("The statute speaks only to how the trigger acts, making no mention of the shooter."). The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals likewise refused to read words into the statute:The best read implies that the shooter initiates the trigger function by some action, such as pullingthe trigger—or it could be by just pushing a button—and it is the follow-on action where the trigger acts out its mechanical design or purpose that speaks to the "function of the trigger." The statute does not say "by a single function of the trigger finger" nor does it say "by a single pull of the trigger in addition to external pressure from the shooter's non-firing hand." . . . . Had Congress wanted to use the phrase "by a single pull of the trigger" for machine guns, it could have. But it did not.

Alkazahg, 81 M.J. at 780-81.

We agree. The statutory definition of machinegun utilizes a grammatical construction that ties the definition to the movement of the trigger itself, and not the movement of a trigger finger. Nor do we rely on grammar alone. Context firmly corroborates what grammar initially suggests by demonstrating that Congress knew how to write a definition that is keyed to the movement of the trigger finger if it wanted to. But it did not. The Government offers nothing to overcome this plain reading, so that we are obliged to conclude that the statutory definition of machinegun unambiguously turns on the movement of the trigger and not a trigger finger.

Grammar rejects a reading based on the shooter's perspective. Each component of the statutory definition supports the mechanical perspective, not a shooter's perspective. Again, the definition reads as follows: "[M]achinegun means . . . any weapon which shoots . . . automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). The subject of the sentence, of course, is machinegun. The linking verb means connects the subject to the subject complement—weapon. Next, the adjectival phrase which shoots modifies weapon. The adverbial phrase automatically more than one shot then modifies shoots. Finally, two prepositional phrases follow. The first, by a single function, modifies the adverbial phrase. The second, of the trigger, modifies the first prepositional phrase. See also Guedes, 920 F.3d at 44 n.13 (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (diagramming the statutory definition).

The first thing to note is that the ultimate subject is machinegun, and the subject complement is weapon. In other words, a machinegun is defined by reference to what kind of weapon it is. But identifying the subject of the sentence is only our first step. We next look, second, to the fact that the term weapon is defined by how it shoots. So, again, the definition refers to the device being made to shoot, not the person or thing doing the shooting. Third, the manner of shooting must be automatic. Fourth—and critically—the prepositional phrases define the firing process's requirements from a mechanical perspective. The process must occur by a single function, and the single act must be by the trigger. In short, there is no mention of a shooter. The grammatical structure continuously points the reader back to the mechanics of the firearm. The statute does not care what human input is required to activate the trigger—it cares only whether more than one shot is fired each time the trigger acts.

We do not stop with the grammar. With statutes, "[c]ontext is a primary determinant of meaning. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 167 (2012). So, we look next to context for further clues. And context confirms that the statute must be read from the mechanical perspective. Specifically, context tells us that Congress knew how to write a definition that explicitly turns on the action of a shooter rather than the action of a trigger, but chose not to do so here. Immediately following the definition of machinegun provided in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), Congress defined the term "rifle" to mean a weapon designed "to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger." § 5845(c) (emphasis added). The statute next defines "shotgun" to mean a weapon designed "to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger." Id. § 5845(d) (emphases added). "[W]here the document has used one term in one place, and a materially different term in another, the presumption is that the different term denotes a different idea." Reading Law at 170.

To summarize, the definition of machinegun must turn on the action (or "function") of the trigger because no other actor is mentioned or implied. This conclusion is only strengthened by the fact that other definitions within the same statutory provision explicitly turn on the action of a shooter, showing that Congress knew how to write a definition that proceeds from a shooter's perspective, rather than a mechanical one, if it had wanted to. The notion that the definition turns onthe action of an unnamed shooter is inconsistent with both the grammatical and statutory contexts.

The Government says that this straightforward interpretation defies common sense. It would not have been prudent for Congress to "zero[] in on the mechanistic movement of the trigger," the Government says, because the problem sought to be remedied was "the ability to drastically increase a weapon's rate of fire." Aposhian v. Barr, 374 F. Supp. 3d 1145, 1152 (D. Utah 2019)). Perhaps Congress's choice of words was prudent, or perhaps it was not. That is not for us to decide. But the Government's objection only accentuates the fact that Congress did not use words describing the shooter's perspective or the weapon's rate of fire. See Alkazahg, 81 M.J. at 781 ("Congress could have suggested that a shooter-focused approach or even a rate-of-fire approach was the way to read the statute by enacting those words. Even the term 'machine gun' suggests a mechanical approach where the shooter interaction is extremely limited."). Instead, it made up an entirely new phrase—by a single function of the trigger—that specifically pertains to the mechanics of a firearm. Prudent or not, Congress defined the term "machinegun" by reference to the trigger's mechanics. We are bound to apply that definition as written

Even if a non-mechanical bump stock caused a semi-automatic rifle to operate by a single function of the trigger, the rifle would still need to operate automatically in order to be a machinegun. All generally  agree that here, automatically means "self-acting." Oxford English Dictionary at 574 ("[s]elf-acting under conditions fixed for it, going of itself"); see also Cargill, 20 F.4th at 1012; Guedes, 920 F.3d at 30; id. at 43 (Henderson, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part); Aposhian, 958 F.3d at 986; Aposhian, 989 F.3d at 895 (Tymkovich, C.J., dissenting); Gun Owners of America, 19 F.4th at 905-06 (White, J., in support of affirmance); id. at 912-13 (Murphy, J., in opposition to affirmance). But the parties dispute whether the firing process enabled by a non-mechanical bump stock is self-acting.

It is not. As an initial matter, we must remember that  the phrase "by a single function of the trigger" modifies the adverb "automatically." Thus, the condition is satisfied only if it is the trigger that causes the firearm to shoot automatically. See Guedes, 920 F.3d at 43 (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ('"Automatically' cannot be read in isolation. On the contrary, it is modified—that is, limited—by the clause 'by a single function of the trigger.'"); Aposhian, 989 F.3d at 896 (Tymkovich, C.J., dissenting). That is not how a bump stock works. Bump firing does not maintain if all a shooter does is initially pull the trigger. Rather, to continue the firing after the shooter pulls the trigger, he or she must maintain manual, forward pressure on the barrel and manual, backward pressure on the trigger ledge.

The Government argues that, taken together, those actions create automatic fire. But Cargill would prevail even if that were true because those actions are not "a single function of the trigger." For example, the ATF's treatment of the Ithaca Model 37 "slam fire" shotgun confirms that bump stocks do not enable automatic fire. With the Model 37, a shooter can pull the trigger once and hold it. Then, after each pump with the shooter's non-trigger hand, a new shell is loaded and immediately discharged. According to the ATF, the Model 37 fires multiple shots by a single function of the trigger, but it does not do so automatically because the shooter must manually pump the shotgun with his non-trigger hand. See 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,534. By this same logic, a rifle equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock does not fire automatically because the shooter must manually apply forward pressure on the barrel with his or her non-trigger hand.

The Government recognizes this logic but argues that it proves too much. After all, the Government says, to operate a traditional automatic rifle, the shooter must pull and hold the trigger to fire more than one round. No one doubts that a traditional automatic weapon is a machinegun for purposes of federal law. And so it cannot be that a process is not automatic simply because it requires sustained input. See Guedes, 920 F.3d at 31; Aposhian, 958 F.3d at 987.

That argument makes the same mistake as before: it untethers "single function of the trigger" from "automatically."  Restated, the statute requires that a machinegun be capable of firing automatically once the trigger performs a single function. An automatic weapon satisfies this requirement because the act of pulling and holding the trigger is one function, and that function produces more than one shot. That force must be maintained on the trigger does not change this conclusion. Stated succinctly:

 [A] gun shoots automatically by a single function of the trigger as long as the shooter need only manually cause the trigger to engage in a "single" function in order to fire multiple shots . . . So a typical machine gun qualifies even though the shooter pulls the trigger and keeps it pressed down because that combined external influence still does no more than result in one action of the trigger.

Gun Owners of America, 19 F.4th at 915 (Murphy, J., in opposition to affirmance); see also Guedes, 920 F.3d at 44 (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("The statutory definition of machinegun does not include a firearm that shoots more than one round automatically by a single pull of the trigger and then some (that is, by constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand).") (internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis omitted). As understood by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals:

It is incorrect to equate the holding of the trigger in an automatic weapon with the holding of the trigger and the forward motion in a semi-automatic weapon equipped with a bump stock. That is because the former is shooting automatically by a single function of the trigger, while the latter is relying on an additional human action beyond the mechanical self-acting and impersonal trigger function.

Alkazahg, 81 M.J. at 782-83.We reiterate that a shooter can bump fire an ordinary semi-automatic rifle even without a bump stock. But nobody, not even the Government, contends that semi-automatic rifles are machineguns. That concession damns the Government's position. As Cargill recognizes, if ordinary bump firing constituted automatic fire, the Final Rule would "convert a semiautomatic weapon into a machinegun simply by how a marksman used the weapon." That absurd result reveals the flaw in the Government's line of reasoning.

In addition to implying absurd results, the Government's position is quite telling. It would allow the use of semi-automatic rifles, which can bump fire, but prohibit the use of non-mechanical bump stocks, even though there is no mechanical difference between the two forms of gunfire. Rather, the meaningful difference is that, with a non-mechanical bump stock, bump firing is easier and can occur at a faster rate. That is a distinction Congress certainly could have addressed in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act.  But Congress did not prohibit machineguns according to how quickly they fire. It prohibited machineguns according to the way that they fire. And semiautomatic weapons do not fire "automatically," even when equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock.

* * *

The definition of machinegun as set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act establishes two conditions that must obtain in order for a weapon to qualify. The weapon must operate "automatically" and "by single function of the trigger." According to the statute's unambiguous language, neither condition obtains as applied to a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock. The failure of either condition is sufficient to entitle Cargill to judgment.

Now Compare the Fifth Circuit Majority’s well-reasoned en banc Opinion and the well-reasoned and articulated Opinion of the Conservative Wing of the U.S. Supreme Court (recited supra) with the Minority Liberal Wing’s Dissenting opinion recited below.

Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Liberal wing of the Court, rails on the evils of machine guns. She commences her polemic with this:

On October 1, 2017, a shooter opened fire from a hotel room overlooking an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, in what would become the deadliest mass shooting in U. S. history. Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of ammunition, the shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles. These simple devices harness a rifle’s recoil energy to slide the rifle back and forth and repeatedly ‘bump’ the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, creating rapid fire. All the shooter had to do was pull the trigger and press the gun forward. The bump stock did the rest.

Justice Sotomayor then proceeds with the obvious that may be of some historical interest but has no relevance to the case.

Congress has sharply restricted civilian ownership of machineguns since 1934.” . . .

Machineguns were originally developed in the 19th century as weapons of war. . . . Gangsters like Al Capone used machineguns to rob banks, ambush the police, and murder rivals.

This history lesson, meant to tug at one’s emotions, with careful use of Anti-Second Amendment slogans, has absolutely nothing to do with the legal issue at bar. But Justice Sotomayor uses this as an introduction to slither around the plain meaning of the statute to argue that, because a person’s finger remains on the trigger, the bump stock adds nothing substantive to alter the definition of ‘machine gun.’ But is that true?

Justice Sotomayor continues,

A bump stock automates and stabilizes the bump firing process. It replaces a rifle’s standard stock, which is the part held against the shoulder. . . . A bump stock, unlike a standard stock, allows the rifle’s upper assembly to slide back and forth in the stock. . . . It also typically includes a finger rest on which the shooter can place his finger while shooting, and a ‘receiver module’ that guides and regulates the weapon’s recoil. . . . To fire a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock, the shooter either pulls the trigger, . . . or slides the gun forward in the bump stock, which presses the trigger into his trigger finger, . . . .  As long as the shooter keeps his trigger finger on the finger rest and maintains constant forward pressure on the rifle’s barrel or front grip, the weapon will fire continuously. A rifle equipped with a bump stock can fire at a rate between 400 and 800 rounds per minute. . . .” [citations omitted; emphasis our own].

This attempt at conflating a bump stock and trigger is obfuscation and a piece of legerdemain. It is not an accurate scientific explication of the operation of a bump stock.

Justice Sotomayor acknowledges that a bump stock is distinct from the trigger and receiver assembly. Her point is that the high rate of fire emulates machine gun fire. That fact is enough for her and Kagan and Brown-Jackson. But emulation of a machine gun is not sufficient to meet the standard under the Statutory definition of what constitutes a machine gun.

Justice Sotomayor continues with a specious explication of firearm operation, erroneously taking to task Justice Thomas’ clear use of diagrams to explain the working of a bump stock. She engages in disingenuous deflection. Justice Thomas’ explication is grounded on the expertise of firearms experts.

Justice Sotomayor makes light of this and substitutes her imprecise interpretation of the operation of a bump stock to buttress her position that the ATF was correct in treating bump stocks as machine guns.

A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle is a machinegun because (1) with a single pull of the trigger, a shooter can (2) fire continuous shots without any human input beyond maintaining forward pressure. The majority looks to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull, to hold that a “single function of the trigger” means a reset of the trigger mechanism. Its interpretation requires six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text. Then, shifting focus from the internal mechanism of the gun to the perspective of the shooter, the majority holds that continuous forward pressure is too much human input for bump-stock-enabled continuous fire to be ‘automatic.’” [citations omitted, emphasis our own].

Contrary to her tortuous attempt to fit the operation of a bump stock into the statutory definition of ‘machine gun,’ and despite her cheeky remarks punctuated and plastered in her Dissenting Opinion about “Ducks,” the fact remains that a “semiautomatic rifle” doesn’t “become” a “machine” gun nor does it “become” a “submachine gun” or a selective fire “assault rifle” simply because a particular device, in this instance a bump stock, happens to increase the rate of fire—a point that Thomas acknowledged and properly dismissed out-of-hand, as irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But, she insists on calling a bump stock accessorized semiautomatic rifle a machine gun—that they are both the same thing.

This is like saying an Eagle is the same thing as a Pigeon. Well, they are both Birds, granted. They belong to the same taxonomic Class, “Aves,” true, but drilling down into the nuances of each they are quite unlike each other. And, neither one is a “Duck.”

Semiautomatic weapons accessorized or not with bump stocks, and machine guns (of which there are many types as used in the armed forces) are all firearms.

But it would take substantial work to transform a semiautomatic rifle literally into a “machine gun.” Accessorizing the rifle with a bump stock may at best create a simulacrum of a machinegun, but it isn’t one, and that simulacrum is not the sort of thing the military would be interested in, anyway.

There are a couple of other approaches that can be adapted for semiautomatic rifles to simulate the operation of a machine gun, but none of them are equivalent to or even approach the manner of operation of a true machine gun. To truly mirror a machine gun, a semiautomatic rifle would require substantial modification, essentially reengineering the rifle, to duplicate not merely emulate, or simulate the operation of a machine gun.

A Forced Reset Trigger (FRT) approach or Binary Trigger approach both of which involve a modification of the trigger assembly, as we understand this, or a Bump Stock approach that doesn’t involve a modification of the trigger assembly but appears to mimic the FRT approach, all assist in increasing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle. That much is true.

But the kicker here is that none of these approaches can legitimately be construed as a conversion kit of the sort that would, consistent with Statutory Definition, literally turn a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic weapon like a machine gun, submachine gun, or selective fire assault rifle such that it no longer truly is a semiautomatic rifle but has transmuted into something else markedly different.

Mimicking something does not change the nature of the thing.

Many species of Non-venomous snakes mimic venomous snakes in color or behavior. The mimicry doesn’t change the nature of what a thing is.

“Bump-stock-enabled” isn’t equivalent to the “single function of a trigger,” try as Sotomayor might to argue that bump stocks convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

Justice Sotomayor concludes with this:

“The majority’s artificially narrow definition hamstrings the Government’s efforts to keep machineguns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter.”

The argument is spurious. The definition of ‘machine gun’ isn’t ambiguous. So the Majority didn’t create anything, artificial or not.

Bump stocks are not machine guns. But, assuming arguendo, the Statutory definition of ‘machine gun’ is ambiguous, then under the canon or rule of Lenity, the Court must construe the definition narrowly, and that requires finding in favor of the aggrieved Party, Cargill.

Justice Sotomayor doesn’t even mention the canon of Lenity. She can’t. But she needs to employ it, doing so deliberately incorrectly to reach to support the inference she wants./

Justice Sotomayor and the two other Justices who joined her on the Dissenting Opinion are wrong on both legal and logical grounds in their analyses and inferences. Their arguments are specious, unsound, incoherent, and contrary to law.

They stamp their imprimatur on an ATF Rule that effectively and unlawfully operates to rewrite the Statutory definition of ‘machine gun’ and then disingenuously and arrogantly deflect, insisting that it is the Conservative wing majority that has improperly (or, in her words, “artificially” narrowed the definition to “hamstring” the Government efforts to keep machineguns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter.”

Justice Sotomayor’s conclusion begs the very question at issue:

Are bump stocks and bump stock accessorized semiautomatic rifles “machine guns” under the statutory definition?

No, they are not, as the Majority correctly held. And Court’s Conservative Majority did not need to rely on the canon of narrow construction (“lenity”) to make its determination because the statutory definition of ‘machine gun’ is, on its face, plain and unequivocal.

The Majority simply looked at the Statutory definition, saw it to be plain and unequivocal on its face and adhered to it to make the only rational finding it could.

The Liberal wing attempted to force a round peg in a square hole, beginning with a false assumption, grounded on an agenda—to hurt a citizen’s ability to exercise his or her fundamental right.

In that regard, we must emphasize that reference to the “Las Vegas shooter” is irrelevant. To discuss this at all belongs in a different forum—perhaps a newspaper article or an Op-Ed, but this does not belong in a legal opinion.

But to bring this matter up in a newspaper article or Op-Ed, one may well ask how it is that “the shooter” could so easily evade cameras in a Las Vegas casino, hauling up. Even if, as some newspaper reports point out, the killer, Stephen Paddock, planned his shooting spree meticulously, knowing much, perhaps, about Casino security. He could not know everything. To this day, there is incredible incompleteness to the entire incident. The public is left in the dark.   

Did this shooting just happen or did it happen because someone aside from the killer himself wanted this horrific incident to happen to serve, perhaps, as a useful pretext for the crafting of just such an administrative ATF Rule that derived from and expressly because of the incident.

The Las Vegas incident served a purpose and recitation of and emphasis of it draws light on what drives her and the two other Liberal wing Justice Activists to dissent from the Majority Opinion.

The aim here is obvious: to inexorably chip away at the right of the people to keep and bear arms without which a Free Constitutional Republic cannot exist.

Tyranny in America is in the process of consolidation. A Democrat Party victory in November will see the completion of that process.

_____________________________________________

* Of course, if Congressional Statute is facially unconstitutional, then the High Court must, on review, strike it down, regardless, because the Constitution trumps Congressional Statute where the two are in conflict.

But, where, as here, if a Statute is not Constitutionally suspect, the impact of the Statute on Americans turns on the plain meaning of its words. And a Justice who abides by the plain meaning of the law must need render a ruling that coheres with that plain meaning.

We have presumed here since the matter isn’t relevant to this essay, that the NFA is Constitutional. But is it? We leave for another day whether the NFA is consistent with the Heller decision. If not, then the NFA must be struck down. See, e.g., “Dangerous and Unusual: How an Expanding National Firearms Act Will Spell Its Own Demise,” 127 Dick. L. Rev. 273 (Fall 2022) by Oliver Krawczyk. In light of Heller, the High Court should at some point determine the Constitutionality of the NFA of 1934. What is particularly troublesome is a proposition of the Anti-Second Amendment crowd that is taken as axiomatic and is then utilized as a cudgel to chisel away at the legality of Americans’ right to possess semiautomatic weapons.

The mantra of Anti-Second Amendment proponents and zealots is that military weapons (“weapons of war”) and facsimiles of them, i.e., semiautomatic weapons should be illegal as de facto military weapons.

The problem here is that the Second Amendment embodies the precept that Americans DO HAVE a legal right to keep and bear personnel weapons of war, i.e., military weapons. Since true, the idea that NO civilian has a right to keep and bear military weapons or anything the Government deems to be like a military weapon, as axiomatic, self-evident true, is simply wrong and always has been wrong, as a matter of law. Further, since the right of the people to keep and bear arms is Natural, God-given law, the State does not have the lawful right to regulate these weapons or ban them outright anyway.

There is another problem attendant to Government unconstitutional actions that have stood for years or even decades. It is that such actions are taken as true and therefore untouchable by virtue of their longevity. That has psychological impact but not logical nor legal impact. Worse, bad law is often invoked by unscrupulous individuals and rogue governments, such as the present Biden Administration, to piggyback off of—manufacturing more bad law from the original bad law.

New York Handgun Law is a case in point. The original Sullivan Act, that created a regulatory handgun licensing regime has spawned more and more laws, infinitely more oppressive. And that has taken on a life of its own. Even when the U.S. Supreme Court has brought the guts of the Handgun Law—reliance on “Proper Cause” to a screeching halt, as facially unconstitutional, the State continues on its merry way to enact more oppressive laws in utter defiance of and contempt of the High Court and the Court’s Article III authority. This is evidence of Tyranny. The Government cannot lawfully hide in the mask of defying Fundamental right to Personal Armed Defense based on a pretext of a desire to curb “Gun violence” (political fiction) especially when that very Government does not actually curb gun violence or any other criminal violence.

It is all a mirage to blindside the Sovereign American citizen and to usurp his authority over Government, and turn the Government into the Master and the American people into its servants.

____________________________________

NEW YORK WILL SOON REQUIRE “CIGARETTE” HEALTH WARNING LABELS ON THE PURCHASE OF FIREARMS

Imagine if you will a change to the U.S. Constitution—inclusion of an addendum to the language of the Second Amendment :

“WARNING: “A Weapon Or Firearm In The Home Is Hazardous To Your Health.”

If you warm to that idea, you will be happy to learn that the Great Loyalist Tory State in the Nation’s Northeast, New York, has done just that.

On Monday, June 3, 2024, the New York Legislature in Albany passed a bill that treats firearms like cigarettes and other tobacco products: Assembly Bill 2023 A.B. 2882 (Senate Bill 2023 S6649).

Invoking a warning label on tobacco and many other products is nothing new, but imposing a warning label on an implement embracing and entwined with the elemental eternal God-given Right of self-defense is novel, and may rightly cause more than a few Americans to question the sanity of those proposing it.

MECHANICS OF THE BILL: THE “WARNING” LANGUAGE

The Bill amends the State’s Handgun Law, Section 400 of the Penal Code, by adding a new subdivision 20 to the Handgun Law.

Provision (A) (I) says,

Every Person Licensed As A Gunsmith Or A Dealer In Firearms Shall Post The Following Notice At The Site Where Such Weapons Or Firearms Are Sold, Displayed Or Delivered To The Purchaser, At The Entrance To The Site And In At Least One Additional Area Where Sales Occur, Conspicuously Stating, In No Smaller Than Twenty-Six-Point Type On A Sign At Least Eight And One-Half By Eleven Inches in Bold Print:

WARNING

|Access To A Weapon Or Firearm In The Home Significantly Increases The Risk Of Suicide, Death During Domestic Disputes, And/or Unintentional Deaths To Children, Household Members And Others.

If You Or A Loved One Is Experiencing Distress And/Or Depression, Call The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline At 988.

 The Bill reinforces this warning with a further reminder to handgun licensees as well.

Provision (A) (II) says,

Every Firearms Dealer Shall Distribute A Notice To The Purchaser At The Time Of Each Individual Sale Of A Weapon Or Firearm, Conspicuously Stating, In No Smaller Than Twenty-Six-Point Type And On Paper At Least  Eight And  One-Half By Eleven Inches In Bold Print The Following Warning:

 Access To A Weapon Or Firearm In The Home Significantly Increases The Risk Of Suicide, Death During Domestic Disputes, And/Or Unintentional Deaths To Children, Household Members And Others.

If You Or A Loved One Is Experiencing Distress And/Or Depression, Call The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline At 988.|

These two warning provisions aren’t enough to satisfy the Hochul Government. The Government throws yet another one at a person who doesn’t get the message that Governor Hochul and Albany DO NOT LIKE FIREARMS and detest the notion of “YOU” insisting on keeping and bearing one in defiance of the Government's clear, vociferous, caustic, visceral message.

Provision (A)(III) says,

Upon The Issuance Of Or Amendment To A Firearm Or Weapon License And/Or Permit, The Licensing Officer Shall Provide The Licensee/Permittee A Written Copy Of Warning Notice [The Warning Notice Set Forth In Provision (A) (II)] Conspicuously Stating In No Smaller Than Twenty-Six-Point Type And On Paper At Least  Eight And One-Half By Eleven Inches In Bold Print. . . .

These Warning provisions harm gun dealers’ businesses, creating a chilling effect, likely intentionally, because such “in your face” warnings plastered on walls and in handouts will intimidate and frighten some Americans, especially those who are considering purchasing a firearm for the first time.

The Government’s raw, rabid hatred and fear of firearms is palpable and its constant, contentious vilification of New York firearms owners and its interminable opprobrium is undeserved and insulting.

This is all reflected in increasingly draconian and absurd gun laws directed to a population that is not a threat to public safety but an adjunct to it. But the Hochul Government wants none of it.

Such prospective first-time purchasers may have second thoughts on viewing the signs and reading the handouts. This is surely by design. It is blatant propaganda.

Worse, the Warning Signs are injurious to and an affront to the sanctity of our most sacred right and attack the very notion of adulthood, personal autonomy, personal responsibility, respect for one’s selfhood, and faith in one’s ability to make informed and educated decisions. These Government “Warning” messages by Globalist “elites” attack this. They treat American adults like disobedient children who must be kept in line.

But America is not a servile component of the British Commonwealth—a relic of a bygone empire whom America’s Patriots defeated convincingly in war—The American Revolution of 1776. And America’s Patriots of the present day will never agree to surrender the sovereignty of their Country and the people’s sovereignty over all governments.

But the Destroyers of our Country are cunning. They are masters of subterfuge. They must disarm Americans if they are to succeed in gaining control over them. They attempt to sow doubt in the psyche of Americans. That doubt lodges in a person’s mind—a persistent thought bubbles to the surface and that thought becomes, in time, an oath that one recites to himself:

“I am small and insignificant and would do best to defer to the grace of Government, for it is all-powerful yet righteous, benevolent. In its divine benevolence, I know in my heart that it will protect me, nurse me as my mother once did, and I will be safe and all will be good. As a token of good faith, I will, as my Benevolent Government urges, relinquish possession of all dangerous instrumentalities, of all harmful ‘toys,’ and I will steadfastly refrain from purchasing new ones, for I know they are harmful to my health and well-being and harmful to the well-being of the Government that only wants the best for both me and the Greater Open Society.”

“Warning messages” on retail gun stores strongly suggest, if tacitly, that you, an adult, cannot make informed, responsible decisions on important matters and should therefore rely on the Government to make those decisions for you.

The “Warning” signs suggest that the Government simply wishes to protect you from hurting yourself—that guns are bad and dangerous, devoid of any utility. They provide you with no benefit. The Government frowns on such things. The signs’ messages are not mere declarations. They are subtle rhetorical interrogatories, commands, imperatives: “You don’t want to anger Kathy Hochul and the New York Government, do you? Of course not. SO THEN: BE KIND TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS: DO NOT PURCHASE A FIREARM.”

These messages not so subtly promote a subconscious urge in a person toward dependency on the Government at the expense of faith in one’s intelligence and resourcefulness.

Telling a citizen, matter-of-factly, that having a firearm “significantly” increases the potential for committing suicide, carrying out a homicide, or causing an accident is meant to dissuade a citizen from purchasing a firearm, especially a handgun, since handguns are readily concealable, operating like a dark tinted glass on a motor vehicle’s window, but much more dangerous. The latter assertion is true. That is the point of having a handgun on one’s person, concealability, and that it is readily available to thwart danger should it arise, a fact commonplace in New York City.

But that having a firearm constitutes a threat to one personally, is a false pronouncement. Yet it is presented with an aura of undeniable truth— creating a sense of doubt in one’s decision-making ability and going so far as to promote the idea that faith in oneself is contrary to correct thought and behavior in today’s American society. Yet, such an idea is at odds with the concept of Individualism, the foundation of free will and the cornerstone of a Nation built on the idea of God-given rights and liberties that rest beyond the lawful power of the State to intrude upon.

Having a firearm in one’s possession is proof of the sanctity and inviolability of one’s selfhood. That idea is anathema to States like New York, grounded on the ideology of Collectivism.

New York smugly and brashly engages in a war of attrition to defeat the most basic right of the Common Man, the right of armed self-defense against predatory assault on one’s body and mind, spirit and soul.

They chastise those who happen to disagree with Government edicts and go their way, refusing to kowtow to conformist doctrines promoting peculiar thoughts and actions.

The Government censures, ridicules, and attacks head-on the core values of Americans. Recall Obama’s off-the-cuff but honest remark, scoffing at the average American.

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

See the quote from the Guardian, posted on April 14, 2008.

That misbegotten Obama quote became condensed as a slogan, and chant, echoing down through the years.

Recently, the ex-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, made a similar comment during a recent debate she took part in at Oxford University in England in April 2024. Fox News report pointed this out:

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was rebuked as an ‘elite’ during a recent Oxford Union debate, where she argued that populism in the United States is a threat to democracy.

 Pelosi — a self-described ‘devout’ Catholic — said during the April 25 debate that certain Americans, whom she considered to be ‘poor souls who are looking for some answers,’ refuse to accept the answers Democrats give them on particular topics due to their beliefs about ‘guns, gays, [and] God.’

The Federal Government and many of the State Governments run by or otherwise beholden to Neo-Marxist Cultists and Neoliberal Globalists have continuously and caustically attacked American’s faith in the Divine Creator. They have promoted deviant behavior, and continuously denigrate those who seek to arm themselves to safeguard their life and well-being and to thwart Tyranny.

The Forces that Crush cannot crush the American people as long as the Common Man has the will to resist the Tyranny of thought and action thrust on them by a Tyrannical Government and as long as the Common Man has on his person the means to effectively resist instances of Tyranny: a physical. tangible firearm. That fact perplexes, dismays, and frightens those who seek our Country’s demise, as it is TYRANNY they intend to thrust on our Nation. This is occurring now.

The Hochul Government and other Anti-Second Amendment advocates would much prefer simply to ban civilian possession of all firearms outright and confiscate all arms and ammunition from those Americans who already possess them.

But they cannot lawfully do this, and do not, at present, have the power to unlawfully force mass confiscation of arms on the public. That might change come this November, as the Destroyers of our Country complete their consolidation of all Government.

Congress isn’t waiting. Already, concerned about the possibility that the present rancor embroiling the Country can lead to open rebellion against Government Tyranny, Democrats in the House (narrowly controlled by Republicans) have introduced a bill, one sweeping in its scope to ban all “gas-operated semi-automatic” firearms. The Bill, referred to by the shorthand descriptor, “GOSAFE ACT,” borrows the verbiage of New York’s 2013 ban on assault weapons called the “NY SAFE ACT.”

What is noteworthy about the present incarnation of a bill to ban semiautomatic weapons, nationwide, is that Democrats no longer use the pretense of disguising their goal through political jargon, i.e., using the nebulous words, “assault weapon,” in a weak attempt to hide their objectives. They no longer rely on pretense.

Their objective is plain as they target “semiautomatic weapons” directly. That fact alone shows a significant change in strategy, suggesting that many Americans are fine with clear, unambiguous language of intent. But for most of us, this new threat is cause for alarm.

These Destroyers of our Republic intend to remove weapons that pose a threat to the Tyranny they are imposing on all Americans. And they want all Americans to know this—especially those Americans, the Nation’s Patriots, who strenuously oppose the insinuation of Tyranny in a Country formed as a truly Free Constitutional Republic.

The Forces That Crush have made plain their intention to disarm the citizenry, suggesting another phase in the hijacking of a Free Republic is about to occur. See the post by one of the sponsors of the “GOSAFE ACT,” Democrat Congressman, Martin Heinrich. See also the text of the bill article in guns.com, and the article discussing this bill, posted on the website guns.com, on June 4, 2024.

The disassembling of our Free Constitutional Republic can only happen, can manifest in reality only if, by hook or by crook, these ruthless Anti-American forces succeed in keeping the doddering, fragile, half-dead fool, Joe Biden, upright and semi-awake, and semi-sentient, capable of babbling, blabbering, blundering about, long enough, at least, to sit his barely functioning brain and body, or, if not that, then a cadaver, in the Oval Office in January 2025, at which point the catty, servile, imbecilic puppet, Kamala Harris can serve as the new pyrrhic head of the Executive Branch of Government.

HOW THE NEW YORK WARNING SIGN BILL CAME TO BE

The Bill, 2023 A.B. 2882, was introduced a year and a half ago by five assemblymen and women: Dinowitz, Tapia, Weprin, Kelles, and Forrest.

The public heard nothing about it and remained in the dark concerning it until a mass of news reports broke on it: on Monday, June 4, 2024.

Debate among the State’s Legislators is sketchy and difficult to obtain. What little is known is limited to proponents’ rehashing of biased, loaded statistics about firearms’ connection to suicides and accidents, and avoids reference to violent criminal use of firearms on the streets.

The statistics that the sponsors of the Bill presented to the New York Assembly were done so perfunctorily and cursorily, but posited, apparently, as gospel to a receptive Democrat Party majority.

When displayed as “WARNINGS,” predicated on deceptive statistics, they convey an air of majesty and undeniability—a thing intended.

“Warning” Labels on products are meant to give the prospective purchaser pause. As with “Warning Labels” on any product, these are emphatic and vehement. That is the point. But as presented here, the assertions aren’t true.

Suicide in modern societies is an intractable problem. That much IS true. See, e.g., the article in “Frontiers for Public Health.” But if a person is intent on killing him or herself, will the absence of a gun prevent a person from doing so through other means? Those who detest firearms in the hands of civilians presume the absence of a firearm prevents a person from following through on suicide.  Does the presumption hold up to scrutiny? Does the presumption wrongly conflate the intention to commit suicide with the means to see that intention through to completion? Or are the means to the end and the end goal inextricably tied to each other?

TO COMBAT SUICIDE ONE SHOULD DIRECT ATTENTION, EFFORT, AND RESOURCES TO THE CAUSES OF IT, NOT THE MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH IT. CAUSES AND MEANS ALTHOUGH RELATED ARE DISTINCT CONCEPTS.

The causes of suicide are multivarious. Often, and oddly enough, Government policy is the principal cause for a surge of suicide in a population.

The government can sustain it, enable it, and even encourage it. Trudeau’s Government enables suicide in Canada, and judging by the success of its “assisted suicide” program, actively abets it. See the article posted on crime research.org (CPRC) titled, “The Assisted Suicide Rate in Canada is 4.45 times the Firearms Suicide Rate in the United States.”

While there were about 3,839 suicides per year in Canada in 2020, there were 13,500 assisted suicides in Canada in 2022. With a population of about 38.25 million people, that implies an assisted suicide rate of 35.294 per 100,000 people. The total suicide rate is about 45.

The assisted suicide rate in Canada in 2022 is about 4.45 times the firearms suicide rate in the US in 2021 (the latest year for both numbers). Even if you take Canada’s assisted suicide rate in 2021, when the program was ramping up, there were 10,500 assisted suicides, for a rate of 27.5 per 100,000 people. That is 3.46 times the US firearm suicide rate.” See report in “Crime Prevention Research Center” (CPRC). 

 Apart from the government’s assistance in abetting suicide in some countries, which is frightening to contemplate, societal stressors are at work that pushes people to follow through on it.

While a gun may serve as a popular means to end one’s life, the lack of it has no statistical effect on preventing a determined person from ending his or her life.

Firearms are prevalent in America. But eliminating them would have no statistically significant effect on suicide rates even if, for some, the converse seems to be intuitively true, which is to say, the means, (the availability of a firearm, and the end desired, the death of oneself) are inextricably tied to each other. They are not. See, May 25, 2023 article in criminal research.org (CPRC)

[T]he common claim is that if guns are eliminated, people either won’t try to commit suicide or cannot do it successfully. Yet, in places where guns are banned, total suicide rates remain unchanged — people change how they commit suicide.”

The proponents of more and more stringent anti-Second Amendment measures also claim that firearms are the principal cause of accidental deaths among children. This notion, too, is erroneous. Id. (CPRC)

For those under 18, total vehicle deaths are over 35% greater than firearm deaths from murder, suicides, and accidents. Even when you use homicides instead of murders, which includes justifiable homicides, vehicle deaths are 10% greater.

When you look at deaths for those under 20, firearm deaths from murder, suicides, and accidents were less than vehicle deaths in 2019 and 2020 (the FBI data on murder for those ages wasn’t available yet for 2021). Firearm deaths from homicides, suicides, and accidents exceeded vehicle deaths in 2020 and 2021, but it was driven by the difference between the CDC measure of homicides and the FBI measure of murder. Even if you use the CDC numbers on homicides, the results are driven by 18- and 19-year-olds likely to be involved in gang violence.

The Hochul Government attaches the “gun” policy to the wrong premise. It takes as axiomatic the erroneous idea that the prevalence of “guns” in New York and nationwide is the salient source of society’s problems.

This false assumption is a major component of a faulty belief system around which the Government crafts its policy. Blind adherence to that belief system prevents the Government from considering any other reason for societal breakdown.

Might not a lax criminal justice system and the handcuffing of police be more likely causes of societal instability and concomitantly, increasingly and extraordinarily high instances of crime, especially violent crime in major urban cities in America?

But, oddly, a belief system that mollycoddles dangerous psychopaths and lunatics is the same system that happens to target guns and the “Common Man” who wishes, as is his fundamental, unalienable right, to take upon himself, responsibility for his own Personal Safety. This need is most acute in Cities like NYC.

Yet, the New York Government finds the idea of the armed citizen abhorrent, and, so, arrogantly frustrates exercise of the right at every turn. And, at the same time, this Government provides neither for the Public Safety of the Community, which is its duty, nor for one’s Personal Safety, which it is not. New Yorkers have little control over the actions of their public leaders who shirk their responsibility to the public. The New York electorate can only vote them in or out of office.

But, New Yorkers do have the right to bear arms in their defense against aggressive life-threatening assaults against them—both at home and in the public sphere. The U.S. Supreme Court cases when taken together—Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—make this abundantly and categorically clear.

Yet, the Hochul Government frowns on civilian possession of firearms. This is exemplified in the labyrinthine maze of laws enacted to frustrate a person’s possession of a firearm, especially a handgun, for self-defense.

The Hochul Government’s firearms policy coheres with and reflects its belief system—one antithetical to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms—resulting in a nonending and steady stream of outlandish, outrageous, fanciful, extravagant, unconstitutional, and noxious “gun” laws, making for an incomprehensibly vast and tortuous regulatory regime.

This most recent antigun “Guns Are Dangerous To Your Health” Bill, 2023 A.B. 2882 (Senate Bill 2023 S6649) is nothing more than a scarcely disguised attempt to harass and burden New York’s firearms dealers and gunsmiths.

Since Hochul cannot legally prevent, outright, a person, not under a disability, from exercising his fundamental right to keep and bear arms, she can only plot ways to frustrate Americans’ ability to acquire firearms, if they wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in New York, or use scare tactics in attempt to dissuade a person from acquiring a firearm.

This present Bill, 2023 A.B. 2882, attempts to do a bit of both: frustrate the dealer from conducting business, and dissuade the prospective buyer from effectuating his purchase of a handgun.

The New York Government interposes itself between buyer and seller, hovering like a ghostly presence over both parties, silently interfering with a legitimate business transaction.

HOW DID THIS BILL COME TO PASS?

Legislative prognostication had posited low passage for this Bill at the get-go. That is not surprising. The Bill is ludicrous.

What is surprising is that notwithstanding low passage for it—usually meaning it likely would not leave committee—the Bill, nonetheless and incongruously, made it out of Committee, and the New York State Assembly passed it.

As drafted, the Bill is unusually short. That undoubtedly helped to move it inexorably if slowly along to fruition. The Bill passed as initially drafted by the State Assembly where it had originated.

The Bill then wended its way to a State Senate Committee for consideration. The Committee released it, without revision, to the full Senate for a vote. The State Senate passed it forthwith.

It helped that Democrats control both Houses of the Legislature. And the Assemblymen who introduced the Bill made sure that a majority of Legislators would vote for its passage.

The Bill now goes to the Governor’s desk for signing.

Once Kathy Hochul receives it, which is imminent, she will sign it immediately. No one should doubt that.

The Bill is a partisan tactic grounded on suspicion of and outright hatred of the “Common Man.”

On enactment, New York will be the first State to treat a firearm more like an unwholesome and banal act of smoking a cigarette than to treat it circumspectly for what it is, a sacred, fundamental, unalienable, eternal right, deserving of respect, even reverence.

MECHANICS OF THE BILL: ENFORCEMENT

The police will verify compliance.

Once this Bill becomes enforceable law, ninety days after Hochul signs it (under Section 2 of this Subdivision of the Handgun Law), the police have the task of scrutinizing firearms dealers and gunsmiths to ascertain whether they fully comply with the law.

Provision (C)(II) of the Bill says,

The Provisions Of This Subdivision Shall Be Enforced Within  Each Municipality By The Applicable Local Police Force, Including Town, City And Village Police Departments Which Officers Are Authorized To Issue Appearance Tickets. Appearance Tickets Shall Be Served Personally.

Tasking the police with enforcing this Bill means prodding the police away from their most pressing task and their salient duty, protecting the community from the criminal element.

With New York awash in violent crime and property crime, the latter of which always has the propensity to become violent, it is a sacrilege to use scarce taxpayer monies for matters that do not serve the taxpayer's interests. This Bill works against his interests.

This Bill targets legitimate businesses devoted to serving the American citizen who seeks to do nothing more than exercise his God-given fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Neither the citizens nor these legitimate businesses are a threat to the public order. But the Government still treats them as if they were a visible, omnipresent threat to the public order. That stance is reflected in the gargantuan, cumbersome firearms licensing regime—a regime that continues to group despite the numerous constitutional challenges pending in New York’s State and Federal Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

MECHANICS OF THE BILL: PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE

The Penalties For Failure To Comply, whether inadvertent or intended, are harsh.

Provision (C) (1) provides,

Failure To Comply With Any Provision Of This Subdivision Shall Be A Violation Punishable By Imprisonment Of Not More Than Fifteen Days Or  By  A  Fine Of Not More Than One Thousand Dollars, Or Both. Each Day That A Violation Continues Shall Be Deemed A Separate Offense.

What isn’t said in the Bill follows from the State Licenses required to do business in the State. Retail gun dealers and gunsmiths must obtain—apart from the acquisition of a valid Federal License (FFL) to engage in selling firearms or working on a firearm—a valid New York State license, to do business in the State.

NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (1-a), says,

No person shall engage in the business of gunsmith or dealer in firearms unless licensed pursuant to this | An applicant to engage in such business shall also be a citizen of the United States, more than twenty-one years of age and shall be required to maintain a place of business in the city or county where the license is issued. . . .|

Additional New York jurisdictional licenses may also be required. All are in jeopardy when this Bill becomes law, ninety days after the Governor signs it Hochul signs it into law. (Section 2 of the Bill).

In the event of a violation of this new Subdivision 20 of NY CLS Penal § 400.00, once codified in law, the Dealer or Gunsmith will find he has also violated the “Good Moral Character” requirement of Section 400.00 which he must satisfy if he is to obtain and then maintain his State Dealer or Gunsmith license.

This means he is likely to lose his business and his livelihood if a police authority cites him for noncompliance with the signposting provisions and complementary warning handouts, in any particular.

That possibility had likely not gone unnoticed by the proponents of this new Bill. The proponents want to drive retail gun dealers and gunsmiths out of business just as they would like to drive gun manufacturers out of business.

SUPPOSE THAT, IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION, A POLICE OFFICER HARMS OR INJURES AN ENTREPRENEUR OR HIS ESTABLISHMENTFirearms Dealers and Gunsmiths have no recourse against the police for harm or injury the police may cause in the performance of their duties under this Handgun Law Subdivision.

Provision B has only one part. It says,

No Licensing Officer, Local Government, Or  Any  Employee  Thereof Shall Be Liable To Any Person By Reason Of Any Injury Or Damage Resulting From The Failure Of Any Gunsmith Or Firearms Dealer To  Comply With This  Subdivision Or In Consequence Of Any Act Or Omission In Connection With The Implementation Or Enforcement Of This Subdivision.

This means the police have absolute discretion in the performance of their duty here and immunity from tortious conduct they may happen to cause in their performance whether such harm or injury occurs as a result of either accident or intentional misconduct since no provision is made to distinguish whether the harm or injury caused is accidental or intentional in this Bill.

WHAT EXPLAINS THE SHEER VOLUME AND AUDACITY OF ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT LAWS HITTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

The tenacity, deviousness, and ingenuity of these powerful forces in society that have crafted and continue to craft such absurd laws are as amazing as the hatred they exhibit toward our most sacred right and the contempt they hold toward those Americans who wish to exercise that right.

Without the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, our Free Constitutional Republic cannot continue to exist.

This does not perturb Progressives and Marxists who reside in our midst. It is our Free Constitutional Republic they and the Globalist “elites” intend to extinguish.

These forces that hate the unalienable and eternal right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, intend fully to dismantle our sovereign, independent Nation-State, to dissolve our Republic, to annihilate the U.S. Constitution, to eradicate the exercise of our sacred Rights and Liberties, to stymie, corral, and control the sovereign and free people who had created all of it, and to reduce the Common Man to a state of total dependence on the Government once the State controls access to the Common Man’s finances, and inexorably drives him to a condition of penury through implementation of policies designed to destroy him financially.

But the Forces That Crush cannot accomplish any of this as long as the citizenry remains armed. And, so, these ruthless powers work feverishly, frenetically, tirelessly to flood the Nation with Rules, Regulations, and Laws meant to continually, inexorably chisel away at our most important Right, and, eventually, inevitably erase it.

Most Americans would strive to prevent the erasing of our most cherished and important Right, the unalienable Right to secure our life, well-being, and autonomy, our very selfhood, with the most effective means available to do so—by force of arms.

It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that preserves our sovereignty over Government and serves as the ultimate bulwark against Tyranny. That fact explains why nothing frightens our Nation’s would-be Destroyers more than the tenacity of the armed citizens to remain armed.

For a Sovereign and Free citizenry to survive and thrive, the citizenry must have continuous access to arms and ammunition, and that means manufacturers of firearms and ammunition, retail dealers of firearms and ammunition that sell these items to the citizenry, and the gunsmiths that service the firearms must also survive and thrive.

For several years, Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist forces have sought, and with some success of late, to frustrate manufacturers of firearms.

Deleterious Marxist and Globalist forces have attempted, with a modicum of success, to have State Legislatures treat firearms as “inherently” or “abnormally” “dangerous instrumentalities,” and therefore to subject manufacturers to liability on nontraditional, novel theories as applied to firearms, namely on strict liability or even absolute liability, normally reserved to manufacturers of or users of “abnormally dangerous products,” such as nitroglycerine or dynamite.

Successful plaintiffs’ cases against manufacturers of firearms make business insurance prohibitively expensive and wipe out revenue when businesses are smacked with tens of millions of dollars in damage claims.

Recall, for example, the 73 million dollar settlement reached in 2022, between Bushmaster [owned by Remington, which is a subsidiary of Roundhill Group, LLC] and the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, in Newtown Connecticut. See, e.g., the article published in The New York Times.

The shooting incident occurred in 2012. See, e.g., the story and timeline published by ABC News.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo utilized that shooting incident as a pretext to strongarm Legislators in Albany to pass the NY Safe Act of 2013. Through a feat of legerdemain and subterfuge, he accomplished his aim quickly, quietly, in utmost secrecy. The public therefore had no advanced knowledge of the Act or the machinations involved in getting the thing passed in Albany and then signed quickly into Law when it by the Governor when it landed on his desk.

Even many of the Legislators in Albany were kept in the dark. They were not given sufficient time to debate it or review the draft of it. On passage, Cuomo quickly signed the Act into Law when it came to his desk. See the article about this as published in the Syracuse News.

His successor, Kathy Hochul shares Cuomo’s sentiments. She has brazenly plowed ahead with a plethora of draconian anti-Second Amendment gun laws since taking office.

The Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) also passed Albany quickly and quietly. Hochul signed the Act into law the same day the Legislature voted to pass it.

The “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 that she had engineered, now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Writ of Certiorari, yet to be voted on. The Court should take up this case for review. The CCIA flagrantly violates the rulings in Bruen.

Hochul and her compatriots in Government continue to motor ahead machinating to conceive, craft, and implement countless new Anti-Second Amendment laws even as challenges remain pending before both State and Federal Courts on illegal statutes enacted only in the last few years.

The aim here is to overwhelm those Americans who simply wish to exercise their God-given right.

NOTE: The reader is invited to peruse this website. We have written and posted dozens of extensive essays to date on both the NY Safe Act and the CCIA. We have also posted a couple of detailed articles on the history of New York’s gun laws and are presently working on two more.

Every new draconian law requires an expensive, time-consuming challenge to attempt to defeat it. The Government has a treasure trove of taxpayer monies, staff, and resources to throw at the very people who, ironically, fund a Government that works against the people whom that Government is meant to serve.

Time and resources are always on the Government’s side. Hochul and Albany know this and use this to their advantage to continually weaken the exercise of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Further expenditures of personal expenses and time and effort will be necessary and ongoing to take on craven State Governments and this awful Federal Government under the Biden Administration. None of this bodes well for our Country or our people.

The present “Warning” Requirement of the most recent New York Bill, soon to become law in New York, now targets the retail end of the firearms chain. The Government is attacking every link in that chain. The endgame is clear.

If manufacturers of firearms and retail dealers are forced out of business, how are Americans to exercise their right to bear arms to protect themselves, their family, their Country, and the Constitution against predatory humans, predatory tyrannical States, and a predatory Tyrannical Federal Government? Not easily.

If the Federal Government—presently controlled by powerful, unelected parties whose interests are antithetical to those of the American people and antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and our Laws—and if States like New York that are sympathetic to the policies of this present rogue Federal Government and that are in league with it, succeed in effectively banning most popular firearms in common use and nullifying firearms and ammunition manufacturers, along with the retail sellers of same, then that will force everything underground. We see the trends. They are worrisome, to say the least.

HOW HAS OUR NATION AND MANY OF OUR STATES COME TO THIS OMINOUS, DEPRESSING MOMENT IN TIME?

Look to the many vile representatives and officials in Government whom Americans had voted into office and who will continue to vote such vile people into office.

How is it and why is it that so many Americans continue to vote into Office—at the local, State, and Federal levels—those people who openly express disdain for our Nation’s laws, Constitution, and fundamental rights and liberties, and who show outright contempt for the Common Man, the average American citizen? What explains this seeming anomaly?

This sad, bizarre state of affairs cannot rationally, convincingly be explained because the act of voting such awful people into office is itself irrational.

Such loathsome representatives and officials operating contrary to the interests of the American people have convinced many Americans to despise our Country just as those representatives and officials despise our Country. That suggests the power of propaganda and psychological conditioning operating against the Electorate on an industrial scale. It is a damned shame.

Until Americans who vote the worst sort of people into high office finally come to their senses, the rest of us—the majority of us—must suffer the consequences of the gullible, uninformed, misinformed Americans, and the wretched cultists and misfits among us who threaten to bring down all of us.

We are all sitting on a major powder keg—one poised to explode in the coming U.S. Presidential Election, this November 2024.

____________________________

AMERICA: WHOSE COUNTRY IS IT?

America: Whose Country is it, anyway? If you were to ask the average American that question, he or she would be apt to look at you quizzically or, perhaps, even angrily, as if it were a nonsensical question.

If he responded, he would likely testily say: “America belongs to me and to you—all of us—the American people,” and he would expect you to leave the matter at that.

But is the answer really so cut and dry? And, if it were true once, a long time ago, is it still true today?

Does America not belong to the Federal Government rather than to the people? Have not the American people, through their consent to be governed by it, capitulated to it when that Federal Government, through the power it has wrongly usurped from the people and accumulated through time, and now exerts over the people, makes abundantly clear that they have little, if any, say over what the Government does, ostensibly in their name?

Isn’t it vacuous quibbling to say that the Country belongs to the people if they have little or no appreciable control over what the Government does, operating, more often than not, against the interests of the people and contrary to the dictates of the U.S. Constitution?

And, if the Country belongs to “THE PEOPLE,” who are THESE PEOPLE to whom America belongs?

THE PEOPLE TO WHOM AMERICA BELONGS ARE THE CITIZENRY. MORE TO THE POINT, THE PEOPLE TO WHOM AMERICA BELONGS ARE THE ARMED CITIZENRY.

The Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights clarifies that America belongs to the people, to “The Common Man.”

AND THE ARMED CITIZENRY IS, THEN, “THE COMMON MAN.” THE GOVERNMENT OPERATES SOLELY AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMON MAN, WHO REMAINS SOLE SOVEREIGN OVER THE GOVERNMENT AND ENFORCES HIS SOVEREIGNTY, IF NECESSARY, THROUGH THE ARMS HE BEARS. THAT IS SELF-EVIDENT, TRUE.

But there is another assumption made here.

The assumption is that the American people cherish the Nation’s rich history, heritage, culture, ethos, and Judeo-Christian ethic, which values the sanctity and inviolability of the individual over the collective will of the State.

They have a vested interest in the well-being of their Country and desire to maintain it as the Founders, America’s FIRST PATRIOTS, intended.

Now, some people take exception to that description. They may retort,

“Well, DOES NOT that ‘COMMON MAN’ include a person—

• WHO expresses marked disdain for the Constitution and our fundamental, unalienable, unmodifiable, eternal Natural Law Rights, and

• WHO exhibits unblemished, raw, rabid hatred for our Nation’s sacred emblems, monuments, statues, and art, and demonstrates abject loathing for the American Flag and for the Country it represents, and

• WHO has shown visible contempt for our Free Republic, and

• WHO unceremoniously pulls down our Nation’s Flag, tramples upon it, burns it, mocks it, and disgracefully, reprehensibly bends a knee, lowers his head, and contemptuously raises arm and fist in the air when the National Anthem plays, and the Flag is raised high, and

• WHO actively, avidly calls for our Nation’s destruction, its utter annihilation, all the while unabashedly embracing our Nation’s enemies and their goals and causes?

Are we to say that, for such a person, such an “American,” THIS COUNTRY IS HIS COUNTRY TOO, notwithstanding HE declares his unbridled hatred for America?

NO! America IS NOT HIS COUNTRY!

America IS NOT HIS COUNTRY because that person has REJECTED AMERICA by his own words and actions. He has RENOUNCED IT, DISOWNED IT.

This may not have the effect of a formal renunciation. There is a legal process for that.

But it is a worse situation for everyone when a person who abhors America remains in it, keeping his status of “citizen” and, in fact, relying on it but for an evil purpose: Destruction of the Country from within.

Such a person often enjoys the privilege of wealth that the Country has provided him or, more likely, the privilege of wealth and status afforded to his parents that he or she has benefitted from. Such people are treacherous, seditious, and effectively traitorous and should, at the very least, be subject to strong rebuke.

Such a person often enjoys the privilege of wealth that the Country has provided him or, more likely, the privilege of wealth and status afforded to his parents that he or she has benefitted from. Such people are treacherous, seditious, and effectively traitorous and should be subject to strong rebuke.

THUS, THIS COUNTRY, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA——

•  DOES NOT belong to a person, a citizen, who spurns it, contemptuously disowns it, applauds its ruin, and actively, avidly works to wrench America from the hands of those TRUE AMERICANS who cherish THEIR COUNTRY, seek to preserve and strengthen it in accordance with the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism upon which the Nation’s Framers and First Patriots conceived and constructed this Nation.

• DOES NOT belong to the noncitizen.

• DOES NOT belong to the Federal Government or any Government or to the powerful, ruthless elites that rule over America in the shadows.

• DOES NOT belong to an ANGRY, MINDLESS MOB that—psychologically conditioned to run amok like zombies at the BECK and CALL of the powerful, ruthless forces that DARE TO CRUSH OUR COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE— is delusional, unaware of being useful idiots, mere puppets on a string, responding through emotion, not from reason, when “triggered” to do so through manipulation of language.

THE “COMMON MAN” WHO CHERISHES HIS COUNTRY IS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF LOSING THE WHOLE OF IT TO THOSE IN LEAGUE WITH THE SHADOWY FORCES INTENT ON DISMANTLING IT, UTILIZING THE LUCRATIVE PARTS OF IT FOR THEIR OWN NEFARIOUS PURPOSES.

This is what the TRUE OWNERS OF AMERICA, the CITIZENRY THAT LOVES AND CHERISHES THE COUNTRY—the American Patriot—MUST CONTEND WITH.

That person must never allow him or herself to rest easy. America’s Patriots must never take the good fortune of their American citizenship for granted.

Before our Country, the Free Republic, existed, a Tyranny ruled an inchoate America. America’s First Patriots took up arms against George III's tyranny and the Central Bank of England and successfully defeated them.

Even then, before the creation of a Free Constitutional Republic, there were those “Americans” who actively fought against America’s FIRST PATRIOTS or otherwise did nothing to assist them in their just cause, fighting for liberty and freedom against tyranny.

At the time, these OTHER, FALSE AMERICANS were variously referred to as “TORIES,” “ROYALISTS,” or “LOYALISTS.” For these people, the concepts of freedom and liberty were never in their hearts. They were never Americans, and America never belonged to them.

Many of them left for Canada or England at the conclusion of the American Revolution. We discussed this in the first article of our series on the history of handgun laws in New York, as posted on the Arbalest Quarrel on April 12, 2024, and reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on April 16, 2024

Almost two hundred and fifty years later, another group of people seek to destroy America, and this time, from within.

As a group, they are aptly called the “RADICAL LEFT.”

Politically, they are often referred to by the word ‘PROGRESSIVES.’

The more extreme members of the Radical Left are properly called ‘MARXISTS.’

They hold to the ideology of Collectivism, which extolls the virtue of the State, “THE COLLECTIVE,” over that of the individual.

The aims of the Collectivists are antithetical to the security of a free State and the sovereignty of the American people over the Government.

An example of a Country grounded on collectivism is CCP China. This is the society collectivists emulate.

These dangerous, fervidly passionate fanatics of COLLECTIVISM, all of whom flock to the banner of Anti-American causes and goals, use the English language to confound and mislead uninformed citizens who do not keep abreast of the news and who have little understanding of and little appreciation for our Nation’s rich history and heritage.

Uninformed Americans have degenerated into naïve pawns. They have been seduced by incessant, noxious messaging to accede to socio-political positions that operate against their best interests, against the best interests of their Countrymen, and against the best interests of the Nation.

It is amazing how Progressives and their more Radical Left compatriots, outright Marxists—all of whom populate, in significant numbers, our public, quasi-public, and private institutions—contort and distort the English Language to assist them in accomplishing their terrible objectives.

Yet, the appalling end goal they have in mind flies past the radar of otherwise rational, intelligent, and astute Americans, despite the evidence smacking them in the face from direct observation and modest reflection on the nature of what they observe.

The Radical Left’s penultimate goal is the elimination of the United States as a Free Constitutional Republic and, in so doing, subverting the sovereignty of the citizenry over the Government.

To attain this goal, the Radical Left designs and implements an array of strategies designed to undermine and eventually eradicate the social, political, economic, philosophical, and moral-ethical underpinnings of a Free Republic as envisioned and crafted by the Nation’s Founders.

Creating a new nation—one where the people themselves, “The Common Man,” would reign supreme over government—was a novel concept for the time and remains unique today. Yet it is an idea antithetical and abhorrent to the powerful elite of all Western nations or empires, the Neoliberal Globalists and Internationalist Marxists.

Destruction of both a truly Free Republic and subordination of the people to Government is the penultimate goal of the Radical Left and of its top-tier shadowy network of puppet masters.

After the loss of the American colonies in the American Revolution, the puppet masters—not accustomed to defeat, especially at the hands of a seemingly ragtag, although a determined and sizable armed force (America’s First Patriots) those who refused to bow to Tyranny—went earnestly back to their drawing boards and devised a new plan to destroy a nascent Country whom they correctly surmised would one day rise to greatness. They sought to prevent that from happening.

They were intent on taking steps while the United States, as a Free Republic, was still in its infancy and relatively weak. They sought to prevent America from wrecking their plans for a world empire. That was and remains, to this day, their ultimate aim.

Well, the puppet masters could not prevent America from becoming the dominant power in the world. So they insinuated themselves into the Government and every other major institution.

The new plan would take time to produce the desired results—decades, even centuries—but the puppet masters and those who would come after were in no hurry.

Even as the United States prospered and grew in power both economically and militarily, these cold, callous, calculating beings had sown the seeds of strife in America that would, in time, bear poisonous fruit.

The Globalist elite empire builders, through their underlings, have quietly commandeered all of the Country’s major institutions, including the Federal Government itself.

They would constrain the formidable power of the American citizenry, which would grow, in time, to the present number of well over three hundred and thirty million citizens.

They would create a schism among Americans. They would promulgate and propagate alien dogmas designed to promote squabbling and enmity among Americans.

In the absence of cohesion among Americans, the Common Man would be unable to deal effectively with the real threat that lurked in the shadows.

Americans would become confused and lose their footing.

They would doubt themselves and become demoralized. Society would fragment and begin to crumble. Chaos would ensue. The Country would rot from within. That was the plan.

What had begun as a slow but inexorable process in the late Eighteenth Century had slowly gained speed, becoming an unstoppable juggernaut by the early decades of the Twenty-First Century. That came to a screeching halt for a time, during Donald Trump’s Presidency.

But, with the corrupt, demented, dementia-riddled, emotionally and physically fragile puppet, Joe Biden, ushered into the Executive Suite of the White House through the illegal manipulation and corruption of the electoral process, the puppet masters were back on track. They worked feverishly to undo all the positive work that Trump had accomplished. They pushed forward at lightning speed with the aim to harm the Country irreparably—economically, politically, culturally, and socially—in every conceivable way.

America has reached a crisis point with the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election looming.

WHICH WAY WILL THE COUNTRY TURN? WILL IT TURN BACK TO ITS ROOTS, STRENGTHENING AND PRESERVING THE REPUBLIC, OR WILL IT FALL TO THE AIMS OF THE RADICAL LEFT, RESULTING IN THE DISSOLUTION OF THE REPUBLIC AND THE SUBJUGATION OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY? Hopefully, the integrity of our Nation’s electoral system in 2024 will remain intact.

If so, it is difficult to believe that a majority of the electorate would opt to vote for Biden to serve a second term, given the horrible mess he and his Administration have wrought both by design and gross incompetence during this first term. That would amount to the electorate slitting its own throat.

And if Trump does get back into Office in 2024—to complete a Second Term that had wrongfully been denied him in 2020—he and we have our work cut out for us to get the Country back on track.

Trump will be better able now to avoid the snares set for him, and we, for our part, would do well to keep our firearms close at hand and our powder dry. There will be a backlash. You can count on that, courtesy of the puppet masters and their minions.

NEW YORK: A CESSPOOL OF LOYALISTS TO THE CROWN DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, BECOMING ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT ZEALOTS THEREAFTER

MULTIPART SERIES: HISTORY OF NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LAW AND IMPACT OF BRUEN ON NEW YORK AND THE NATION

PART A: THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT, SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL, ABHORRED AND REPUDIATED THE RIGHT OF “THE COMMON MAN” TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE

New York never accepted the idea of a natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Sure, the State ratified the Nation’s Bill of Rights, which prominently included the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment. However, New York’s elder statesmen who agreed to that were likely never happy doing so.

They probably only did so to avoid many Americans inferring justifiably that the State was a viper’s nest of “Tories” (Loyalists to the Crown).

At the War's conclusion, they may have continued to harbor bad feelings about the fledgling Nation. Drawing this conclusion is not unsound.

New York alone furnished about 23,000 loyalist troops, perhaps as many as all the other colonies combined.

The loyalist fighters aroused a vengeful hatred among the patriots . . . and when taken in battle they were treated as traitors” [See the article in Brittanica].

Consider that number, 23,000, in relation to the total number of people residing in New York during the American Revolution: 25,000.

The largest cities in the colonies were Philadelphia, Pa, (43,000), New York, N.Y. (25,000), Boston, MA (16,000), Charleston, S.C. (12,000), and Newport, R.I. (11,000) [See the article in American Battlefield Trust] [emphasis my own]

A Further Note:

Over the course of the war, about 231,000 men served in the Continental Army, though never more than 48,000 at any one time, and never more than 13,000 at any one place. The sum of the Colonial militias numbered upwards of 145,000 men. France also dispatched a substantial force to North America beginning in 1779, with more than 12,000 soldiers and a substantial fleet joining the Colonial Americans by wars end.

At its peak, the British Army had upwards of 22,000 men at its disposal in North America to combat the rebellion. An additional 25,000 Loyalists, faithful to Great Britain, participated in the conflict as well. Nearly 30,000 German auxiliaries, or Hessians, were hired out by German princes and served alongside the British for the duration of the war [See the article in American Battlefield Trust].

A second article from the same source points out that of the “25,000 Americans [who] served the crown, some [fought] in British regiments, but most in ‘provincial’ regiments with other Loyalists.”

If this number is accurate and New York did provide the Crown with 23,000 troops, as cited supra, then New York provided the bulk of “Tories” (“Loyalists” or “Royalists”) who fought for England—for King George III against America’s “Patriots”—over ninety percent of the total.

This is remarkable. It is not to be dismissed as insignificant even if one recognizes that “most [New Yorkers] joined the Patriots.” . . . [Yet] “[b]y November 1776 the Patriots had completely evacuated New York. The state, including its vital port of Manhattan, remained under British control until the war’s end in 1781.” See the article on the website Ancestry.

Now juxtapose the number of New York City residents who fought for the Crown (George III) with the number of registered Democrats in New York City before the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, as reported by the local Buffalo news station, WKBW 7, an affiliate of the national broadcast news station, “ABC.”

This year, New York State has almost 13 million voters — 12,971,543 to be exact — registered to participate in the general election on November 3.

Who's voting

More than half of New York's voters are registered Democrats, outnumbering registered Republicans by almost 4 million. Here's a breakdown of voter registration as of September (noting that registration remained open for the November election through October 9):

Party Affiliation Number of Voters Percentage Voters Democrat 6,563,866 50.6%

Republican 2,843,692 21.92%

Undeclared 2,822,102 21.76%

Other 741,883 5.7% 

What's at stake

New York State has 29 electoral votes in the presidential election . . . [and] those votes have historically gone to the Democratic candidate.

It’s no secret most New York City residents virulently oppose the notion of an “armed citizen.” That is perplexing considering the extent of criminal violence prevalent in the City. Apparently, most New York City dwellers soak up the propaganda spouted against “guns” and the right to armed self-defense. Imagine the impact of that attitude on the fate of Americans today if Patriots felt the same when America was a collection of thirteen British colonies 250 years before.

Had not 376,000 “Armed Patriots” taken up arms against a Tyrant, America would have remained a colony of the British Monarch and, thereafter, a component of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth was formed in 1931.

In the end, many Loyalists simply left America. About 80,000 of them fled to Canada or Britain during or just after the war. Because Loyalists were often wealthy, educated, older, and Anglican, the American social fabric was altered by their departure. American history brands them as traitors. But most were just trying to maintain the lifestyles to which they had become accustomed. [See the article in “U.S. History”].

How many New York “Loyalists” slithered back to England with the Red Coats or to Canada at the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War?

No doubt the Loyalists remaining in the new Nation would loathe the notion of an “armed American citizenry.” Weren’t these Loyalists the progenitors of today’s “Neoliberal Globalist” “elites?”

Of those who remained surreptitiously in the United States—many in New York—would they not operate as a “Fifth Column” to better insulate themselves from public observation and public accounting and quietly insinuate themselves throughout the States and the Federal Government, too?

Do their actions not demonstrate their enduring hostility to the Country, the Nation’s Constitution, and the American People, as demonstrated in State and Federal dictates?

These Globalist “elites” monopolize the Press and social media, sports, and entertainment.

They influence the thought processes of many of the Hoi Polloi in major cities like New York.

Would not succeeding generations of lawmakers, other elected officials, and the millions of State and Federal bureaucrats and officers share the same sympathies and sensibilities?

And would they not continue to operate through time as a “Fifth Column” to undermine Country, People, and State and Federal Constitutions? Have they not done this?

These Neoliberal Globalist “elites” (today’s “Tories”—Loyalists to a world empire) monopolize the Press, social media, sports, and entertainment.

These Globalists, lurking in the shadows, are tyrants whose aim is the destruction of our sovereign, independent Nation-State and the destruction of all Western nation-states.

They influence the thought processes of many of the Hoi Polloi in major cities like New York. Like all tyrants, these tyrants will not tolerate a nation’s armed citizenry.

However, the United States presents a conundrum for them because our Nation’s natural law right to armed self-defense is ingrained in every American's psyche and cast in stone in our Bill of Rights.

To deal with this intractable problem, these modern “Loyalists” to a world empire have crafted many tools in an attempt to sever Americans’ connection with their firearms.

One major tool is subterfuge, which is employed in many ways. One way involves the application of psychological conditioning, employed on an industrial scale to induce a phobic reaction toward firearms.

This phobic reaction is expressed as a rabid fear of firearms and suspicion toward those who wish to exercise their natural law right to keep and bear them.

From a rational perspective, this denial of the need to bear arms for one’s personal defense, as well as for the common defense to thwart the tyranny imposed by a ruthless, omniscient, and omnipotent government, is both inexplicable and distressing.

In New York, this fanatical and enduring hostility toward a free, sovereign, and well-armed citizenry manifests as a refusal to recognize a person's dire need to exercise his right to armed self-defense against violent predatory attack.

Does not this State Government mindset explain the expansive time, money, and expense expended to destroy the exercise of the right to armed self-defense?

The New York Government has always shown reluctance to acknowledge and accede to the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Over time, it has become fashionable in some circles to express outrage toward firearms and those who wish to exercise their right to bear them. The New York Government no longer feels it necessary to hide its revulsion toward firearms and its visible contempt for those who cherish their sacred right to keep and bear them.

Instead, the Government projects open hostility toward the fundamental right to armed self-defense.

To this day, and after several renditions made to the State’s Constitution, no individual right to armed self-defense exists or ever existed in the Bill of Rights of New York’s Constitution. And none is forthcoming.

Even in New York’s first Constitution, reference to an armed person was grounded in the notion of a “militia.” See discussion infra.

This provision was dropped but would appear later in various iterations.

However, specific reference to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” would be relegated to statute only. You will not find the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” delineated in the State Constitution.

Moreover, the ‘militia’ clause in the latest rendition of the State Constitution is not a “right,” for it does not appear in the State Constitution’s “Bill of Rights,” Article I, but instead, in Article XII, “Defense.” See discussion infra.

The first Constitution, a creature of the Legislature, did include a portion of the Declaration of Independence. However, that, too, was dropped from all later versions.

What explains these apparent anomalies between the first New York Constitution and later versions?

Article XL of the original Constitution, enacted in 1777, says—

And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times here-after, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth.

And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State [emphasis my own].

See the article in the Historical Society of New York Courts.

Did this early Constitution, enacted during the commencement of the American Revolution, serve to promote the false idea the New York Legislature stood with America’s Patriots when it did not and had sought to cloak where its true loyalties lay?

And, knowing that 23,000 New York Loyalists did serve the Crown during the American Revolution, wasn’t it the State Legislature’s fervent belief and wish that New York’s militia could serve as a provincial military arm in service to George III and not to the Continental Army? Likely, so.

Most of those serving in the provincial arm of the Crown (the militia) were New York Loyalists.

Yet, New York’s militia would not be necessary after the British Empire lost the colonies. The State Legislature could dispense with it.

Perhaps having recognized the U.S. would never again become a colony of the British Empire, the drafters of New York’s First Constitution may have quietly decided to remove any reference to the right of the people to keep and bear arms lest that force one day turn against those “elite.” Reference to a “militia” would undergo several iterations.

” New York Art. XII § 1, which consists of only one Section titled “Defense,” sets forth,

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The concept of a ‘militia’ for “defense” would undergo several iterations in the continuing development of the State Constitution. The aforementioned recitation is the latest.

See “Constitutional ‘Stuff’: House Cleaning The New York Constitution – Part I,” 77 Alb. L. Rev. 1385 (2013-2014), by Peter J. Galie and Christopher Bopst:

In New York the conservation, social welfare, and housing articles are examples of policies that were deemed fundamental and as such deserving of a place in the state's governing charter. Contrariwise, ensconcing detailed policy measures in the constitution runs the risk of limiting the ability of future governments to adapt to new circumstances and unforeseen changes.

Policy issues are particularly susceptible to the passage of time. The militia article is a case-in-point. It has been revised on a number of occasions to reflect the changing role of the militia in New York State [emphasis my own].

The ‘militia’ Article in New York’s Constitution is incongruent, considering its appearance elsewhere in New York law.

If it appears to have different purposes subject to changing times, circumstances, and whims, is that also true of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms?” It would seem so to the New York Government.

Reference to the “militia” appears prominently in two sections of New York law: the State Constitution and New York’s Civil Rights Law.

In the latter instance, it appears with the independent clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.” However, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed” appears only once in New York law: the Civil Rights Law. See discussion, infra.

The “elites” have always controlled the New York Government, and wealthy, powerful “elites” have assumed firm control over the Federal Government.

They have always been suspicious of the “Common Man,” who happens to claim a right to armed self-defense to safeguard life and well-being.

That threat to the “Common Man” in America now comes from those who control the levers of power inside the Country. They have joined forces with ruthless elements outside it. New York’s militia is in service to Tyrants.

The aims of the New York Government are one with those of the Federal Government under the present Biden Administration:

The “Common Man” must remain confined, constrained, and condemned to non-significance and prevented from becoming a threat to the governing “elite.”  

New York revised its Constitution four times since first ratifying it in 1777, almost eleven years before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.

The first New York Constitution did not have a formal Bill of Rights. The State Legislature would add that ten years later.

That first Constitution, enacted in 1777, was “statutory” (i.e., as enacted by the New York Legislature, not the people at the “Ballot Box”). The State’s first Bill of Rights was statutory as well. The New York Legislature enacted it in 1787.

New York ratified the latest version of its Constitution in 1938. It has undergone many tweaks since that time.

As with every further rendition of the New York Constitution—from the States’s first “Bill of Rights” to the present one—none included a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” See, e.g., the article in Ballotpedia.

New York’s first TRUE Constitution (the second version, 1821) required a vote by the people to become effective. Read about this in History of the New York Courts (PDF).

That history raises the question of whether the Legislature has sought to treat further amendments to the State Constitution much like Statutes allowing the Legislature to make substantive changes to the New York Constitution without requiring a vote of the people.

This would mean treating amendments much like statutes—impermanent, readily repealed, or otherwise easily modifiable.  

One must wonder: Did not the average person in New York, “the Common Man,” wish to include language in the “Bill of Rights” of his Constitution describing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” that mirrored the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution? Was there any debate on the subject? Who drafted this Constitution and the renditions that followed?

The New York Legislature had no interest in that and never offered it as an amendment to be voted on by the people. The Legislature opposed the idea, given the import of such an amendment in a document of the nature of a “constitution,” unlike a run-of-the-mill statute.

A right to armed self-defense, reflecting the language of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, did eventually make its way into the “Law” of New York—New York Statute.

The right to keep and bear arms appears in the Consolidated Laws of the State of New York, not in the State’s Constitution.

A person must wonder why it appeared at all in New York Law.

Was this done merely to placate those New Yorkers who insisted on some language somewhere in New York Law?

That language would never appear as a Constitutional Right for New Yorkers. Also, applying the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the States—through the U.S. Supreme Court imprimatur—would not occur until the McDonald ruling in 2010.

Since the New York Legislature never accepted the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms as a codification of Natural Law but did, apparently, feel pressure to enact a right to armed self-defense, at least in Statute, as a manmade right, a creature of the Legislature alone, the right to armed self-defense exists and remains in Statutory form only.

Even then, it took over a century for that to happen.

Yet, curiously, the New York Government did ratify the Nation’s Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. On that date, the Nation’s Bill of Rights became an indelible component of the United States Constitution. Still, it was no easy task. Many in the New York Legislature opposed ratification.

. . . the politics of ratification within the [New York] state legislature were intense and bitter. New York became one of the last states—the 11th—to ratify the U.S. Constitution. The first state capital was Kingston (1777); in 1797 the capital was moved to Albany [See the article in Brittanica].

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms,” as it appears in New York Law, is almost identical in wording to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

However, it appears in the New York Statute. This means it is a manmade construct only, not a natural law right preexistent in Man.

The Legislature intentionally kept “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” out of the New York State Constitution to prevent anyone from proclaiming it as natural law bestowed on Man by the Divine Creator.

However, one change was made to the wording. The State Legislature replaced the phrase “shall not be infringed,” as it appears in the Nation’s Constitution, with the words “cannot be infringed”). Why there is a difference in usage isn’t made clear. We may speculate.

The phrase ‘shall not' is formal in the present context, while ‘cannot’ is colloquial.

It may be the Legislature sought, through the slight difference in wording, to draw a distinction, albeit a subtle one, between the language of the Second Amendment “Right” as natural law, not subject to repeal or tampering, and New York’s “right” as merely manmade law, subject to repeal and modification.

The language of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is universally important to the country's citizenry. At the time, its impact was only presumed to limit the Federal Government, not the states.

It bears repeating — ”the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” as a manmade construct of the New York Legislature, is transitory and impermanent. It is subject to Legislative repeal, irrespective of the people's wishes because it is a creature of man. It is not perceived as a natural law right, preexisting in man. And so it is not taken to be a thing beyond the power of the Legislature to tamper with.

The statutory right is in Article 2 (Bill of Rights) of the Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R § 4 of the Consolidated Laws of the State of New York.

However, it is also important to point out that this “Bill of Rights” in New York’s Civil Rights Law does not have the same weight as the State’s Constitutional “Bill of Rights.” Therefore, it is not considered fundamental, unmodifiable, and eternal. The notion of two Bill of Rights in New York law is understandable but no less shocking. The Legislature has drawn a bright line between “rights” it treats as manmade and temporal and those it accepts as “natural law” and eternal.

Those forces that control the people of New York have refused to acknowledge the right to self-defense (of which armed self-defense is but an aspect) as a natural, “eternal” law).

In New York, true self-defense does not exist in the person. The New York Government does not recognize it and begrudges those who assert the right. That explains the obstacles the New York Government has created to frustrate those citizens who desire to exercise it.

Self-defense is a prerogative of Government that it bestows on a person as a revocable privilege.

This explains why the Government talks incessantly about “Public Safety” that accrues to the Government and carefully avoids mention of “Personal Safety” that accrues to the individual.

The New York Legislature enacted the Statute pertaining to the right of the people of New York to keep and bear arms on February 17, 1909. It remains in effect as originally enacted.

Because the Bill of Rights of New York’s Civil Rights Law is a “manmade” law crafted by the State Legislature—a transient, modifiable, constructed right—it is a mere concession to the “Common Man” in New York. It is impermanent, perhaps even temporary—trivial in its import and impact, notwithstanding its ostensibly emphatic language.

The New York Government has repeatedly shown this New York “Civil” Right to mean little, as the phrase “cannot be infringed” is routinely, vigorously, and mettlesomely infringed by the State Government.

This is not to say New York’s Constitutional Bill of Rights lacks gravitas.

Nonetheless, the Bill of Rights in the State Constitution has undergone several iterations. That fact should not be lost on anyone.

At present, Eighteen Rights appear in the State Constitution.

Of those Eighteen Rights, nothing is said or even alluded to about the right of the people to keep and bear arms or any right to self-defense.

See NY CLS Const Art. I. Art I is where New York’s Bill of Rights appears. It is titled “Bill of Rights.”

The Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany has not sought to repeal the Statutory right of the people to keep and bear arms or modify its language to date. It doesn’t because it need not do so and likely doesn’t wish to make waves by doing so, at least now.

Instead, the Legislature has used subterfuge and wile to slowly chisel away at the exercise of the right—an insidious, inexorable process, but one leading to the same result, albeit without fanfare and bravado.

This would likely be less easy for the Legislature to accomplish if the Right existed in Article I of the State Constitution instead of Article 2 of the State’s Civil Rights Law.

To urge a substantial number of the New York public to support the slow strangulation of armed self-defense in New York, the State Government and a collaborative, sympathetic Press have continuously used propaganda to gain the public’s cooperation with or, at least, acquiescence with its policy aims pertaining to exercise of that right.

That Government policy does nothing to serve the public’s interest in securing its safety and well-being. The Government aims to corral and control the civilian populace.

The State aims to render the New York public impotent, wholly dependent on the Government to provide for the public’s safety and well-being.

Yet, the New York Government has repeatedly demonstrated crass incompetence or outright and continuous indifference to the safety and well-being of its residents in its “Public Safety” measures.

The lack of a constitutional framework for exercising the right to armed self-defense in New York inevitably results in constant frustration for the citizens who reside or work there.

The State does nothing concrete to ensure effective “Public Safety.” Yet it creates roadblocks that constantly frustrate the public’s rights and responsibilities and the need to ensure its “Personal Safety.”

This frustration is aptly reflected in the State’s nascent anti-Second Amendment legislation.

That very early legislation preceded the Sullivan Act, but it laid the groundwork for it and more sophisticated, complex, and all-encompassing legislation subsequent to Sullivan through the ensuing decades and centuries.

The New York Government has given New Yorkers no reprieve. It constantly devises ever more insidious policies to constrain the exercise of the right to armed self-defense.

Next, we will examine the precursors to Sullivan, the seeming reasons for its enactment, and its import.

________________________________________________________

DECADES OF DENYING THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND THEN THREE LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY REFUTING THAT MYTH

MULTIPART SERIES: HISTORY OF NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LAW AND IMPACT OF BRUEN ON NEW YORK AND THE NATION

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed” ~ Isaiah 10 (KJV)

HIGHLIGHTS AND RATIONALE FOR THIS SERIES

For decades, many people serving in the Federal or State Governments across the land, as well as many academicians, have postulated that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms does not refer to an individual right but a collective right.  

This misperception is grounded not on sound legal and logical analysis but on bias—a personal animus directed toward armed self-defense.

More particularly, this hostility derives from a stark abhorrence of the well-armed citizenry as a check on government tyranny.

It isn’t the prospect of tyranny or government encroachment on the sovereignty of the American people over the government that troubles proponents of the “collective rights” argument, but rather the fact that the armed citizen can effectively resist that tyranny.

Over the past decades, the Federal Government has amassed incredible power—an unconstitutional usurpation of power.

While this troubles many Americans, it troubles few others who find it tolerable, acceptable, and even commendable since it is presumed essential to the end goal of governmental power absolutism, which is considered a good thing to some. This quest is borne of an attitude.

This attitude results from strict adherence to a sociopolitical-economic philosophy that is at odds with our Nation’s history, heritage, and core values, as reflected in the Articles of the Constitution and, more directly, in our unique Bill of Rights—a set of Natural Law Rights, emanating from the Divine Creator—fundamental, unalienable, unmodifiable, unbroken, persistent, and eternal.

Many Americans and many State Governments correctly understand this and realize the need for America’s armed citizenry, no less today than in the past, as our Country is awash in violent crime.

As an uncaring Federal Government amasses more power unto itself, it uses none of that power and authority to serve the American people but, instead, to harm the people, in service to itself to secure ends antithetical to those of the people—consolidating power to cement its tyranny over the people.

A Tyrannical Government will not tolerate the armed citizenry.

Not until the first decade of the Twenty-First Century did Americans who cherish their natural law right to armed self-defense successfully challenge the erroneous collective rights idea of the Second Amendment, which had held stubbornly sway for so many years and decades and impliedly embraced a notion of the Government as sovereign over the people rather than the Government beholden to the people with the people as the sole sovereign over the Government.

A dangerous transformation of the role of the Government and its relationship to the people has gradually taken shape. It is one at odds with the concept of a Free Constitutional Republic.

A backlash was brewing. And it came none too soon in the face of a torrent of bizarre and unconscionable political and societal notions thrust on the public psyche through a concerted and diabolical propaganda campaign meant to confound the citizen’s rational thought processes and fracture his moral sense.

In the 2008 landmark case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court responded to Americans’ justified outrage at states’ continued defilement of the natural law right to armed self-defense.

Through comprehensive elucidation, the High Court had, at long last, made unambiguously and unequivocally plain that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right—a right unconnected to a person’s service in a militia.

A basic rational, common-sense understanding of the need to protect oneself with effective means from aggressive assault only buttresses the Court’s legal and logical analysis in Heller.

Many States that traditionally abhor the idea of civilian citizen possession of firearms balked and, looking for an “off-ramp,” claimed the Heller decision does not apply to them.

Americans then challenged that idea, and the U.S. Supreme Court again responded by ruling in a second landmark case, McDonald vs. City of Chicago.

In that 2010 case, the Court made plain that the fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms applies to the States no less than it does to the Federal Government. No Government of men can lawfully countermand Divine Law, but some States dared to do so anyway. They continued to frustrate the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

This required the U.S. Supreme Court to step in yet again.

In a third landmark case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) vs. Bruen, the High Court made plain the right to armed self-defense, implicit in the words, “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” applies in the public sphere as well as in one’s home.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement in Bruen that offended that Truth.

For well over a century, the New York State Government had maintained that no one has the right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside one’s home. “Proper Cause” was the instrument crafted to deny Americans’ right to armed self-defense outside the home. The New York Government created that standard for uniform application across the State.

But, the State Legislature never defined what “Proper Cause” meant.

It was left to the New York Courts to define Proper Cause” that would express the intent (or an intent) of the State Legislature in Albany.

The Courts said “Proper Cause” means “special need,” which, more precisely, means “extraordinary need” to carry a handgun for self-defense. And, “extraordinary need,” referring to need beyond the ordinary, entailed the notion that a need grounded on basic self-defense when in public is insufficient to justify the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.

Since everyone could claim “self-defense,” especially in a major metropolitan area like New York City, prone to criminal violence, a person working or residing in the City would henceforth need to prove to the satisfaction of the licensing official (or officer) why the danger to that person’s life and well-being extended beyond the “ordinary” day-to-day danger of criminal violence that factored into everyone else’s life.

This inevitably led to the creation of arbitrary standards. Meanwhile, New Yorkers who could not prove “extraordinary need” for a handgun would face and have faced violent, life-threatening assaults.

It was then left to the various jurisdictions in New York to devise operational rules to effectuate the court definition of a “special” or “extraordinary” need sufficient to justify the issuance of a coveted unrestricted New York concealed handgun carry license.

The principal jurisdiction in the State, the major municipality, New York City, devised elaborate operational rules, effectively restricting to a bare minimum the number of people who could legally carry (concealed) a handgun for self-defense.

This was the intent of the NYPD Licensing Division, which the Municipal Government authorized to craft rules to effectuate “Proper Cause” for issuing a concealed handgun carry license that would permit the licensee to carry a handgun on his person in the City lawfully.

Other jurisdictions never bothered to craft operational rules. In those jurisdictions, the licensing official would issue concealed handgun carry licenses to favored people. Generally, that would mean Government officials such as judges or powerful, wealthy, connected people.

These ideas of issuing concealed handgun carry licenses to a privileged few or creating arbitrary rules benefitting some people to the exclusion of many others are anathema to the Second Amendment's import.

These ideas undermine the import of the “Common Man” by creating a “privileged” subset of people whom the Government bestows the “right” to armed self-defense.

“Proper Cause,” as crafted and applied, is antagonistic and antithetical to the rulings and reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court majority in the prior two landmark Second Amendment cases.

The High Court was not amused at New York’s continued irascibility and defiance of the most basic of natural law rights.

It saw New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement for what it was: an unconstitutional, unconscionable Government intrusion on an American’s fundamental, unalienable, enduring right—one deliberately, callously, and insidiously designed to frustrate the legitimate need of the average person, the “Common Man,” to protect his or her life against a dire threat.

Carrying a handgun is the most effective means to deter a life-threatening assault, bar none.

Long acknowledged as infinitely better than a knife, a whistle, martial arts, and, more recently, pepper spray, a handgun has, for the last two centuries, served the “Common Man” well as the singularly most effective means presently available for countering a deadly, aggressive assault on life where that threat remains commonplace and omnipresent, now as in the distant past—in the public sphere. This isn’t difficult to understand. It is simply common sense.

As one academic scholar pointed out in a law review published in 2015, seven years before the Bruen decision came down,

. . . [R]ecognition of the right to bear arms in public makes sense, while limiting the right to the home does not. People often need to defend themselves against criminal offenses outside the home. Most robberies, rapes, and assaults occur outside the home.  A ban on possession of handguns outside the home would be even more burdensome than the ban struck down in Heller: there the Court noted that homeowners could still keep shotguns or rifles in the home, which is not the case outside of the home.

Some argue that, even if the Second Amendment was historically understood to protect the right to bear arms in public, it does not protect the right to bear handguns in public because effective handguns did not exist until around 1835. This argument is ‘frivolous’ after Heller, however, which states ‘the Second Amendment extends . . . even [to] those [arms] not in existence at the time of the founding.’ Alternatively, the very existence of state legislation prohibiting concealed carry, or public carry entirely, reveals a longstanding tradition of states being able to regulate the right. While it is true that state laws barring concealed carry have been upheld under the Second Amendment, these laws were typically only upheld where the ability to open carry was not infringed. [ Note: New York’s municipalities do not permit “open carry” of handguns, only “concealed carry”—and, then, only if the civilian citizen has secured a valid concealed handgun carry license, which he must also always carry].

From “The Constitutional ‘Terra Incognita’ Of Discretionary Concealed Carry Laws,” 2015 U. Ill. L. Rev. 909, 944-945 (2015), by Brian Enright.

The New York Government, like many others, refuses to acknowledge the obvious—obstinately maintaining that “Public Safety” demands the “Common Man” be disarmed for the good of all. Really? Tell that to the family of a person whose life was snuffed out because he or she had applied for and was denied a handgun license for self-defense for failure to prove, to the satisfaction of the handgun licensing authority, “Proper Cause,” for issuance of a license.

Apart from politicians like Kathy Hochul, it is the career criminal, the psychopathic, murderous gang member, and the violent, raging, drug-addled lunatic that delights in the prospect of a disarmed public.

New York Governor Hochul, no less so than her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, detests the idea of civilian citizen possession of firearms.

“Proper Cause” effectively subverted the Second Amendment and rested at the heart of the Handgun Law.

It was an apt instrument—an expression of and actualization of the State’s belief system—thrust on the “Common Man,” the American citizen who happened to reside or work in New York.

“Proper Cause” is an irrational response to an equally irrational attitude.

By robbing the “Common Man” of his access to the best means available for effectuating the natural law right to self-defense, New York denied, in law, the sanctity of innocent human life.

The State would never acknowledge this, but its Handgun Law entails that conclusion. Without the enactment of “Proper Cause,” New York could not have become an efficient “May Issue” State. It remained so for well over a century. But that smug self-complacency came crashing down.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released the Bruen decision.

Hochul was irate and lashed out at the court's rulings and the Justices. She did so immediately after the decision came down and continues to do so.

But Hochul feigned indignation. As the consummate politician, she knew she could rely on favorable Press coverage from a sympathetic mainstream media. Like all petty tyrants, her fear isn’t predicated on the ridiculous idea that law-abiding armed citizens are prone to create a “wild-west” atmosphere. There is no evidence for that anywhere. The contrary holds. See, e.g., the article in “Freedom and Prosperity.”

Presumed concern for ensuring “Public Safety” became the mantra for restricting the exercise of the Common Man’s fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense.

Governments, like New York, that detest the civilian citizenship access to firearms invariably roll out “Public Safety” as a convenient talking point and makeweight to justify (really rationalize) unconstitutional infringement of a basic right.

But the notion of “Public Safety” and the Government’s ostensible quest to provide for it rests on a faulty assumption.

The Government takes as self-evidently true that the number of firearms in circulation rather than the nature of those who wield them is “the cause” of “Gun Violence.” That is false.

See, e.g., articles posted in “The Truth About Guns,” NSSF, and FBI Crime Statistics for 2020.

The Leftist website Politifact does acknowledge the criminal is “the cause” of “Gun Violence” but claims the criminal generally steals those firearms from those people who lawfully possess them [or otherwise acquires them on the “Black Market.”]

The tacit point is that if fewer guns were in circulation, fewer criminals would have access to them, suggesting that society as a whole (but not the individual) would be better served if the law-abiding public did not have access to them.

This is a strawman argument. Even if arguably true, it dodges or ignores two important matters. One is that the lowest common denominator in society should not factor into a discourse on the fundamental right to armed self-defense exercised by the highest common denominator: the average American—honest, trustworthy, responsible, rational, and moral.

The second is that escalating violent crime can and ought to be dealt with directly and effectively. The Government is fixated on promoting a dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” that has the effect of destabilizing society, demoralizing the public, and destroying our Nation’s core values. Application of this dogma applauds mediocrity, abides criminality, extolls perversity and perversion, and avoids all accountability for those excesses.

This follows from an ethical system championed by Marxists: Utilitarian Consequentialism. Utility maximization is the goal for those least deserving.

What follows is the Government curtailing fundamental rights and liberties and forcing conformity in thought and action, thus reducing the overall quality of life and endangering the average American's life, safety, and well-being.

Government Tyranny is the end result and goal, and that result and goal are unavoidable.

The perceptive reader should recognize the use of and emphasis on the word ‘Gun’ in the phrase “Gun Violence.” He should also be mindful of the Government’s general reticence in using the word ‘Criminal’ in its Press releases and public announcements and of the Government’s careful avoidance of the phrase “Criminal Violence” in its discussion of “Public Safety.”

This isn’t accidental. It is deliberate.

The Government intentionally conflates—equates—the word ‘Gun’ with ‘Violence’ to create, in the public psyche, a phobic reaction toward firearms, to dissuade the public from arming itself.

It is axiomatic that the Tyrant fears the armed “Common Man,” not the “Common Criminal,” and will not suffer an armed citizenry that, for good reason, poses a threat to Government Tyranny. A Tyrant learned that lesson well. It happened thus so once in our history and successfully, and it may thus occur again and equally, and this time directed to the Nation’s own Tyrant Government that has forgotten whom it serves and for whom it exists and from whom it derives its existence.

At least one Branch of the Federal Government, the U.S. Supreme Court—at the moment at least and, at least some of the present complement of Justices—does understand and remain true to the Oath taken. There are two Oaths and one of those Oaths applies to U.S. Supreme Court Justices alone:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Governor Hochul knew an adverse ruling was coming in Bruen—eight months before the decision was published—and her Government intended to be prepared for that exigency.

She deciphered this after Oral Argument held in late November 2021.

In the succeeding months before the publication of the Bruen decision, her government meticulously crafted amendments to the Handgun Law that, when implemented, would provide an adequate, if not ideal, substitute for “Proper Cause.”

Plainly, Hochul had no intention of complying with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The Court’s Article III authority be damned.

Her defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings amounts to blatant disregard for and contempt for the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of a Free Constitutional Republic.

But Hochul could not take such action lightly against the Court and the Constitution lightly. Such action is not merely brazen. Such explicit defiance is dangerous to Hochul’s political life and to the forces with whom she is in league—those intent on dismantling the Republic. There are serious repercussions. The Hochul Government felt she had powerful protectors.

The Hochul Government in New York has taken its cue from the Biden Administration, which has made clear its own disdain for the Republic and the Third Branch of the Federal Government through its remarks and actions.

The forces that dare to crush the Country, Constitution, and People have long since passed the point of no return.

Discretion in words and deeds is no longer serviceable. Very few Americans remain deceived by what they see and hear from the Federal Government under the Biden Administration and those State Governments controlled by Radical Left elements.

America has devolved into two divided camps. There is one that cherishes its past and seeks to reinvigorate the concept of a free Republic and a sovereign citizenry, to strengthen the National Ethos and Judeo-Christian Ethic, and to usher back into vogue an adoration for our unique Bill of Rights, a true Bill of Rights grounded on natural law, understood as an eternal gift bestowed on Man by the Divine Creator. Our Nation’s Bill of Rights is not to be perceived as a set of temporal, temporary licenses bestowed on a privileged few by the Government.

The other camp consists of a heterogeneous amalgam of Americans. They comprise disinterested or uninformed types or those with defeatist attitudes, happily or willingly capitulating to a Tyrannical Government, or those opportunistic types, willing to sell out to oligarchical powers for a few crumbs.

This camp also includes a few who must be classified as true believers—Socialist Cultists and Multicultural Relativists who seek to dissolve all nation-states and destroy the concepts of ‘nation-state’ and ‘citizenship.’

This last group welcomes the creation of a colossal empire ruled by “elite” technocrats who aim to establish a world order that emphasizes societal conformity in lieu of encouraging individual achievement, industriousness, and personal responsibility.

It should, then, come as no surprise to anyone that those Americans who cherish the sacred right to armed self-defense see through the façade of Government that constantly speaks ill of firearms and of those who recognize their right and responsibility as American citizens to provide for their defense against predatory beasts, predatory men, and the predatory man-beast of Government, by force of arms.

These Americans—and there are many—intend to exercise their natural law rights despite the Government's protestations, indignation, and condescension and that of the Government’s many proxies in the Press, Social Media, Entertainment, Sports, Big Business, Big Finance, Big Tech, and Academia.

America’s true Patriots hold fast to the Truths expressed by the Nation’s Founding Fathers—Truths Eternal—not fads, whims, or frivolities mistaken for truths, but mere illusions, chimeras, that have no substance.

It’s against these Patriots and a cognizant U.S. Supreme Court that the New York Government has marshaled its forces.

The Hochul Government used all the state power, money, and authority it could muster to battle against the weight of the U.S. Constitution and the sacred, inviolate natural law rights of man, upon which our Nation has stood fast since its inception.

Challenges to the constitutionality of the amendments to New York’s Handgun Law came quickly.

Wending their way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court published its decision in December 2023. The case is Antonyuk vs. Chiumento, 89 F.4th 271 (2nd Cir. 2023). The Court mostly sided with the Hochul Government.

The case is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Writ of Certiorari. The High Court must take this case up for review, as the Second Circuit’s decision impacts and is inconsistent with Bruen.

“PROPER CAUSE” UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES

The Hochul Government has devised two mechanisms that, together, substitute for “Proper Cause” that the High Court had struck down.

These two mechanisms, cunningly crafted, operate in tandem.  

One involves a substantially reworked, heavily bolstered “Good Moral Character” requirement.

The second involves imposition a “Sensitive Place” impediment to legally carrying a concealed handgun.

The State invoked the “Character” requirement as an imposing hurdle for applicants to overcome to constrain the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses.

And, for those individuals who secure a New York concealed handgun carry license (many more individuals than had received such licenses when “Proper Cause” existed), the “Sensitive Place” impediment kicks in. This, a new requirement, severely constrains a licensee’s exercise of armed self-defense when carrying a handgun in public for self-defense.

Concealed handgun carry, which had been unrestricted in New York for decades for self-defense in the public sphere of life, would henceforth be reduced in status to heavily restrictive lawful use in the public arena for self-defense.

As the Hochul Government had undoubtedly intended, these amendments would compromise the licensee’s ability to lawfully defend him or herself in public when the need arose.

Given the present and considerable danger to safety and well-being in New York and in various municipalities and States across the Country resulting from unchecked unvetted illegal entry of aliens into our Country, and to demoralized, handcuffed police departments across the Country, and to a flaccid, flawed criminal justice system, violent crime has metastasized at a geometric progression as the hardened, violent criminal has grown ever more confident.

Innocent people become the playthings of vicious criminals and lunatics. This doesn’t perturb Kathy Hochul and Albany.

Armed self-defense has become more important today to safeguard survival given a fragmenting society.

But many New Yorkers have no intention of playing the victim in a Country transformed into a Beehive. The average person's life means nothing to people like Hochul, Biden, and other Political Progressives and Marxists.

With the ominous specter of Government autocracy becoming more evident every day, the citizen must be more cognizant of the predatory Government man-beast, no less so than he must be cognizant of the predatory criminal beast who preys on him at random and with abandon.

While most States have acceded to the dictates of the natural law right of the citizen to take up arms in his defense and that of his family, especially in such dangerous times as these now upon us, several States have not deigned to accede to or even to acknowledge the natural law right to armed self-defense.

Ironically, it is these latter States that also hamstring their police departments and kowtow to the criminal element and the Radical Left lunatic fringe to the detriment of the law-abiding, rational, and responsible citizen. New York is one of these jurisdictions.

Governor Hochul and the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature in Albany have abdicated their responsibility to the American citizen who resides and/or works in New York or otherwise does business in the State.

It is bad enough that the Hochul Government has effectively washed its hands of New Yorkers. Worse, the Hochul Government won’t allow the American citizenry to provide for its defense against a society that has run amok.

The New York Government’s antipathy toward armed self-defense, as evidenced in word and deed, must not be perceived in a vacuum.

The Government’s public policy and the accompanying statements reflect a general suspicion of, a contemptuous attitude toward, and an abject disregard for the safety and welfare of the American people who reside and work in New York.

This isn’t something that just happened recently. What exists today in the State is a product of what occurred in the past.

New York’s abhorrence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is worth scrutiny, for New York is a microcosm of the view held by the present Biden Administration toward this most important of all natural law rights and mirrors much of the same antagonism toward the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment expressed by Governors in similar jurisdictions, including New Jersey, Illinois, California, Hawaii, and others, many figuring prominently on the East and West Coasts, but sprinkled here and there around the Country, including New Mexico, and, more recently, Colorado.

Much can and ought to be said about these anti-American jurisdictions whose policies are antithetical to our Nation’s history, traditions, heritage, and core values.

But we direct this essay to delineating and explicating the peculiar ideas New York has harbored toward civilian citizen armed self-defense since New York’s earliest days.

The virulently anti-Second Amendment perspective of the present New York Government should not be considered unusual or unexpected.

Rather, it reflects a natural predictable progression of thought and action.

We begin by looking at early New York case law and legislation regarding guns and gun possession. That is the scope of Part A of this series.

AMERICA IS IN THE THROES OF TYRANNY: WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

Updated on February 27, 2024

[QUOTATION]

“To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men naturally live in, and that is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.” ~From “The Second Treatise on Civil Government,” by John Locke, one of the Great Classical Philosophers, (born August 29, 1632, died October 28, 1704). The Framers of the U.S. Constitution studied the political-philosophical works of John Locke carefully and intensely. John Locke influenced America’s these First American Patriots, profoundly.

This is a follow-up to our previous article, posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on February 20, 2024, and titled, “Is Armed Rebellion a Legal Right for Americans?”

Our Nation’s true Patriots, who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms against the incursion of tyranny, would view the question as rhetorical.

The Radical Left Obstructors and Destructors of our Free Republic would likely see the question as inane.

Regardless, the question is serious, of perennial significance, and deserving of our attention.

The question is not to be taken lightly and it is not to be taken as inane.

This is the principal question for us today. How one answers it has repercussions for our Country:

Exclaiming eternal life for our Republic or marking its date of expiration.

No less so for the Framers of our Constitution, this question was and is the ultimate, all-important question, ever insistent and demanding—not something to be deferred, or rebuffed.

It served as the focus of their work in creating a Nation, unlike the world had ever seen. The American people are and remain the sole sovereign over the Government.

Government Tyranny is a violation of a sacred trust between the people and the Government.

Tyranny amounts to the unlawful usurpation of the sovereignty of the authority of the American people over the Government. Such usurpation is inconsistent with the limited powers of the Government, established in the Articles of the Constitution.

Surely, the American people had the moral right to resist Tyranny—with force of arms if need be—if, as they found necessary, must be, and as it happened, at a singular moment in time in our history (and that of the world) came to be.

America’s Patriots made their moral argument plain by crafting their “Declaration of Independence” from Tyranny—a blatant affront to the legally constituted authority, the British Monarchy, to whom they owed allegiance, however begrudgingly they must give to it.

Our Nation’s Declaration of Independence” was directly influenced by the English Philosopher, John Locke. See, e.g., the article in Brittanica.

That sacred document provided the MORAL impetus for the American people to rebel against Tyranny, despite the Monarch’s legal authority to reign over them.

The Declaration of Independence is grounded on Natural, Eternal God-given Law.

The content of that Document IS NOT grounded on the Laws of Man nor is it a construction of Man’s artifices—Government.

These serve merely as convenient mechanisms that, wholly unlike the Divine Creator’s eternal, unconditional, and infallible Law and Truth, are themselves fallible, transitory, transient, and conditional.

Man has the MORAL RIGHT and the MORAL DUTY to resist Tyranny by all means necessary to secure the end of FREEDOM AND LIBERTY to which he is entitled under DIVINE LAW. That fact is plain.

BUT, do Americans have the “Legal Right” and obligation, apart from the “Moral Right” and Duty, to resist Tyranny? Americans did not have a legal right to rebel against the Tyranny of an unjust British Ruler—only the moral right to do so, knowing full well they would be hanged as traitors to “The Crown” if they failed in their endeavor.

So, then, in creating a new Government, one in which the American people would retain sovereignty over Government that THEY created, did the Founders of our Republic, the Framers of our Constitution, answer the question posed.

Did they provide the American people with the LEGAL RIGHT” and not, alone the MORAL RIGHT to rebel against a Tyranny imposed on them by their Government?

Is Armed Rebellion, then, a Legal Right for Americans, or not?

Some modern scholars say the Framers did answer this principal and insistent question they had posed for themselves.

These scholars claim they did so with a resounding, “no.”

Other modern scholars demonstrate hesitancy before volunteering their response, with either a “yes” or “no.”

We DO NOT respond “no” to the question, nor will a person sense any hesitancy in our voice.

We respond with a resounding, “yes,” and from our research, we argue the Founders of our Republic, the Framers of our Constitution, did so as well.

Both the “Legal Right” and the “Moral Right” are encapsulated in the Second Amendment of our Nation’s Bill of Rights of our Constitution.

How did the leading minds among America’s First Patriots hammer this out? What brought them to consider and to include our Nation’s Bill of Rights, one year after ratification of the Articles of the Constitution?

They began with the premise that “Freedom and Liberty” must be more than a fanciful desire, or desirous yet confoundingly difficult aim.

The manifestation of “FREEDOM AND LIBERTY” into REALITY was, for them, not merely an academic exercise—a mere Utopian dream—something to come to pass, at some point in the future, perhaps, but not during their time.

It was and is the quintessential foundation upon which a nascent Nation would come to fruition, else it ought not to come to be. They knew that if they did not construct a tenable basis for it, it never would come to be.

“Freedom and Liberty” are inconsistent with “Tyranny.” There is no common ground on this. It is one or the other—one cannot have a little of each.

Consider: Modern-day CCP China operates as a brutal Dictatorship. This is plain to all. Singapore is viewed as a “Benign” Dictatorship if one can allow for an oxymoron here.

The Governments of both, however, are EQUALLY Tyrannical: Not just a little bit in the case of one and not the other.

Just try expressing a contrary thought. Just try making a case for keeping and bearing arms in either Country and following through with your conviction. See what that gets you. See where that takes you.

The conundrum for America’s intellectual minds in hammering out a Constitution after the American Revolution involved first deciding whether this nascent Nation should suffer a strong, centralized “Federal” Government.

These learned men knew that Government—all Government—bears within it the seeds of Tyranny. Government is the Devil Incarnate. They harbored no illusion about that.

They had not long before pointed to the moral right of the American people to confront Tyranny head-on, as these men and many thousands more Patriots had fought and died to defeat Tyranny—not an easy task, and costly, in lives, not just in money, but wholly necessary.

These First Patriots sought to avoid Tyranny, like the plague, and fully intended to do so, if at all humanly possible, in this inchoate Nation.

The Framers of the Constitution determined, although for many decidedly reluctantly, that a Nation–—this fledgling Nation—needed a central Government, no less so than any other nation.

But that Government would carry within itself the seeds of Tyranny, no matter what they did to prevent such occurrence. They knew this. They did not doubt it. The best they could do is work some legerdemain within the Articles of the Constitution to forestall this, to hamper the rise of Tyranny. That is the inference that many academic scholars draw. But that inference implies the Government can install itself as a Tyranny, and do so legally in the absence of an effective legal remedy to counter it.

That idea conflicts with the notion the American people are sovereign over Government—a proposition many scholars reject, but that we take as axiomatic.

Since the Tyranny of Government could be, at best, forestalled, but never prevented, it behooves the people, the ultimate sole sovereign and final arbiter over Government, to be able to control a wayward Government as a parent must control a wayward brat of a child.  

The insistent question for the Founders of our Republic, though, was how to conform the moral right of the “Declaration of Independence” into law, to protect a Free and Sovereign American people against the prospect of a Tyrannical Government that would invariably come to pass and that has come to pass with a vengeance today.

For, if no legal antecedent existed for countering Tyranny, then the Tyrant could claim before the fact, that rebellion against that Tyranny is never legally, i.e., constitutionally justified.

The Constitution they constructed—the Articles, alone—has not sufficed to protect the Common Man from the wiles of ruthless forces.

The Framers knew the Articles would provide, at best, a stopgap—nothing more.

So, the Framers feared Tyranny at some point would come to America—not merely could come to America. They would not be surprised that it has come to America, albeit it has taken two centuries for it to occur.

So, the legerdemain constructed (the Articles) did serve to forestall but not prevent the full poisonous “blossoming” of Tyranny’s manifestation apparent today.

That legerdemain points to the remarkable nature of the Government constructed—that they had forestalled full-fledged Tyranny for well over two centuries, from coming to fruition. But now Tyranny has come to America.

What is left for America to contend with this monster if the Electoral Process fails, as it did in the General Election of 2020 that saw the inception of a cardboard placeholder, Joe Biden, for a Tyrant lurking in the shadows?

The Common Man has something no other Nation on Earth has or ever had——A TRUE Bill of Rights—crafted and subsequently ratified by the States and incorporated into the Constitution a year after a majority of the States previously ratified the main body of the Constitution, the Articles. And it is effective. Consider the effort the Tyrant has expended to constrain it.

America is, today, under siege. It is in the throes of a renegade Federal Government—a weak, corrupt, demented, dementia-riddled, and aged fool, Joe Biden—controlled by a behemoth—hiding behind the curtain.

This grotesque travesty of a “U.S. President, and his Administration, are no more than puppets of shadowy, powerful, ruthless forces—an unelected Leviathan—orchestrating their every move—a secretive Tyrant.

The obsequious Biden Harlequin and Cabinet of malignant munchkins serve as the public face of the Tyrant.

The Tyrant expects, even wants its public face to look and act like the buffoons and dunces they are—making clear to the public and the world that U.S. greatness is on the wane. And, once the majesty of a once great Nation falls, so collapses all of Western Civilization, thereby paving the way for the construction of a new, tumultuous, decisively evil socio-political-economic paradigm.  

The Tyrant utilizes the Federal Government as the principal mechanism for destroying the Country.

It has its wealthy well-connected backers and accomplices—an army, tens of thousands of them.

And it has tens of thousands more, friends, doing their part to bring about the downfall of our Nation.

The Tyrant’s backers, accomplices, and friends operate through all institutions: private, public, and quasi-public, permeating in and through the landscape of our Land.

And what of the public, the Hoi Polloi? Wherefore are the hundreds of millions of the Common People?

Many Americans are blind to the visible rape of their Country.

Many more Americans, bizarrely, seem content with the direction the Country is going through the machinations of the Tyrant’s puppet, the Biden regime, through its control of Media and Social Media, “Big Tech” and “Big Finance,” and all the myriad rest.

The American public—three hundred thirty-six million at last count, according to the U.S. Census—are buffeted hither and yon through propaganda.

But how many of THAT number represent the “Common Man”—the American citizenry? The Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) says that, as of April 2022, there are 15.5 illegal aliens in America. That can’t be an accurate account.

The Pew Research Center said there were 11.1 million illegal aliens in the U.S. in 2009 and that number remained constant through 2011. Yet, since the Tyrant commanded the Biden puppet to open up the Nation’s Southern Border, 8 million more illegal aliens leapfrogged into the Country, and that figure comes from the Leftist Politifact.

Fox News, reposted by MSN News, citing CBC numbers, says 7.2 illegal aliens have entered the U.S. from 2021 through 2023, on the Biden puppet’s watch.

And Republicans point to Homeland Security data estimating another 1.7 “gotaways” have evaded capture since FY2021.

Conservatively, at least 21 million illegal aliens have now infested the U.S.

Recall that Donald Trump wanted to get a handle on this when he served as President. He rightfully sought to exclude illegal aliens as a segment to be utilized for congressional reapportionment [and to determine how many of these aliens reside in the U.S.]. See, e.g., an article in Brookings.

The Tyrant’s Biden puppet has deliberately callously, calculatedly, and illegally, facilitated the movement of millions of illegal aliens into the Country not only for Congressional reapportionment, but for destabilizing society and they are doing just.  

These illegal aliens include murderous international criminal cartel members and international terrorists, apart from the vast multitude looking for handouts, costing the American taxpayer billions of dollars every year to subsidize these freeloaders. See, e.g., the articles in Newsweek and Forbes.

The Government, corporate leadership, and the billionaire class are on board with the takeover of our Country through the insertion of millions of unassimilable illegal aliens into the U.S. and European Countries, too. This creates volatility, hastening the dissolution of American and European culture, as it was designed to do.

The UN considers this “mobility” a force for good. That is the lie they sell.  The UN has drafted numerous tracts and position papers about this.

The Tyrants controlling the EU and the U.S. have engendered the mass illegal movement of Third World populations into Western Civilization to destabilize society. That is the only reasonable inference to draw, as events bear out.

This is not by accident. It is by design.

Some Americans profess to be true believers in the dissolution of their Country. They are haplessly, helplessly, hopelessly delusional, and, more than likely, psychotic.

Many Americans are crass opportunists, hoping to obtain from the powerful usurpers of Government what they can to benefit themselves, the Country be damned.

Many more Americans simply see themselves as pragmatists. They see “the writing on the wall” for the Common Man and for such notions as ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty.’

The propagandists convey the message that “Freedom and Liberty” are, best, quaint, whimsical, charming anachronisms and archaisms of a bygone era—vacuous, meaningless, and, at worst, dangerous ideas, not synchronous with the dogmas thrust on the people: “DIVERSITY EQUITY, INCLUSION” (DEI); and “ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, and GOVERNANCE (ESG); and “CRITICAL RACE THEORY” (CRT)—all artificial constructs of the RADICAL LEFT in service to the TYRANT.

These people, who have capitulated to the Tyrant, wish to protect their life, their monetary fortunes, and their fortunate lifestyle. These people have learned to spew the platitudes expected of them or, if not of a bent to do so, they mind their manners, having the good sense to keep their mouths shut lest they incur the ire of the Tyrant and his minions—the target of Government harassment.

That leaves America’s many Patriots. And what do we have other than THAT Freedom and Liberty, our fundamental, eternal, natural law rights, vouchsafed him by the Good Lord Above through the codification of a singular set of mandates in our Nation’s Bill of Rights?

And, of course, the new-era Communists and Marxists of the day—trying to sound “hip” and “cool” and “sharp” and very, very American—cast aspersions on the concept of “Natural Law” through the use of simplistic claptrap and ludicrous flummery.

Politico national investigative correspondent Heidi Przybyla, slams Christians, driving home a false dichotomy between Christians and “Christian Nationalists” (the latter a made-up phrase).

Two MSNBC commentators listen raptly to this Priestess of the new Dogma, hanging onto her every silvery-tongued word—apostles of the new Enlightenment.

Heidi Przybyla wears an imbecilic smile spinning her yarn. In cloying, condescending, pedantic fashion she quietly chides that segment of the American public that fails to recognize what she strives to convey as a simple, self-evident fact: that [fundamental] rights do not come from God, but from Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Really? That is what she says plainly, succinctly, categorically.

The Founders of our Republic would take Przybyla to task for such a puzzling, presumptuous, contemptuous remark. See the Fox News article.

The implication derived from Przybyla’s absurd polemic is that “God does not exist”—and that it would be better for everyone to disencumber him or herself of that idea.

This reduces morality to a relative, transient, vacuous, everchanging concept, and that of course is the point of her nonsensical, simplistic argument.

If there are no Natural Law Rights and that, if whatever Rights exist are those dictated by the Tyrant—bestowed on a person at whim and rescinded at whim, created at whim, and abrogated by the Tyrant at whim—then a person has no recourse but to look at the Tyrant as “God.” “Freedom and Liberty” have no place in a Tyranny. They can have no place in a Tyranny.  Anyway, that is the takeaway from Przybyla’s little speech to the public.

Still, “Freedom and Liberty”—the predicate basis for the sanctity and inviolability of the individual—are cherished by many of us, nonetheless, just as they were cherished by America’s First Patriots, and notwithstanding that, they are routinely and viciously ignored, scorned by, or found incomprehensible to many other Americans—victims of endless, repetitious, hypnotic psychological conditioning by the minions of the Tyrant.  

Yet it remains: Freedom and Liberty are bequeathed to the Common Man. These concepts persist in the Soul of Man despite the efforts to eliminate them from conscious memory.

Most Americans know this singular Truth even if most of humanity does not and even if many Americans do not, assuming if they give the matter any thought at all.

We Americans who do know the truth, who are not prone to bury that Truth, who are not taken in by the propaganda, know we are unique—outliers—whom the Tyrant sees as profane untouchables because we do not fall prey to the nonsense he projects through his seditious Press and seditious social media.

We do not substitute our NATURAL LAW RIGHTS for international norms and global doctrinal “morality,” modern mythmaking, and hastily constructed Government Gospel that find abhorrent such a seeming archaic, obsolescent concept as NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, and, so, try to insert a counterfeit and logically weak substitute, “MAN-MADE RIGHTS” as a catchall for all RIGHTS.

If Rights are merely gratuitous offerings of the Government, then the populace has no recourse if that Government rescinds or modifies any Rights at whim. The Tyrant sees the “Common Man” as a visible threat if that Common Man refuses to accept the Tyrant as the ultimate and sole authority and power over him.

The Tyrant doesn’t even like the expression “Common Man.” For that expression itself conveys the idea of a power and authority over Tyranny not so easily cast aside.

The Tyrant and his minions refer to THIS Common Man in pejorative terms. They project the erroneous idea the Common Man is obstinate, obtuse, not a free-thinking, rational American citizen to be respected.

The Tyrant refers to the Common Man as a “MAGA Republican,” a “Christian Nationalist,” and as a “Right-wing Conservative.”

Such phrases are meant to serve as insulting epithets no less so than other plainly obvious demeaning phrases like “White Supremacist,” “Racist,” “Fascist,” “Nazi,” “Trumpster,” “Xenophobe,” “Islamophobe,” “Misogynist,” and so forth.

The Tyrant, through his propagandists, has devised and implemented these expressions to serve his purpose: to drive a wedge between and among Americans, to prevent them from perceiving the true threat to their well-being and to prevent them from organizing effectively, to topple the Tyrant usurper.

The Tyrant depends on millions—perhaps tens of millions of Americans—to serve it, whether knowingly or not. The Despot depends on this. It needs, must have the support of these tens of millions of Americans if it is to succeed in subjugating all Americans.

So then, do we throw ourselves, this Common Man, a Sovereign People, along with our Free Constitutional Republic under the bus, and into the dustbin of history?

Do we throw the Common Man’s heritage away because it doesn’t meet with the Tyrant’s approval and because the Common Man’s heritage does not cohere with the expectations of the current and everchanging fads thrust on the public by this Tyrant who is disposed to use powers of mass suggestion to cajole and shame the public en masse into submission, subjugation?

How have we come to this?

Has not this Country its Declaration of Independence? Whither that Document now? Is it tucked away in some obscure museum drawer, or left, unnoticed, uncared for on some table to gather dust?  

Is not our Federal Government one of circumscribed powers and authority, assiduously demarcated among three co-equal Branches?

Does our Country not operate by the doctrines of checks and balances and Federalism?

Do we not have a well-developed body of Supreme Court jurisprudence and centuries of Congressional Statutes.

And, most importantly, are Americans expected to forget that they are the only Nation on Earth that has an incomparable Bill of Rights, a true set of fundamental, unalienable natural law rights and liberties, situated smack dab in the United States Constitution—a Bill of Rights beyond which Government cannot lawfully tamper or toy with because these Rights are not created by Government of men, as these Rights existed before Government of men and, therefore, cannot be ignored, modified, abrogated, bestowed upon or rescinded by any Government because they are not the product of Government but, rather, are the product of a Loving Divine Creator who placed them on Man and in Man’s very Soul?

Yet, notwithstanding all of this, Americans face the destruction of their Country as an independent, sovereign Nation-State and the only truly free Constitutional Republic in the world today.

What can be done to turn the tide?

The Electorate has one shot left. The Electorate can elect one man who has proved to be an outlier himself—who refuses to bow low to the Tyrant. That person is Donald Trump.

This man is prosecuted, persecuted, and vilified to no end.

His one heinous “crime?”

He has sought to safeguard our Nation’s history, heritage, culture, National identity, National ethos, National Security, and Judeo-Christian ethic—and, above all else—our sacred Rights and Liberties. And during his first Term—and, to date, only Term of Office—as machinations of the Electoral Process in the 2020 General Election denied him his rightful Second Term—he did bring Americans back to their historical roots. That was his unforgivable crime in the eyes of the ruthless forces that crush.

They were determined to displace him and replace him, for Trump was ruining their agenda. His predecessors had willingly conceded power and authority to the Tyrant, and America had been brought low. Trump rebuilt America from the ground up. This was as the Electorate wanted.

Most of the Electorate sought to preserve its Free Constitutional Republic. The Tyrant would have none of that.

The Electorate’s aims are inconsistent with the work of the Tyrant. Donald Trump had served the Electorate, consistent with the dictates of the U.S. Constitution. And for that he was and is crucified: professionally, financially, personally.

That is how the Tyrant treats our 45th President and, this, by extension, is how the Tyrant treats all Americans.

The American public has thrown that back in the face of the Tyrant and his minions.

FOUR HISTORIC MAMMOTH WINS IN REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES TO DATE AND FOUR HISTORIC LUDICROUS INDICTMENTS.

The WINS cannot be denied.

The INDICTMENTS are LEGALLY FALLACIOUS, an APOSTASY on our SYSTEM of LAWS and JURISPRUDENCE. The Attorney class knows this as practitioners of the art. The Lay Public knows this intuitively. Neither one is amused at the defilement of our judicial system by individuals lacking integrity, who have offered their services to the Tyrant.

Lamely, the Tyrant keeps its OPPORTUNISTIC WIND-UP TOY, called a Nikki Haley, robotically clinking and clanking, making unintelligible, meaningless, garbled noises through its yap.  

Now some would deny that America has a Tyrant or that America is in the throes of Tyranny, except to deflect those expressions ‘Tyrant’ and ‘Tyranny’ to Trump, which is patently ridiculous.

But the Tyrant and Tyranny do exist in America—yet not from Trump or any act on his part.

Of late, some news reporters and commentators who have a backbone, have vocalized what the Electorate knows.

They are calling out the Biden Administration’s crimes and have used the word, Tyranny to describe the dissolution of our Republic.

Trump, himself, has recently, and correctly, stated, during his recent speech at CPAC, as reported by the British newspaper, The Guardian,

“A vote for Trump is your ticket back to freedom, it’s your passport out of tyranny and it’s your only escape from Joe Biden and his gang’s fast track to hell.”

Is there any doubt of the Tyrant’s existence? The effects are transparent and copious, severe and insistent, undeniable and irremediable, and becoming further entrenched with each passing day.

The Tyrant has at its disposal 1.4 million armed personnel: the standing army (0.4% of the population). See “macro trends.”

To offset that the armed citizenry comprises 46% of the population, as of June 2018, per one estimate. See the article in “The Trace.”

Do you see the problem for the Tyrant? Do you see why the Despot is fearful, frantic— indefatigably intent on disarming the public—the Common Man?

The Tyrant assumes it will defeat Trump one way or another, lest he turns the Country around once again, securing America for Americans, preserving our Republic and our Fundamental Rights and Liberties.

The Tyrant has let loose the Dogs of War against Trump. Whether the Tyrant succeeds in his endeavor remains to be seen. It appears the Tyrant is losing despite his best effort and formidable powers. But whatever prevails, the Tyrant must still contend with the armed citizenry.

A powerful armed citizenry takes serious exception to the Tyrant’s actions against Trump and against that armed citizenry.

The armed citizenry is not willing to accept another instance of illegal manipulation of the Nation’s electoral system, the unprecedented unlawful machinations of the Nation’s legal system, the illegal attempt to confiscate the citizens’ weaponry.

In that regard, are the Nation’s sacred Documents on the Common Man’s side? Let’s delve into this.

The “Declaration of Independence” is a cherished document, to be sure.

But that Document is not “law” and it is not a component of the Constitution.

It provides a plain, flawless moral impetus for the Common Man to revolt against tyranny. But it does not provide legal “cover” for him to do so.

One might well ask, why, oh why, did not the founders of our Republic not incorporate the Declaration of Independence into the Constitution?

Did they debate this? Only snippets, here and there exist.

Take a closer look at the Constitution.

The Constitution does provide a legal mechanism to counter Tyranny: The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

The Second Amendment is the Founder’s legal application of the Moral Argument of Natural Law asserting the Common Man Need Not Suffer Tyranny of Government.

So, the Second Amendment does operate, arguably, as the embodiment of the Nation’s Declaration of Independence, codified in in the Constitution. The Second Amendment serves a dual purpose.

It sanctifies, in writing, the preeminent Moral God-given Natural Law Mandate, doing so in the framework of Constitutional Law. So, the “Declaration of Independence” did make its way into the Constitution, after all, albeit subtly—too subtly—for an obtuse Congress to take note.

Congress protects even secures the legality of outright Government Tyranny through Congressional Statute: 18 USCS § 2383.

But what, then, are Americans to make of this Congressional Statute 18 USCS § 2383 – Rebellion and Insurrection? The Statute says plainly and clearly that it is a crime for a citizen to incite rebellion or insurrection against the Federal Government, regardless of the nature of that Government, be it beneficial, benign, or Tyrannical. There is nothing subtle about that.

Congress doesn’t draw a distinction between a Government that adheres to the dictates of the U.S. Constitution and one that operates in defiance to that Constitution. It has led to unabashed, unrepentant Tyranny.

Consider the actions of Joe Biden. He not only ignores U.S. Supreme Court rulings. He openly mocks the Court. To its face, he gloats. He does whatever he wants (or more to the point, he, as a mouthpiece for the actual Dictator behind the scenes, does what the secret Tyrant orders him and his administration to do).

He obediently follows the orders of the Tyrant, as commanded of him, not that of the Constitution. The aim is to inform the public, that a Free Republic and the sovereignty of the American people over Government has come to an end.

“Democracy” at play is apparently newspeak for “Tyranny” in action.

And, keep in mind the aforesaid Statute, 18 USCS § 2383, is a creature of Congress—a Congress that, itself, has run amok.

It is the creation of a Federal Government, protecting that Government at all costs—protecting Tyranny. 18 USCS § 2383 is not a statute the Founders of our Republic would look kindly upon.

And understand, 18 USCS § 2383, as a Congressional Statute, is not to be mistaken as in or of the Constitution. But does that matter? Does it have to be in there? In some sense it is.

Clause 2 of Article VI (the “Supremacy Clause”) says the Federal Constitution and Federal Statute take precedence over State Law and State Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

But what if the Second Amendment conflicts with Federal Statute, 18 USCS § 2383.

Article VI does not say which of the two take precedence, where the two conflict? The U.S. Supreme Court has not dealt with this issue. No case or controversy has arisen to allow the Court to consider the matter.

Yet, when Americans look at the damage done to the Second Amendment, they observe that, in effect, practically all Statutes in force today impacting the Second Amendment and all Government Rules, Regulations, and Executive Branch Edicts emanating from the Biden Administration directed to the Second Amendment, do infringe the core of the Second Amendment.

Through time, in the absence of judicial action or public wrath, these unconstitutional utterings, have the patina of authority and legality.

This has led Justice Clarence Thomas to assert, bitterly, that the Second Amendment is treated like a Second-Class Right.

We see this happening all the time, don’t we?

And there is a tacit, albeit erroneous presumption that Federal Statute and Bureaucratic rules and Executive Branch edicts are compatible with the Second Amendment even though they are not, and even if not that they override the Second Amendment anyway.

A flash point isn’t just on the horizon: It’s here! It’s a long time coming. But the evil of Government has grown more pronounced, as its illegal actions have become ever more brazen, audacious and outlandish over time. This brashness hasn’t happened overnight. It has taken years, even decades.

The public’s increasing reticence or induced somnolence, coupled to, by turns, a recalcitrant, blundering, and submissive Congress has allowed this to happen.

18 USCS § 2383 is a tacit assertion of the lawfulness of Government Tyranny, outlawing rebellion or insurrection against that Tyranny.

18 USCS § 2383 is a tacit assertion of the legality of Government Tyranny, outlawing rebellion or insurrection against that Tyranny.

The Second Amendment exists to counter Tyranny. The language of it is at odds with 18 USCS § 2383, which exists to protect Tyranny.

The two cannot be reconciled, and Article VI doesn’t help to clarify the matter. It is altogether mum, allowing for a naked contradiction to preside in the Constitution.

The Press wishes to avoid the discussion of whether the Second Amendment allows for or specifically prescribes or proscribes the Common Man’s duty to counter Tyranny of Government. But one time, not that long ago, the Press did discuss it.

Progressive Democrat Representative of Maryland, Jamie Raskin, published an article on September 27, 2022, in The New York Times, titled, “The Second Amendment Gives no Comfort to Insurrectionists.”

This article came, not accidentally, on the heels of the January 6, 2021 incident at the U.S. Capitol Building, but was, in fact, the impetus that spurred Raskin to write his article.

He sought to finally lay to rest the idea, as he and others of his ilk believe, that Americans have a right to resist the Government, even if that Government is Tyrannical.

In his Op-Ed, Raskin writes, in pertinent part,

If the American government were to engage in true tyranny — like slaughtering and oppressing the population — we the people would undoubtedly have a right to recite our grievances, proclaim our cause to the world, cut the ties that bind and engage in the kind of revolutionary struggle that the American colonists did. But it would be meaningless and silly to argue that it is the Constitution that granted us the right to do all that.

As the historian Garry Wills long ago explained: ‘A people can overthrow a government it considers unjust. But it is absurd to think that it does so by virtue of that unjust government’s own authority. The appeal to heaven is an appeal away from the earthly authority of the moment, not to that authority.’

 Let these remarks sink in for a moment.

Raskin takes the position, promulgated by a similar Political Progressive, Garry Wills, whom he cites for support, that the Second Amendment i.e., the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” does not provide a legal mechanism for the public to overthrow a Tyrant, no matter how despicable the actions of that Tyrant.

Raskin cites his comrade, Wills, to support a theory that our Federal Government IS to be trusted, that our Federal Government IS, then, a good thing—this, despite all evidence to the contrary, and that our Federal Government sometimes demands constraints on liberty, for the good of man.

 So, whence the distortion in the American Patriot’s perception toward the import of the Second Amendment? Wills and Raskin argue the distortion, the fear of Government, rests upon “a distortion” they lay at the feet of the Antifederalists among the Framers of the Constitution.

But, Raskin omits recitation of the central thesis of Wills’ book where the logical faultiness becomes glaringly apparent.

Wills says,

The historical and Constitutional evidence used in these debates is largely bogus. But that raises another question. Whence comes this determination to distort the history of the legal system. The distortion began very early, when the arguments of the Antifederalists against the Constitution were said only a decade or so after that document’s ratification embodied in the Constitution. People could stay loyal to the Constitution only if they felt it was structurally disloyal to itself.

This is an idea presented by several academic scholars. They argue, like Wills, that the Bill of Rights—especially the Second Amendment—cannot mean what it says because the Founders could not have intended for the American people to take up arms against the Constitution.

Such an idea for Wills is abhorrent and logically inconsistent with the import of the Constitution.

But this misses the mark and is, on reflection logically incoherent.

The Antifederalists didn’t intend for the Bill of Rights to serve as a means to defeat the Constitution, but, rather, to preserve it.

The Antifederalists directed their concern to the Tyranny of Government that they saw required a specific mechanism for correction. The armed citizenry is the only solution to a worst-case scenario.

Wills and Raskin not only disagree with this idea but see the Second Amendment as an anathema if it does mean what it says.

Wills avoids discussing Tyranny. He dismisses, impliedly, that such a thing is possible.

Raskin, at least admits the possibility of it, but argues the citizenry is legally prohibited from doing anything about it, regardless of the moral imperative for doing so.

So, Tyranny is okay for Raskin. But then, Raskin contradicts his own conclusion because he—along with so many other Progressives in Congress—argue that Trump was a Tyrant and that it was up to Congress itself to do something about it—intentionally misusing the Impeachment Clause and ultimately manipulating, the Electoral System, unethically and unlawfully, to defeat him.

The Radical Left never expresses any concern over the internal contradictions inherent in its positions, as long as the public does not take notice of them, and then ignores the public’s protestations.

And if the public persists, the Radical Left mercilessly attacks that public for pointing out the internal contradictions inherent in the Radical Left’s logic.

Wills, though, as an academician, abhors the idea of incoherence and inconsistency in his positions. For him and for other scholars amenable to his theories, he denies the U.S. Government can logically or legally ever be considered Tyrannical if that is to suggest the American people have a legal right to actively oppose it.

But he must go through a series of convoluted gyrations to make this idea plausible.

He does this by denying the existence of tension between Government and Liberty. He denies the existence of a “zero-sum” game.

Wills denies the idea of TYRANNY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT by arguing that LIBERTY is not an absolute.

He refuses, then, to accept that constraints on Liberty entail Tyranny.

But, if that were true, then the Antifederalists would not have thought it prudent to insist on a written Bill of Rights, specifically pointing to a need for a citizen army to thwart Tyranny when it arises. The need for it proved a prescient warning of Tyranny to come.

Wills cannot rationally dismiss the Bill of Rights out of hand. He therefore argues that the Framers of the Constitution intended to give to Government the power to constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms through Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

The first part of Clause 1 says, “Congress shall have the power . . .” and Clause 16, adds,

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Garry Wills takes the position that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, was designed by the Framers to outmaneuver the import of the Second Amendment. But then, is the Second Amendment to be given no efficacy?

The late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the Majority Heller Opinion would find this logically dubious, legally incoherent, and ethically repugnant. In a word, ‘ludicrous.’

So, then, what is the import of the Clause 16?

The non-obligatory word ‘may’ in the Clause is a limitation on Congress. Congress does not have the authority to compel service of militias to serve the Government’s ends, most notably if the Government becomes a Tyranny.

Congress does not have the authority to compel service of militias to serve a Tyrannical Government. Otherwise a Tyrant would have the legal authority to negate the Second Amendment imperative by conscripting all militias or, in the absence of militias, simply disarming the citizenry, not an easy task by any means, but lawfully permissible to try.

The Heller case made clear that the Government cannot lawfully entrench its tyranny by simply disarming the public.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 points to a need to protect the Country from EXTERNAL threats, nothing more. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, exists to protect the American people from the INTERNAL threat posed by a Tyrannical Government that seeks to harm the citizenry.

Wills elides over the codification of the NATURAL LAW RIGHT to armed self-defense against predatory animal, predatory man, and predatory government. We, however, do not.

Since a Government’s natural inclination is toward tyranny, the armed citizenry’s function is to rein in the effectuation of that tendency so that Tyranny can never become permanent.

The people distrust a powerful Federal Government and with good reason, precisely because such a Government’s natural inclination is to rein in Americans’ Fundamental Rights and Liberties—especially that right—enshrined in the Constitution that exists to “rein in” the Tyranny of Government.

And the Tyrant, for his part, fears the armed citizenry. If left to its devices, that Tyrant would bring the entire weight of Government to bear against the armed citizenry. We need not guess at this. We see it now. The Tyrant intends to disarm Americans. We see this happening every day.

At the moment the Biden puppet and his minions are using unlawful Executive Edict and unlawful Rules-making authority of the Bureaucratic Deep-State to curb the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense against Tyranny. Several Marxist States are crafting their own laws, rules, and edicts in violation of Constitutional constraints against infringement of the Second Amendment.

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ultimate failsafe to ensure that Tyranny will never succeed.

The people distrust a powerful Federal Government and with good reason, precisely because such a Government’s natural inclination is to rein in Americans’ Fundamental Rights and Liberties—especially that right—enshrined in the Constitution that exists to “rein in” the Tyranny of Government.

And the Tyrant, for his part, fears the armed citizenry. If left to its devices, that Tyrant would bring the entire weight of Government to bear against the armed citizenry. We need not guess at this. We see it now. The Tyrant intends to disarm Americans. We see this happening every day.

At the moment the Biden puppet and his minions are using unlawful Executive Edict and unlawful Rules-making authority of the Bureaucratic Deep-State to curb the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense against Tyranny. Several Marxist States are crafting their own laws, rules, and edicts in violation of Constitutional constraints against infringement of the Second Amendment.

Eventually, if left to its devices, this puppet of the Tyrant will suspend all Rights and Liberties by invoking martial law.

How well do you suppose that will go? _________________________________________________

DO AMERICANS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT APART FROM THE MORAL RIGHT TO REBEL AGAINST TYRANNY BY FORCE OF ARMS?

The Electorate would have to look to the American Civil War of 1861 to find a situation to rival the toxic brew fermenting in America today.

The Federal Government under the Biden Administration has DEVOLVED into Tyranny. But is that true? No. For, that implies Joe Biden and his Administration did not exist as a Tyrant at the outset and, further, had not sought to become one, even as it became one thereafter.

And we do not mean to imply that——

Biden and his Administration—be it the Cabinet or Biden’s Chief of Staff, or even Barack Obama running things on the QT—is the real Tyrant.

They are seditious monsters to be sure. But are they “THE Tyrant” if, by that, Americans are to infer it is THEY who are truly running the show? That is unlikely.

Since assuming Office, Biden and his Administration have immediately reversed most of Trump’s policies and initiatives that have protected and strengthened our Country and promoted our Country’s interests.

The Biden Administration then designed and implemented policies that left our Country defenseless, weakened our Country, and promoted the interests of our competitors and enemies.

What the Biden Administration has wrought for our Country, in over three years, are horrors that cannot be adequately explained away as mere incompetency. Those policies and actions demonstrate a devious design to destroy every vestige of a once secure, powerful, vibrant Country: economically and financially, socially and culturally, politically and geopolitically.

To do what the Biden puppet and his handlers are doing to the Country, Constitution, and people, and getting away with it, one must infer they are taking their marching orders from someone or something much more powerful, sinister, secretive, and malevolent than Biden and the other public faces of his Administration, including Barack Obama, whose name is blithely tossed about, obviously as a blind to deflect and misdirect the public’s attention away from the true orchestrators of our Country’s ruin.

And it is this unacknowledged force—a force the Press does not even allude to—behind the scenes that protects Biden and his Administration from serious scrutiny and recriminations for the horrific actions taken to the detriment of the Country, Constitution, and people.

This is not to excuse Biden and the other scoundrels involved in the rape and pillage of America. They must all atone for their treachery.

But a rational mind must deduce from the circumstantial evidence that something other and much more powerful and malignant behind the scenes is directing the play. Otherwise, this Administration would not dare so blatantly to lay ruin to the Country.

Biden and his compatriots are willing servants of the Tyrant.

So, then, who is this Tyrant that has taken over our institutions, including our Federal Government and several State Governments, and that controls 99% of the Press and Social Media?

It is a Counterrevolutionary Radical Left Oligarchy.

This Oligarchy is an amalgamation comprising two core groups: a Neo-Marxist Internationalist Cultist leadership group whose aims, interests, and agenda concern the radical social and cultural transformation of society; and Neoliberal Globalist Elites whose aims, interests, and agenda are directed to wealth acquisition, concentrating it in the hands of a few, and creating governmental structures that serve their ends. This, then, is THE TYRANT, that orchestrates the actions and policies of the Biden Administration.

The scope of the Tyrant’s power is so vast that it can effectively hide its Tyranny in plain sight and claim to be the protector and savior of Democracy. And much of the public, seduced by the messaging of media, believes this nonsense.

The Tyrant has ensconced the Harlequin, Joe Biden, into the Executive Branch, giving him de facto legal access to Article 2 powers and authority in service to the Tyrant. And this Despot has insinuated itself throughout our Country.

It has hand-selected Joe Biden to serve an agenda: one directed to Dismantling a Free Constitutional Republic, Destroying an Independent Sovereign Nation-State, and Usurping the Sovereignty of the American people.

Joe Biden and his Administration are simply placeholders—the public personae—the stand-ins for the True Tyrant whom the citizenry must never gain a clear impression of.

This Despot intends to stay entrenched in Government in 2025, and beyond until its task—the ruin of all that we Americans cherish—is attained so that the Tyranny can fully blossom, and the Tyrant need no longer hide.

There is, however, a problem for this Tyrant. It hearkens back to Trump’s election as U.S. President in 2016—a thing that seemed so improbable that the Tyrant missed it—assured that the puppet, Hillary Clinton, would succeed Barack Obama, its previous puppet.

Even now, the Tyrant misreads and misjudges the fortitude of Donald Trump and that of a large segment of the American Electorate who support him.

Trump will be the Republican nominee for U.S. President in the upcoming election in 2024. There is no doubt about that unless the Tyrant can prevent it.

This Tyrant is relentlessly, unceasingly making every effort to prevent it.

Its control over the DOJ and many State courts and prosecutors’ offices is so commanding that it has corrupted much of it.

The Tyrant has warped the law inanely, excruciatingly, resulting in an endless sweep of illegal actions against Trump, all under the guise of falling under the rubric of the letter of the law. This is unheard of. There is no precedent for this.

The Press gives cover to this wild, vast, miscarriage of justice, vilifying Trump, instead of carefully scrutinizing the actions of people like Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, and Letitia James, and the actions of judges that rubber stamp the actions of these persecutors of Trump.

This is all done NOT in the pursuit of justice but to halt the prospect of a second Trump Presidency and to prevent the American people from choosing whom they wish to represent them and the Country.

The Tyrant would undoubtedly prefer to simply assassinate Trump and be done with him. The Tyrant certainly has the means to do so. But that won’t happen. The public has seen assassinations before and has grown suspicious of explanations meted out to it by the Press.

The “lone gunman” theory has played out much too often. The public had doubts about the veracity of that theory before and would be less inclined to accept it now.

Trump’s Assassination would likely spark an immediate, irrevocable, and violent Civil War—one the Tyrant cannot win at this time, and, so, does not want.

In lieu of assassination, the Tyrant has devised two strategies to increase its chances of success.

One involves keeping the odious, fraudulent, fractious candidate Nikki Haley in the running, propped up with infusions of cash.

Haley serves as a stopgap. She cannot gain the nomination fairly. She had suffered irrevocable defeat in Iowa. And she is going down to defeat in her own State, South Carolina next week, and by a large margin.

Two-thirds of voters according to the latest poll, as of the posting of this article favor Trump in the upcoming Republican Primary. See the articles in The New York Times and Politico.

And yet, Haley continues her run. Why?

The Tyrant hopes to keep Trump off the ballot or, failing that, then obtain a criminal conviction. That might suffice to give Haley the Republican Party nomination at the convention, notwithstanding that Trump has slaughtered her in every primary to date and likely will continue to do so in every primary to come, as every poll indicates.

If the Tyrant does succeed in keeping Trump’s name off the ballot as it hopes—and a case is before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide that issue now—or the Tyrant can taint Trump to such an extent that Party bigshots at the convention rewrite the rules, ignoring the results of the primaries, proclaiming Nikki Haley the Republican Party nominee for U.S. President, this would suit the Tyrant just fine.

Haley is a crass opportunist, who would serve the Tyrant well.

Haley likely doesn’t give a damn about either the Country or the rank-and-file members of the Republican Party. If she did care, she would have dropped out of the race after her defeat in New Hampshire and announced her support for Trump. She did not do that. Instead, she declared that she intended to stay in the race at least through the South Carolina Primary. Now, she proclaims she is in it for the long haul. Why?

A New York Times article that just came out, midday Sunday, February 18, 2024,  gives us a clue of the Tyrant’s rationale.

One week before the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina, where polls suggest she trails by an insurmountable margin, Nikki Haley was in Texas, promising to go national, as most primary candidates, even in the most dire circumstances, usually do.

Despite big losses in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, and the steep odds facing her in South Carolina, her home state, Ms. Haley is showing no signs of relenting. She is still raking in donations and building out her national footprint, as she pledges to move her party past former President Donald J. Trump.

‘He said he’s going to spend more time in a courtroom than he is going to be on the campaign trail,’ she said of Mr. Trump on Friday in San Antonio, referring to the hours he spent in New York last week facing criminal and civil cases. ‘But let me tell you what we are going to be doing. We are going to be on the campaign trail.’

Ms. Haley, a former governor of South Carolina and a United Nations ambassador under Mr. Trump, is projecting confidence even as her path to victory looks stark. In many South Carolina polls, she trails Mr. Trump by roughly 30 points — and the picture beyond next week’s contest does not look much brighter.

If Ms. Haley continues with her plans to stay in the race beyond South Carolina, as she has pledged, here is a look at how she intends to take her long-shot bid national. . . .

Ms. Haley and her allies have kept up a steady drumbeat of criticism on Mr. Trump in national media appearances and in television and digital ads. Her message has largely remained consistent: that it is time for a new generational leader who can move her party beyond the ‘chaos’ that is Mr. Trump. But her attack lines to underscore that most recently have become sharper-edged and more numerous. She has criticized him for disparaging her husband, Maj. Michael Haley; for suggesting he would encourage Russian aggression against U.S. allies in Europe; for skewing the delegate count; and for tightening his grip over party institutions, including the Republican National Committee.

She has continued to blast Mr. Trump for spending time and campaign donations on his legal troubles. She has sought to brand him and President Biden as ‘grumpy, old men.’

But as of last week, Ms. Haley had not spent any money on television ads beyond Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Her allied super PAC, Stand for America Inc., had invested only about $144,900 in other states, according to AdImpact, a media-tracking firm. The Trump campaign, by comparison, had spent nearly six times as much, or about $855,200, nationwide.

Pointing to Ms. Haley’s losses, Karoline Leavitt, Mr. Trump’s national press secretary, contended he would not only ‘crush’ her in own backyard and ‘demolish her on Super Tuesday.’ ‘Only a birdbrain would stay in this race,’ she said in a statement, using Mr. Trump’s insulting nickname for Ms. Haley.

The Funding

Mr. Trump’s war chest dwarfs Ms. Haley’s campaign funds. He had more than $33 million cash on hand at the end of December, while Ms. Haley had $14.6 million.

But as it has been from the start of her campaign, one bright spot for Ms. Haley is her ability to raise money. She pulled in $16.5 million in January, her highest monthly total so far. She has the backing of a number of wealthy donors. Her campaign turned Mr. Trump’s ultimatum against her donors into an opportunity to sell about 20,000 T-shirts that read “Barred. Permanently.” This month, she brought in at least $2.7 million at fund-raisers in Texas and California, according to her campaign, and $1 million more in the 48 hours after Mr. Trump disparaged Ms. Haley’s husband at a rally.

The Rationale

In interviews, some of Ms. Haley’s high-dollar donors in Texas and California echoed her focus on Mr. Trump’s and President Biden’s advanced ages, and cited Mr. Trump’s legal cases as signs that anything remains possible in the race. Mr. Trump spent Thursday in a Manhattan courtroom on criminal charges stemming from a hush-money payment to a porn star in 2016. A New York judge on Friday ordered him to pay a penalty of nearly $355 million plus interest after finding him liable for conspiring to manipulate his net worth.

‘A lot can happen in politics and in our legal system,’ said Timothy Draper, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Haley donor. ‘And the American people usually come to their senses when they come to the polls.’

Yes, a lot can happen between now and November 2024, and it seems clear now that the Tyrant is banking more on Haley as U.S. President Haley.

The Despot has no further use for the Democrat Party. Consider—

Joe Biden will either drop dead before November or become so visibly incapacitated he cannot plausibly continue to perform no matter how much scotch tape, shoestring, and sealing wax the medical scientists use to keep him propped upright, semi-mobile, semi-conscious, and somewhat capable of a few vocalizations, however incoherent. He is visibly decaying before the Nation’s (and the world’s) very eyes.

The Press likes to compare Joe Biden and Donald Trump by age, ignoring the fact that Trump is physically vigorous, mentally sharp (and can make a convincing argument extemporaneously)—and all the more remarkable given the constant invective thrown at him by the Press and media and the Government juggernaut directed against him.

Biden is physically and emotionally frail. A discussion of his mental acuity presumes he has some. He doesn’t. The man’s mind is effectively gone. His speech is incoherent. He doesn’t walk stridently, but ambles about weakly, stiffly, aimlessly. He now needs his wife to show him off the stage. He is an embarrassment.

A more apt comparison may be drawn between him and Jimmy Carter.

What does this portend?

If the 2024 election is truly fair and aboveboard, the Republican nominee will be the next President of the United States. The Democrats are finished.

If the Tyrant machinates successfully to prevent Donald Trump from securing the Republican Party nomination, then Haley will become the presumptive Republican Party nominee, and likely Presidential winner in November 2024.

That is what the Tyrant is banking on and that is why she remains in the race. It isn’t her call. It is the Tyrant’s call—and the money behind her.

There is no acceptable replacement, on the Democrat Party end, at this late date, who can defeat either Trump or, for that matter, Haley.

Kamala Harris is a moron and less popular than Biden if that is empirically possible.

Gavin Newsome, Hillary Clinton, J.B. Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, and Phil Murphy are vile. They will win millions of votes in the major cities controlled by the Radical Left, true, but they will lose tens of millions more around the Country and will lose in the Electoral College.

Michelle Obama has no public office or business experience and Americans would see her as a stand-in for her husband Barack—serving a third term through his wife. She likely doesn’t want the job anyway. And why would she? She has obviously grown accustomed to the lifestyle of one of the wealthy leisure class and doesn’t have the strength of will or fortitude, let alone the desire or stamina, to take on the challenges of the U.S. Presidency.

Trump has demonstrated well the ability to carry the world on his shoulders. She has neither the wherewithal nor the ability to do that.

She has seen what the relentless forces that crush are doing to Donald Trump, a strong and vigorous soul, and she has witnessed in real time what the Presidency can do to an inherently weak and corrupt man like Biden. He is physically decomposing before our eyes.

So, Nikki Haley is the Tyrant’s candidate of choice—a Radical Left surrogate. She’s a perfect emblem for the times: female, treated by the woke mob as a “colored” person (even though denizens of India are “White,” i.e., Caucasians), she is youthful, and has a modicum of intelligence and personality. She is the perfect package to hide a vicious, ambitious, corruptible nature. For political purposes, she creates an effective illusion of bringing America back to its core values.

The Tyrant would make effective use of her as his new puppet. And the Press would make much of the fact that America would have its first female President.

To “get” her into the winner’s circle the Tyrant has launched and continues to carry out a series of malicious, legally dubious criminal and civil lawsuits against Trump, in both Federal and State courts.

Arguably, the most important case is the one before the U.S. Supreme Court today: Trump vs. Anderson.

Recall, the Colorado Supreme Court holding:

“The Colorado Supreme Court held that President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Counsel for the Petitioner Trump argued the holding is wrong for many reasons. And he is correct.

If the majority of the Court concurs (hopefully a unanimous decision), that will send a clear message to the States, forbidding them from denying the electorate the right to vote for their candidate of choice for U.S. President merely on the ground that a State Government proclaims a candidate for Public Office an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is not our purpose here to go into an examination of and explication of the import of Section 3 nor to go into the arguments pro and con that scholars and commentators have elucidated to date for keeping Trump’s name on or off the ballot in Colorado (and by extension, on or off the ballot in other States), based on the interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The idea of Trump as an insurrectionist is false, even absurd.

He isn’t an insurrectionist, but it is not the purpose of this article to go into the whys and wherefores of that issue either.

But it is necessary to discuss the concept of ‘insurrection’ as it relates to this Country.

During the Oral Argument, on February 8, 2024, the High Court dealt at length with the import of “insurrection.” The transcript mentions the word at least 85 times.

Our purpose here is to propound a matter the High Court didn’t consider and, to our knowledge, no one has. Yet it is one that implicates a matter that goes to the heart of the salient issue:

Whether the American people do have the right to rebel against tyranny, and from a legal standpoint, apart from the decidedly moral one.

There is a question of what Government’s acts are so egregious as to amount to Tyranny of Government and therefore sufficient justification for the citizenry’s taking up arms against that Government.

But even that question isn’t the first and central question to be asked and answered.

For, we don’t get to that question if, under no set of circumstances, Americans are not legally permitted to take up arms against the Government.

That is an argument many scholars have made, and it is one presumed by the myriad of articles one comes across in the mainstream media as well.

But is that true? The inference is that, even if the Government does become indisputably dictatorial, hence tyrannical, the citizenry does not have a legal (statutory) right or a right under the Constitution to use force of arms to topple that Government.

And we are assuming here that a Despot would not permit a fair election.

There cannot, of course, be free and fair elections in a dictatorship. That would be a contradiction in terms.

So, if the public cannot resort to the Electoral Process to rid itself of a Tyrant, and, if the public cannot resort to force of arms, then where does that leave the American public? Nowhere!

This suggests the Constitution tacitly bears the seeds of its dissolution, except for the fact that the public is well-armed. And THAT explains why the Government—this Biden Administration, along with the Press and social media—has long argued for stringent constraints on firearms and continues to do so, more and more vociferously with each passing month.

The Radical Left knows how to scream and shout, but falls short on logic and internal consistency in its positions.

Trump versus Anderson is a case in point.

If, as the Colorado Supreme Court holds, Trump is an insurrectionist whose name must not appear on the State ballot for U.S. President, based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, then the Colorado Supreme Court has just held that the Government ITSELF can be a “Governmental” insurrectionist.

What does that mean? It means Colorado is proclaiming that the Second Branch of Government, the U.S. President, Donald Trump, was, himself, an insurrectionist, i.e., a TYRANT (DESPOT) when he served as President, through his actions on January 6, 2021.

BUT, THEN, if the head of Government is an insurrectionist, i.e., a Tyrant, then, by logical implication, that provides a LEGAL, not simply a MORAL basis, for the American people to rebel against Tyranny whenever it sees that Tyranny in their Government.

Colorado is itself a rebel then, rebelling against what it has determined to be a U.S. President as INSURRECTIONIST qua TYRANT, and Colorado is claiming to argue a legal basis for doing so and, further, claiming a right of action against THAT INSURRECTIONIST, qua, TYRANT.

The action Colorado has taken is to prevent Trump from running for a Federal Government position again by keeping Trump’s name off the Colorado ballot in the upcoming 2024 U.S. General Election.

Apart from Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the word ‘insurrection’ does not appear in the Constitution but in the Congressional Statute, yet undefined.

18 USCS § 2383 (Rebellion and Insurrection) sets forth,

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Well, if Trump, as U.S. President, can be considered an insurrectionist, i.e., a Tyrant, then so can Joe Biden.

The point isn’t theoretical. The Colorado Supreme Court has proclaimed that Donald J. Trump, as President Trump, was an insurrectionist.

Again, this is tantamount to saying Trump was a Tyrant and that Colorado can act against a Tyrant by preventing that Tyrant from ever again serving as President or holding any other Federal Government position.

Colorado’s act of rebellion in this instance amounts to preventing Colorado voters from voting for a Past President of the United States to serve another term in Office, whom Colorado has declared to have been a Tyrant through an act or acts of insurrection having taken place on January 6, 2021.

This has serious implications for the Biden Government. For, if the Colorado Supreme Court is correct, then the question of whether the Biden Government is tyrannical is not theoretical. It is real and deeply problematic.

It means that, if the Biden Government truly is tyrannical (whether it is Biden and his Government or some shadowy, sinister force behind Biden and his Administration orchestrating Biden’s actions and the actions of his Administration), then the American citizenry does have a legal basis for overthrowing the Insurrectionist Despot Tyrant, Joe Biden and all those connected with him.

Again, keep in mind Colorado has said that Trump was an insurrectionist at a time when Trump still served as President of the United States, wielding legitimate Article 2 power and authority, as President.

So, from a logical point of view, does Colorado want to maintain that Trump is, or even could be, an insurrectionist, in his capacity as U.S. President? If so, then they just opened the door to the possibility that Biden and those behind them can be insurrectionists, ergo tyrants, and, if so, then the public has the legal right to depose them, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Insurrection by the Government against the citizenry is tyranny. And the citizenry now has a statutory basis to revolt against a Tyrant if Colorado is correct.

A better claim can be made that Biden and his puppet masters are more the Tyrant than Trump ever was or could be, and Biden is presently serving as President. Trump isn’t.

Do Americans have a legal right to overthrow the tyrannical Biden Government and those behind him, then?

Colorado just made out a case for that, and never even knew it!

While we take exception to Colorado’s argument for proclaiming a U.S. President can be found to be an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, we would argue that the right to rebel against the tyranny of Government is provided for in another section of the Constitution, through which the citizenry does have the legal authority to rebel against tyranny. It is right there in the Second Amendment.

Is it any wonder that the Radical Left in our Country and the Tyrant in command of our Government are attempting to abolish the Second Amendment? Surely, a Tyrannical Government would have reason to.

Our armed citizenry is a threat to a Tyrannical Federal Government. A Government operating within the bounds of the law need not fear the armed citizenry.

The Biden Administration (and those orchestrating the Biden Administration’s every move) do fear the armed citizenry. They have made their fear of the armed citizenry known through executive actions and vehement, virulent protestations against the Second Amendment.

We deal with these important issues further in the next article.

IS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT LOSING CONTROL OVER THE LOWER COURTS?

LOWER COURTS HAVE GROWN INCREASINGLY DISDAINFUL OF FOLLOWING U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS AND REASONING

A LOOK AT THE RECENT ILLINOIS CASE, HARREL VS. RAOUL

It is high time the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its Article III authority against forces that dare to crush the common man’s liberty and freedom.

The Court must be more forceful in using the tools at its disposal to save the Republic.

Two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Bruen, New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul defied the Court. She signed into law New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”).

The Second Circuit sided with her rather than with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Arbalest Quarrel discussed this. See, e.g., the article reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News on December 14, 2023.

Challenges came swiftly. Hopefully, at least one of those cases, likely Antonyuk vs. Chiumento, is headed for the High Court.

Other Anti-Second Amendment State Governments followed New York’s lead.

Hawaii is one of them. Hawai‘i versus Wilson defiantly flouted the High Court’s holding that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies in the public domain, no less than in the home.

The Arbalest Quarrel touched upon this as well. See the article reposted on Ammoland on January 31, 2024.

The Plaintiff Appellant, Wilson, will hopefully appeal the adverse ruling to the High Court.

In a third case, Harrel vs. Raoul, coming out of Illinois, Plaintiff Petitioners, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), FFL licensees, and others have challenged the constitutionality of the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (“PICA”).

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed PICA into law on January 10, 2023, six months after Bruen.

The law is codified at 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9.

The Statute makes illegal civilian possession of the most popular semiautomatic rifles:

•  “All AK Types”

• “All AR Types”

• “All Thompson Rifles”

The Statute also bans the possession of many semiautomatic pistols, specific shotguns, .50 caliber cartridges, and .50 caliber rifles.

Law enforcement personnel are exempted from this Statute.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has vacated the judgment of a lower U.S. District Court enjoining enforcement of the ban on “assault weapons” and on .50 caliber rifles and ammunition.

Injunctions are not considered final appealable orders and the U.S. Supreme Court usually, almost invariably, avoids taking them up.

But a review of the case points to a peculiar set of circumstances that bear an uncanny resemblance to New York’s Antonyuk case.

Recall that Plaintiffs in Antonyuk had also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to enjoin the Hochul Government from enforcing the “CCIA.” The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the motion, finding, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits.

The New York Government appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s Order, whereupon Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision (an interlocutory, not a final, order) directly to the High Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not deny the appeal out of hand but requested a response from the State.

The AG, Letitia James, filed the State’s response, and Justice Alito allowed the Second Circuit’s Order to stand but warned the Government not to dawdle.

Nonetheless, the Court did take its own good time, ultimately ruling in favor of the State.

Other States, vehemently, virulently opposed to the civilian armed defense, have taken their cue from New York.

To understand the rationale for Petitioners’ filing of their appeal of an interlocutory order directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Illinois case, one might look to an earlier Illinois case, Bevis v. City of Naperville, 85 F.4th 1175 (7th Cir. 2023).

Several of the Plaintiffs in the instant Harrel case were also Plaintiffs in the earlier case.

The Seventh Circuit case is itself, a consolidation of three cases, two handled by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the third—the parent of the Harrel case—handled by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs in all three cases filed motions for preliminary injunctions, either challenging portions of the Illinois PICA, or, in one case, attacking the whole of it.

The first two cases, handled by the Northern District Court, involved a challenge to the registration requirement.

The Plaintiffs objected to the imposition of a registration scheme for “assault weapons” and .50 caliber rifles.

The Northern District Court decided that the Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits and denied their motion for preliminary injunction.

In the Southern District Court case, the Plaintiffs launched a facial challenge of the entire “sprawling piece of legislation made up of 99 sections that cover a vast array of regulatory and record-keeping matters, along with the provisions of interest here [the “assault weapon” ban and the registration requirement].”

The Seventh Circuit noted that the Southern District Court—contending with a “facial” challenge to the entire Act—had started its analysis from a perspective of “irreparable harm” to the Plaintiffs, and, having found irreparable harm, enjoined the entire Act.

The Illinois Government, appalled, intended to find relief through the Seventh Circuit, just as the New York Government intended to find relief through the Second Circuit. Neither State was disappointed.  

The Seventh Circuit vacated the injunction in the 2023 Bevis case, just as the Second Circuit did in Antonyuk.

The Seventh Circuit looked for support and precedent to its earlier case, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015).

Referring to that earlier Friedman case to support its decision in Bevis, vacating the Southern District Court’s granting of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, the Seventh Circuit said that its decision foreshadowed Bruen and is consistent with Bruen.

The Seventh Circuit said, in Bevis, that “we see Friedman as basically compatible with Bruen, insofar as Friedman anticipated the need to rest the analysis on history, not on a free-form balancing test.”

The Seventh Circuit is wrong. The Friedman case is not consistent with Bruen.

In Friedman, the Seventh Circuit made a pretense of looking at historical tradition. It asked,

Why should regulations enacted 130 years after the Second Amendment's adoption (and nearly 60 years after the Fourteenth’s) have more validity than those enacted another 90 years later? Nothing in Heller suggests that a constitutional challenge to bans on private possession of machine guns brought during the 1930s, soon after their enactment, should have succeeded—that the passage of time creates an easement across the Second Amendment.

The Plaintiff Petitioners, not surprisingly, disagreed. They requested U.S. Supreme Court review of the decision.

The High Court should have taken up Friedman when the case came before the Court in 2015, but the Court couldn’t garner four votes necessary to review it.

Scalia and Thomas were livid.

Thomas drafted a strenuous dissent and Scalia joined him.

Taking the Seventh Circuit to task, Thomas wrote,

Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms ‘were common at the time of ratification’ in 1791. But we said in Heller that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’ [citations omitted]

One would think the Seventh Circuit would heed the message—that it would have affirmed the District Court’s granting of the injunction, shredding Pritzker’s PICA as patently unconstitutional—especially in light of Bruen. It didn’t do that.

And the Second Circuit should have tossed the entirety of New York’s CCIA in the trash bin. That didn’t happen either.

In Bruen, Justice Thomas writing for the Majority, reiterated the point he made in his dissent in Friedman:

Drawing from this historical tradition, we explained there that the Second Amendment protects only the carrying of weapons that are those ‘in common use at the time,’ as opposed to those that ‘are highly unusual in society at large.’ Ibid. . . . Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ during the colonial period, they are indisputably in ‘common use’ for self-defense today.

And is that not true of semiautomatic weapons, i.e., the AR Type and AK Type semiautomatic weapons that Pritzker’s Government officiously, illegally banned through enacting PICA?

The Petitioners realized there was no point going back to the Seventh Circuit simply to be rebuffed again and again. It would be a futile waste of time and money.

The lower District Courts in that Circuit have suffered intimidation and now feel compelled to seek guidance from Seventh Circuit cases wrongly decided and wrongly reasoned, e.g., Bevis and Friedman, rather than to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings and reasoning, as they should have.

This is a very strange and distressing situation.

So, then, what happens now?

It will be interesting to see how the U.S. Supreme Court handles Harrel and the other post-Bruen cases slowly wending their way to the Court from other jurisdictions.

It is bad enough when legislatures and a government’s executive offices demonstrate disdain for the High Court. It is, however, beyond the extreme when lower Courts would exhibit the same disdain.

How will the Robert’s Court react? Circumspectly, in a measured tone, or with a few sharp slaps on the backside of recalcitrant Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal.

The time for tact, gentility, and conviviality is over. There’s too much at stake now—not least of all, for the credibility, inviolability, and purposefulness of the Judiciary.

STATE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII BLATANTLY DEFIES SECOND AMENDMENT AND U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS: “ALOHA ‘OE”

Tyranny is alive and well in Hawaii. The Hawaii State Supreme Court made that plain in the first few sentences of its Opinion in State of Hawai‘i versus Wilson,* a Second Amendment case handed down on February 7, 2024.

The Court begins its opinion with this,

“Article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.” [So far, so good].

But then, the Court follows that assertion up with these two brazen assertions,

“We read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawai‘i there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

In just two sentences the Hawaii Supreme Court has ripped apart the basic tenets of a Nation founded on Liberty.

This is the import of the Court’s opinion:

•  Hawaii does not recognize a Natural Law Right to armed self-defense.

• Hawaii does not recognize the codification of the Natural Law Right to armed self-defense in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

• Hawaii does not recognize the holdings and reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in the three foundational Second Amendment cases: Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

• Hawaii declares the language of Article I, Section 17 of Hawaii’s State Constitution doesn’t mean what it says.

In one fell swoop, the Hawaii Supreme Court has slashed to ribbons:

• One, the Nation’s belief in and faith in the supremacy of eternal Natural Law Rights over transient Manmade Law,

• Two, the basic tenets, precepts, and principles of a Free Constitutional Republic grounded on liberty, as reflected in both the Articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and,

• Three, the sovereignty of the American people over the Government.

The Hawaii State Supreme Court has “one-upped” New York for its brazenness. The New York Governor’s Office and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have, at least, tried to couch their contempt for the U.S. Constitution, for the U.S. Supreme Court, and for the American people, in obfuscation and dissembling. The Hawaii State Supreme Court didn’t trouble itself with those ostensible niceties.

THE FACTS:

“In December 2017, . . . owner Duane Ting saw men on his fenced-in property via video surveillance. Ting reported the matter to the Maui Police Department. Officers headed to Ting’s property. . . . Wilson volunteered to the officers: ‘I have a weapon in my front waist band.’ The police lifted his shirt. Wilson had a Phoenix Arms .22 LR caliber pistol, loaded with ten rounds of .22 caliber ammunition. A records check reported that the pistol was unregistered in Hawaiʻi, and Wilson had not obtained or applied for a permit to own a handgun. Wilson told the police that he legally bought the gun in Florida in 2013.”

THE CHARGING DOCUMENTS

“In December 2017, the County of Maui Department of the Prosecuting Attorney charged Christopher Wilson by felony information. He allegedly violated: (1) HRS § 134-25(a) place to keep firearm, (2) HRS § 134-27(a) place to keep ammunition, [and] (3) HRS § 134-2 (2011 & Supp. 2017) permit to acquire ownership of a firearm. . . .”  

HRS § 134-25(a) says in part, “Except as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all firearms shall be confined to the possessor's place of business, residence, or sojourn; . . . .”

HRS § 134-27(a) says in part, Except as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all ammunition shall be confined to the possessor's place of business, residence, or sojourn; . . . .”

HRS § 134-2 says in part,  “No person shall acquire the ownership of a firearm, . . .  until the person has first procured from the chief of police of the county of the person’s place of business or, if there is no place of business, the person’s residence or, if there is neither place of business nor residence, the person’s place of sojourn, a permit to acquire the ownership of a firearm as prescribed in this section. . . .”

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CASE

In May 2021, Wilson moved to dismiss the charges, citing the rulings in Heller and McDonald. He argued that prosecuting him for having a firearm for self-defense purposes outside his home violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution” which “mirrors” the language of the Second Amendment.

The State opposed the motion and the lower “Circuit Court” thereupon denied it.

Thereafter, the Bruen case came down. Defendant Wilson then refiled his Motion to Dismiss.

Based on Bruen, the “Circuit Court” found for Wilson and dismissed the gun and ammunition charges with prejudice. That meant the State could not thereafter refile them.

The State appealed the dismissal to the State Supreme Court.

A QUESTION OF STANDING

Wilson challenged the constitutionality of HRS § 134-25(a), HRS § 134-27(a), and HRS § 134-2 under both the State Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Article I Section 17, and the Second Amendment, given Bruen.

The State contested, on the ground of “standing,” Wilson’s right to challenge the constitutionality of the Statutes.

The State’s “standing” argument is an important procedural tactical move.

For, if Wilson lacks standing, then the question of the constitutionality of the State statutes, under the State’s Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, is moot. The case cannot go forward for a decision on the merits.

The Hawaii Supreme Court reasoned that, since the first two Statutes were part of the charging documents, Wilson did have standing to challenge the constitutionality of those two Statutes under both Hawaiian law and under the Second Amendment.

The charging documents conferred standing on him.

However, the State did not charge Wilson for violating the third statute—failure to obtain a permit for a firearm. So Wilson could not challenge the constitutionality of the application process under that statute, based on Hawaiian law.

The State knew this. That is why the State never charged Wilson for failing to obtain a permit. The State didn’t need to do so and the State wished to avoid any challenge to its firearms licensing scheme however remote the danger to that scheme might be.

Wilson demurred arguing, somewhat circuitously, that, had he gone through the permit process, doing so would mean acknowledging the Constitutionality of the process.

He has a point. For, if the firearms permit process had not existed, there would be neither a legal nor logical basis for charging him with felony possession of a firearm and felony possession of ammunition. That means the statutes under which the State did charge him would never have existed.

Curiously, there is no criminal penalty in Hawaii for possession of a firearm without a permit. None is needed, as the Hawaii Supreme Court points out, because the criminal penalty falls under other statutes.

The idiocy and irrationality of firearms licensing are readily apparent wherever they are enacted. But, for Hawaii’s scheme, this case would never have arisen. It could not arise. But it did.  

The Hawaii Supreme Court proceeded on an Alice in Wonderland excursion into an exposition of the meaning of a “right to keep and bear arms” and whether the State Constitution takes precedence over the U.S. Constitution.

The Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion is decisively incoherent, internally inconsistent, and both legally and logically fallacious.

The Court opined that, under the doctrine of “Federalism,” the interpretation of the State’s Constitution takes precedence over that of the Federal Constitution.

The Court tacitly looked to the Tenth Amendment for support but never mentioned it, realizing, perhaps, that doing so would effectively place the dictates of the U.S. Constitution over that of the State Constitution. It had no intention of doing that. Doing so would be repugnant to Hawaiian jurisprudence and would weaken the Court’s position, grounded on abhorrence toward the right to armed self-defense.

The Court opined, incorrectly, that the right to bear arms is a “collective right” not an individual right under Article I, Section 17, and that,

“Long ago, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court announced that an ‘opinion of the United States Supreme Court . . . is merely another source of authority, admittedly to be afforded respectful consideration, but which we are free to accept or reject in establishing the outer limits of protection afforded by . . . the Hawaiʻi Constitution.’”

Finding for the State, against Defendant Wilson, thus overruling the decision of the “Circuit Court,” the Hawaii Supreme Court said,

“We hold that the text and purpose of the Hawaiʻi Constitution, and Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, do not support a constitutional right to carry deadly weapons in public.”

The Court next looked to the import of the U.S. Constitution.

Relying on Dissenting opinions in Heller and McDonald for support, and perfunctorily dismissing Bruen because it “unravels durable law,” the State Supreme Court overturned the Circuit Court’s decision, finding for the State against the Defendant, Wilson.

This result was never in doubt. It was presumed at the outset. A reader could see where the Court was going with this after reading the first few sentences of the opinion.

And so the Court opined: “We conclude that HRS § 134-25 and § 134-27 do not violate Wilson’s right to keep and bear arms under article I, section 17 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Wilson will likely appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. He should.

CONCLUSION

What is Tyranny? Tyranny is the Government operating with abandon, creating ad hoc “law” (unlawful edict) to support whatever it wishes, instead of adhering to law and Constitution as it must.

Ad hoc law isn’t law. It is pretense and artifice—Government operating outside of, not remaining within, the bounds of law.

The actions of the Supreme Court of Hawaii in State vs. Wilson is a case study in the application of ad hoc “law.”

There are many, many other instances of use of ad hoc “law” today in America, and at all levels of Government, State and Federal.

How long will Americans suffer this dangerous nonsense?   

________________________

*Using an apostrophe for “Hawai’i” in the quoted material is intentional. That is how the State Supreme Court spells “Hawai’i.” For an explanation, look at the history of the Hawaiian language. See, e.g., the article in “The Hawaiian Historical Foundation.”

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF GREG KELLY’S “JUSTICE FOR ALL”: PREFACE TO A DETAILED EXPOSITION OF EACH CHAPTER OF THE BOOK

A MULTIPART ESSAY, PREPARED BY STEPHEN L. D’ANDRILLI, PRESIDENT AND CO-FOUNDER OF THE ARBALEST GROUP, LLC., CREATOR OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL WEBSITE

PART THREE

DETAILED EXPOSITION AND EXAMINATION OF EACH CHAPTER OF KELLY’S “JUSTICE FOR ALL”, WITH INFERENCES DRAWN, POSTULATIONS DERIVED, AND COMMENTARY PROFFERED FROM A PERUSAL OF THE BOOK

SUBPART A

UPDATED: OPENING REMARKS (PREFACE TO ANALYSIS OF EACH CHAPTER)

What makes Kelly’s book “Justice For All” a delight to read is that he not only provides well-documented observations to support his finding THAT the “RADICAL LEFT” presents not only a DANGEROUS THREAT and CALAMITOUS AGENCY of DESTRUCTION to the continued EXISTENCE of our Nation as a TRULY FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, BUT in the manner he expresses his observations.

Through time many of his assertions may well evolve into adages for the public for reflection.

After a careful reading of the book and through further careful analysis of various sections of the text, I have also found a common theme.

THE CENTRAL THEME OF “JUSTICE FOR ALL——

THE CENTRAL THEME involves drawing out the ACTIONS AND AIMS of the RADICAL LEFT NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS.

These NEO-MARXISTS have, by the way, effectively abandoned and disavowed “CLASSICAL MARXISM.” See remarks, infra.

NEO-MARXISTS espouse a NOVEL BRAND of Marxism—RACIALISM, ESSENTIALISM, and MULTICULTURALISM—things that have nothing to do with CLASSICAL MARXISM, yet are the essence of NEO-MARXISM, the raison d’être of NEO-MARXISM, without which it would have no basis, no reason, to exist.

THESE THREE DOCTRINES—RACIALISM, ESSENTIALISM, and MULTICULTURALISM—ARE THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEO-MARXIST DOGMA AND IDEOLOGY, AND THE RATIONALE BEHIND THEIR ATTACK ON AMERICA, THEIR ATTACK ON A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

THE CENTRAL CONCLUSION DRAWN IN “JUSTICE FOR ALL——

Apart from the central theme of “JUSTICE FOR ALL,” Kelly makes an impressive case for an interesting inference, ALBEIT A TACIT ONE, WHICH IS——

It is wrong to think of the destructive tendencies and actions of NEO-MARXISTS as having proceeded from a series of UNCONNECTED ONE-OFF, spontaneous EVENTS, or HAPPENSTANCES in twenty-first-century America. THESE ARE NOT ONE-OFF UNCONNECTED OCCURRENCES. THEY ARE ALL BOUND TOGETHER.

Perhaps such ONE-OFF tragic events, happenstances, or occurrences are how all this mess started in the previous century.

BUT, TODAY, there is a common thread, cogency, and agency to these VARIOUS TRAGIC STATES OF AFFAIRS.

THE NEO-MARXISTS EMPLOY THESE TACTICALLY—MANIFESTING AS RIOTS AND OTHER VIOLENT ACTS, WHICH TAKE ON THE APPEARANCE OF SPONTANEITY.

THAT SPONTANEITY IS ILLUSION.

A SPECIFIC EVENT APPEARS TO “CAUSE” RIOTS and other VIOLENT ACTS TO OCCUR SPONTANEOUSLY ACROSS AMERICA. But the impact from the SEEMING ONE-OFF EVENT (OR EVENTS) DOESN’T END. IT HAS A CASCADING EFFECT THAT TOUCHES UPON EVERY FACET OF OUR NATION’S LIFE—LAYING WASTE TO EVERYTHING INDISPENSABLE TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE AND INDISPENSABLE TO AMERICAN IDENTITY.

EACH SEEMING ONE-OFF EVENT BUILDS ON THE LAST, CREATING A CRESCENDO OF CONSTANT VIOLENCE AND THREAT OF VIOLENCE THAT NEVER ENDS. AND THAT IS ALL BY DESIGN. THE VIOLENCE IS NOT EXPECTED TO END UNTIL THE NATION IS BROUGHT TO ITS KNEES.

THIS IS THE RADICAL LEFT COUNTERREVOLUTION AND IT IS DIRECTED TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776.

THE NEO-MARXISTS NEED SOCIETAL VIOLENCE. AND THEY NEED TO KEEP AMERICANS ON EDGE, IN A CONSTANT STATE OF FEAR, AND ANXIETY, AND AGITATION.

Americans have witnessed, and continue to witness, ORCHESTRATED EXPLOITATION of TRAGEDIES THAT SEEMINGLY HAPPEN AT RANDOM AND BY ACCIDENT. SOME TRAGEDIES DO OCCUR BY ACCIDENT. BUT, OFTEN THEY BEAR TELL-TALE SIGNS OF HAVING BEEN FABRICATED.

WHETHER A TRAGEDY OCCURS BY ACCIDENT—THE PRODUCT, SAY, OF A “LONE WOLF, ” TRULY OPERATING ALONE—OR IS MANUFACTURED, DELIBERATELY PROVOKED BY RADICAL LEFT NEO-MARXISTS, USING AND TRIGGERING THE DESTRUCTIVE IMPULSES OF A PSYCHOPATH OR UNSTABLE, DANGEROUS PSYCHOTIC TO LASH OUT, THE RADICAL LEFT NEO-MARXISTS THEN ATTACH A SPECIFIC MEANING TO THE OCCURRENCE OF A TRAGEDY, and CONVERT THAT TRAGEDY INTO A SERIES OF SELF-SERVING NARRATIVES.

THE RADICAL LEFT NEO-MARXISTS INFUSE THOSE NARRATIVES, TOO, WITH MEANING—SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.

These NARRATIVES operate as IMPERATIVES FOR ACTION, DIRECTED TO A BROAD SWATH OF AMERICANS, many of whom FALL PREY TO THE MESSAGING, AND ONCE SEDUCED BY THE MESSAGING, BECOME WILLING SLAVES TO NEO-MARXISM, ACOLYTES OF THE NEO-MARXIST CAUSE.

These IMPERATIVES FOR ACTION become operational INSTRUMENTS, AND MECHANISMS—THE MEANS THROUGH WHICH DISINTEGRATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY PROCEEDS.

THIS is what the “RADICAL LEFT” wants.

THIS is what it yearns to accomplish.

THIS is what it intends to manifest into reality.  

The RADICAL LEFT IMPERATIVES FOR ACTION and the INSTRUMENTS and MECHANISMS utilized to achieve their aims are grounded on a rationale.

This rationale serves as moral justification for the RADICAL LEFT to continue their campaign of rampant violent crime directed against the American people, their culture, and their Nation’s institutions.

And, all of this is done in furtherance of the RADICAL LEFT’s long-term strategy, aimed at wearing down the public, eventually bringing about the social, political, and economic collapse of the United States in furtherance of their agenda and in service to their aims.  

The NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS are a major component of the RADICAL LEFT, as a DYNAMIC FORCE, corrupting the Nation and demoralizing the citizenry. We lay out the components of the “RADICAL LEFT” in PART ONE of my ESSAY.

THREE PROMINENT SUBCOMPONENTS of the Marxist Cultists include:

• A “PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS” ARM

• AN “ACTION” ARM

• A “CONTENT DELIVERY” ARM

The NEO-MARXIST CULTIST “PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS” ARM embraces ostensible “SCHOLARS” (ACADEMICIANS). These are the theorists and ideologues of the movement.

Kelly names prominent figures among them and discusses their illogical, inconsistent, incoherent socio-political philosophies.

Examples of the NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS “ACTION” ARM include VIOLENT AGITATORS AND PROVOCATEURS.

“BLACK LIVES MATTER,” oft described by the three-letter acronym, “BLM,” is one major organization. Another is the ANARCHIST GROUP referred to colloquially as “ANTIFA,”—a loose, decentralized network of psychopathic militants. Kelly discusses these, as well.

The NEO-MARXIST CULTIST “CONTENT DELIVERY ARM” is a third subcomponent of the NEO-MARXIST RADICAL LEFT.

This ARM includes The “FREE” PRESS—the Mainstream Media (“MSM)—and several CABLE and BROADCAST “NEWS” ORGANS. This ARM also includes major PUBLISHING HOUSES and large and small WEBSITES and PODCASTS.

Examples of the MSM PRESS include the NEW YORK TIMES, the WASHINGTON POST, the LOS ANGELES TIMES, and USA TODAY.

Examples of Neo-Marxist Cultist CABLE AND BROADCAST “NEWS ORGANS, include CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, THE YOUNG TURKS, and DEMOCRACY NOW.

Major Neo-Marxist WEBSITES, include the HUFFINGTON POST, ALTERNET, COMMON DREAMS, BUZZ FEED, DAILY KOS, THE DAILY BEAST, POLITICO, WORLD SOCIALIST WEBSITE, RAW STORY, COUNTER PUNCH, VOX, and  THINK PROGRESS.

Major Neo-Marxist PERIODICALS and MAGAZINES include THE ATLANTIC, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, MOTHER JONES, TIME, NEWSWEEK, and VANITY FAIR. There is also an array of NEO-MARXIST ACADEMIC JOURNALS such as JACOBIN, NEW LEFT REVIEW, and FIGHT RACISM. Also, see Antipode online for a more expansive listing.

Major Neo-Marxist PUBLISHERS include AK PRESS, VERSO, HAYMARKET PRESS, MONTHLY REVIEW PRESS, THE PERMANENT PRESS, VERNON PRESS, AND CHARLES H. KERR PUBLISHING COMPANY.

I have provided just a few examples of the aforementioned third subcomponent of the NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS and there is a lot of overlap as some operate in more than one venue.

The NEO-MARXIST CULTIST CONTENT DELIVERY SYSTEM provides cover for the crimes of NEO-MARXIST AGITATORS and PROVOCATEURS and provides the mechanism for the expansive delivery of RADICAL LEFT PROPAGANDA across the Country to the target population.

IS THERE ANY WONDER THAT SUCH A DANGEROUS AND PATENTLY ABSURD MOVEMENT HAS MADE SUCH HEADWAY IN OUR COUNTRY AND HAS HAD SO MUCH SUCCESS IN CONVERTING THE THOUGHT PROCESSES OF SO MANY AMERICANS?

The job of these three SUBCOMPONENTS of the NEO-MARXIST COMPONENT of the RADICAL LEFT is: ONE, TO CREATE the ideological underpinnings of NEO-MARXISM, and TWO, TO PROVOKE and RATIONALIZE constant mayhem, injury, and violence across America, and THREE, to DISPERSE the MESSAGE of the NEO-MARXIST CAUSE across America, to the greatest number of people possible, creating MOB PSYCHOSIS—AN AMERICAN ELECTORATE THAT DOESN’T STOP TO THINK AND REFLECT, BUT ONLY REACT TO STIMULUS PROJECTED ONTO ITS PSYCHE—the EFFECT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING DIRECTED TO THE ENTIRE POPULACE.

The NEO-MARXIST falsely conveys a message that the ELECTORATE is thinking for itself. The ELECTORATE DOES NO SUCH THING.

IT HAS FALLEN VICTIM TO MASS HYPNOSIS BROUGHT ABOUT BY DRUMMING INTO THE MIND A SERIES OF SIMPLISTIC MESSAGES, OPERATING AS VIRAL MEMES IN THE PSYCHE. Many Americans are inured to this. But many more are not.

The NEO-MARXISTS have become very, very good at manipulating broad swaths of the public and producing, prompting, and provoking, mayhem, injury, and violence in society and thereupon rationalizing their actions as morally sound.

RATIONALIZATION FOR THIS MAYHEM, INJURY, AND VIOLENCE, IS THE JOB OF THE PRESS.

THE PRESS either excuses and masks these crimes as JUSTIFIED ACTS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, or THE PRESS denies the occurrence of violence outright—some referring to violent criminal activity as MOSTLY “PEACEFUL PROTESTS,” as fiery destruction occurs in the background. See Fox News panning of CNN’s news report.

BLM and ANTIFA have international roots, and there are undoubtedly other groups operating in the Nation as well—many of them offshoots of BLM and ANTIFA, likely spawned by them and mimicking them.

And then there are the psychopaths and dangerous psychotic lunatic LONE WOLVES, spurred to act by the incessant goading, prodding, and facilitating of THE PRESS, and, perhaps, deliberately conditioned by the Radical Left psychologists to engage in violence and murder when activated.  

The RADICAL LEFT thinkers and planners have no doubt factored in a massive public outcry, supporting the dissolution of society.

THIS IS NOT ONLY HELPFUL IT IS NECESSARY.

THE RADICAL LEFT REQUIRES PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF THE VIOLENCE GENERATED. THEY HOPE AND TRUST THAT BROAD SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION WILL TAKE AN ACTIVE PART IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR SOCIETY IN DETRIMENT TO THEIR OWN LIFE AND WELL-BEING, OR, AT LEAST, WILL ACQUIESCE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR SOCIETY, REFRAINING FROM PREVAILING ON THEIR LEGISLATORS TO STAMP OUT THE UNRESTRAINED, DEFIANT, SHAMELESS DEBASEMENT AND RUINATION OF THEIR SOCIETY.

As large, diverse, and powerful as it is, the Radical Left cannot destroy society on its own.

The disintegration of a prosperous, successful, thriving society requires tens or hundreds of thousands of participants to that disintegration of society, and tens of millions more docile sheep standing around, allowing the rape of their Country and themselves to occur.

What Americans are witnessing today is, then, something much more sinister than anything the “RADICAL LEFT” has orchestrated in the past.

A concerted effort is afoot here to destroy THE VERY FABRIC OF SOCIETY: to abolish every major institution in America—to disturb and to disrupt, to deface, deform and disfigure, to damage and eradicate every vestige, every trace of—

•  OUR HISTORY, HERITAGE, AND CULTURE,

• OUR NATIONAL ETHOS,

• OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE,

• OUR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MORAL GROUNDING,

• OUR EMBLEMS, ARTIFACTS, AND ART, OUR STATUES, MONUMENTS, AND MEMORIALS, AND OUR NATIONAL HOLIDAYS OF REMEMBRANCE,

• OUR NATION’S CORE VALUES,

• OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY,

• OUR BELIEF IN THE SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, AND CONCOMITANTLY,

• OUR BELIEF IN OUR FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, UNMODIFIABLE, ILLIMITABLE, ETERNAL NATURAL LAW RIGHTS THAT PREEXIST IN MAN AND THAT REST WELL BEYOND THE LAWFUL POWER OF THE STATE TO IGNORE, ABROGATE, REPEAL, DISPOSE OF, DISPOSSESS OUR PEOPLE OF,  TAMPER WITH IN ANY MANNER.

THE NEO-MARXISTS ARE ONE COMPONENT OF WHAT I HAVE FOUND TO EMBRACE THREE PRIMARY ELEMENTS.

I have delineated and described the components of the RADICAL LEFT in PART ONE of this MULTISERIES ESSAY.

These THREE ELEMENTS, comprising the “RADICAL LEFT,” amount to a TRAVESTY, PERVERSITY, and ABSURDITY of NATURE.

The expression, “RADICAL LEFT” is an apt, non-pejorative, neutral descriptor for a mammoth and undisguisedly ruthless community of conspirators working at times separately but often in concert, whose singular aim is the OVERTHROW of our Country as a SINGULARLY POWERFUL, SECURE and STABLE, and PROSPEROUS INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE and FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

In furtherance of that objective, the Radical Left is hellbent on disassembling the institutions of the Nation, ERADICATING our Nation’s HISTORY, HERITAGE, and CULTURE, ERASING our Nation’s unique BILL OF RIGHTS, CORRALLING, and SUBJUGATING the POPULACE, and REDUCING the POPULACE to an acute, abject state of PENURY, thereby forcing the POPULACE to DEPEND ON THE GOVERNMENT FOR ITS SUSTENANCE, and, at once, INHIBITING OPEN REBELLION AGAINST TYRANNY.

There is too much evidence to support this inference, for anyone to rationally deny it. And from what I gather from his book, “Justice For All,” and from his podcasts, “Greg Kelly Reports,” on Newsmax, Kelly appears to acknowledge this as well.

Through the dismantling of the Nation’s institutions, and eradication of the TENETS, PRECEPTS, and PRINCIPLES of INDIVIDUALISM, UPON WHICH OUR CONSTITUION IS GROUNDED, the RADICAL LEFT intends to bring about a massively transformed, multicultural society, grounded on the TENETS, PRECEPTS, and PRINCIPLES of COLLECTIVISM.

A Dystopian vision for America, and, by extension, for Western Civilization, is modeled on TOTALITARIAN COLLECTIVISM, existent in CCP China.

NEO-MARXIST CULTIST ACADEMICIANS PROVIDE A FICTIONAL PSEUDO-HISTORY that serves as both the blueprint for and the rationale for DISMANTLING a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND A FREE AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.

NEO-MARXIST CULTIST AGITATORS AND PROVOCATEURS CARRY OUT “THE DIRTY WORK.”

AND THE NEO-MARXIST CULTIST NEWSPAPERS, PERIODICALS, SOCIAL MEDIA, CABLE AND BROADCAST NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, AND INTERNET PODCASTS AND WEBSITES, AND PUBLISHING HOUSES OPERATE AS THE DELIVERY VEHICLES FOR DISSEMINATING NEO-MARXIST PROPAGANDA, They serve as THE BULLHORN and ECHO CHAMBER for the COLLECTIVIST agenda, ushering in the ruination and devastation of all that Americans cherish and treasure.

The target group is the American people at large. The DOGMA, NARRATIVES, and SIMPLISTIC PRETENTIOUS MESSAGING are collected, packaged, and delivered to the public and then, like a bomb, exploded in the public’s midst.

The aim is to confuse, confound, and demoralize Americans—inducing mass hysteria and psychosis, massaging the psyche of the populace, and softening the public up—so that it cannot effectively organize a resistance against this MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION.

The major NEO-MARXIST AND ANARCHIST GROUPS, BLACK LIVES MATTER (“BLM”) AND ANTIFA operate with the TWO other NEO-MARXIST ELEMENTS. AS AGENTS OF TERROR, BLM and ANTIFA CREATE IMMEDIATE FEAR AND ANXIETY AMONG THE PUBLIC.

Kelly spends considerable time discussing the NEO-MARXIST “BLACK LIVES MATTER” (“BLM”) movement and touches upon ANTIFA.

Both have INTERNATIONALIST roots. BOTH are criminal terrorist outfits. Their members are thugs.

The two invariably make their appearance at and are often instrumental in organizing VIOLENT PROTESTS.

As AGENT PROVOCATEURS, THEY ENCOURAGE THE MANY LEMMINGS WHO APPEAR AT THE PROTESTS TO ENGAGE IN ACTS OF VIOLENCE, ALONG WITH THEM, WHEN THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE AVOID TAKING PART IN ACTUAL VIOLENT ACTS THAT GO FAR BEYOND ANYTHING THAT CAN EVEN ARGUABLY BE INFERRED TO BE MERELY INNOCENT ACTS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

It is no accident that these agitators’ crimes go unpunished.

Indeed, the NEO-MARXISTS and NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST RADICAL LEFT PERSONAGES in both FEDERAL and STATE Governments and in the PRESS provide cover for these terrorists as they foment unrest and violence against innocent Americans and small business owners.

THESE INTERNATIONALIST TERROR GROUPS OPERATE AS DE FACTO SEDITIOUS AND REBELLIOUS “INSURGENT” MILITARY ARMS OF THE POLITICAL PROGRESSIVE (NEO-MARXIST) ELEMENTS IN STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.E

THE RADICAL LEFT JOE BIDEN (THE GREAT “UNIFIER”—AND SO HE LIED) AND HIS ADMINISTRATION HAVE DELIBERATELY PLAYED ONE GROUP OF AMERICANS OFF THE OTHER.

IT SERVED A FEW PURPOSES:

ONE, WEAKENING SOCIETY FROM WITHIN, THEREBY HASTENING SOCIAL DECAY, AND SOCIETAL COLLAPSE.

TWO, PREVENTING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FROM ORGANIZING TENABLE RESISTANCE AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL TYRANNY, AND

THREE, DEFLECTING ATTENTION AWAY FROM A TYRANT GOVERNMENT, AND ONTO ONE-HALF OF THE CITIZENRY, CLAIMING/ARGUING THAT ONE   SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC—THAT IS TO SAY—“RIGHT-WING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS” (TRUMP’S MAGA SUPPORTERS-CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS) ARE THE SALIENT, IF NOT SOLE, SOURCE OF ALL THE NATION’S WOES.  

ALL THOSE AWFUL “WHITE RACE” OPPRESSORS——REALLY?

The Neo-Marxists lump MEMBERS of the “WHITE RACE” into the domain of the MASTER RACE — ”COLONIALIST OPPRESSORS.“

Never mind that most “WHITES” would hardly think of themselves as OPPRESSORS toward anyone as they struggle to eke out a living and cause and desire no enmity toward anyone. NOR should they. NOR should they think ill of themselves or anyone else. And they do not.

Most are struggling like anyone else regardless of RACE.

Most Americans struggle to make ends meet.

Yet, WHITES are expected now to pay REPARATIONS TO BLACKS. REPARATIONS EQUAL RANSOM. AND WHO ARE THESE BLACKS OR “COLORED” TO WHOM WHITES MUST PAY THIS RANSOM?

AND, WHY SHOULD WHITES WHOSE ANCESTORS NEVER LIVED IN THE ANTEBELLUM SOUTH AND OF THE MANY WHO NEVER ARRIVED IN AMERICA UNTIL DECADES AFTER THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR ENDED AND WHO NEVER EVEN SAW A “BLACK” (“COLORED”) PERSON BEFORE SHOULD NONETHELESS BE PERCEIVED AS MORALLY CULPABLE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS IDEA OF “REPRESSION OF THE BLACK (“COLORED”) RACE NONETHESS?

IS NOT THE ENTIRE NEO-MARXIST ENTERPRISE PREDICATED ON HOKUM, DESIGNED TO FURTHER CREATE A SCHISM AMONG THE HOI POLLOI IN AMERICA, REGARDLESS OF “RACE” TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM REFLECTING ON THE HORROR OF WHAT NEO-MARXISTS HAVE IN STORE FOR ALL AMERICANS?

DOES NOT THIS NEO-MARXIST ENTERPRISE ATTEMPT TO CREATE ENMITY AMONG AMERICANS WHERE NONE EXISTS NOR SHOULD EXIST?

The RADICAL LEFT deliberately, systematically subverts the Nation and its people, its institutions, and its Constitution, in furtherance of an agenda directed at unraveling all of society. To that end, THE RADICAL LEFT insists ALL BLACKS are needlessly, senselessly OPPRESSED and that all “WHITES” are hopelessly, and passionately (or dispassionately) and diabolically predisposed to OPPRESS BLACKS.

AND——

Never mind that more than a few “BLACKS” have done very well for themselves,  becoming millionaires (a few even becoming billionaires) in THIS SEEMINGLY PERVERSE, RACIST SOCIETY. YET, ASK YOURSELF:

BUT, THEN, how is it that such a SEEMINGLY BRUTAL SOCIETY (NOW AND AT ITS INCEPTION) WOULD PERMIT BLACK (AND COLORED) PEOPLE TO SUCCEED on their merit, like ANY “WHITE” PERSON if THIS SOCIETY were HELPLESSLY, HOPELESSLY, ENDLESSLY CORRUPT?

Why would so many desire to come to America (MANY MILLIONS ILLEGALLY) if this Country were such an undesirable place to reside in?

NEO-MARXISTS don’t have an answer for any of this and deliberately skirt the question as these questions only weaken their CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED MYTH.

THE BOTTOM LINE——

The facts serve to refute a basic NEO-MARXIST axiom and shibboleth from which everything—THEIR AGENDA, OBJECTIVES, TACTICS—proceed:

THE IDEA OF A “WHITE OPPRESSOR CLASS” (BRUTAL MASTER RACE (“HERRENMENSCH”)) USING THE “BLACK” OPPRESSED (UNDERDOG, ENSLAVED RACE (“UNTERMENSCH”)) TO SERVE THE WHITE OPPRESSOR RACE’S EVERY WANT AND NEED, AND THE BLACK OPPRESSED RACE REAPING NO REWARD FROM THEIR LABOR.

To call this a gross simplistic overgeneralization is to give more credit to it than it deserves.

It is an outright lie, and yet the Federal Government under the Biden Administration and many of the States give credence to this absurdity, playing it as a TRUISM of our AMERICAN HISTORY. The Government plays along with the myth of an America that bespeaks a reality in America as prevalent today as in the past.

Karl Marx would likely perceive the NEO-MARXIST BASTARDIZATION of his FLAWED VIEW OF ECONOMIC REALITY as a BLATANT ABSURDITY, COMPOUNDING THE INHERENT ABSURDITY OF MARXISM, WHETHER “CLASSICAL” MARXISM OR THIS NEW WAVE RACIALIST, ESSENTIALIST, MARXISM, UPROOTING PROSPEROUS FREE MARKET CAPITALISM AND UPROOTING ALL OF OUR NATION’S PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS.

That the Federal Government (the BIDEN ADMINISTRATION and much of the CONGRESS, and a few MEMBERS OF THE HIGH COURT) would be a party to this TRAVESTY—THAT SEEKS THE UNDOING OF OUR NATION—that actively, avidly, exuberantly trumpets a FAIRY TALE to undermine a Nation’s prosperity and security and all of it MANUFACTURED and IMPLEMENTED for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of accomplishing that end, bespeaks a treachery graver and more grotesque than anything this Country has faced at any other time in its history.

As with all CONFUSED, DISJOINTED, AND INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT BELIEF SYSTEMS, the NEO-MARXIST RADICAL LEFT MUST CONSTANTLY READJUST, RECALLIBRATE ITS DOGMA, IDEOLOGY, AND RUNNING NARRATIVES TO COHERE TO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES.

The Neo-Marxists have modified their narrative as exigency demands as events evolve. They do this to maintain a modicum of coherence.

As the application of THE MYTH THEY CONCOCTED becomes more expansive—with no part of the Country and no institution untouched BY IT—the incoherence OF IT becomes glaring.

The NEO-MARXIST ACADEMICIANS must incessantly make changes TO IT, to keep the BELIEF SYSTEM FROM COLLAPSING IN ON ITSELF.

It is the Nation that the NEO-MARXISTS seek to destroy through the APPLICATION OF THIS COLLECTIVIST BELIEF SYSTEM, buttressed by ridiculous mythology, that the NEO-MARXISTS must prevent the public from gaining awareness of INHERENT FLAWS WITHIN THAT SYSTEM, lest the public rebel against it.

The NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS THEREFORE ASSIDUOUSLY CONTROL PUBLIC COGNITION TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM PERCEIVING THE INHERENT FLAWS WITHIN THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM.

Many Americans ARE, nonetheless, rebelling against this LUDICROUS NEO-MARXIST BELIEF SYSTEM—POINTING OUT THE INHERENT INCONGRUITY OF IT ALONG WITH THE DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL ATTENDANT TO IT, WHICH OF COURSE, IS THE SALIENT PURPOSE OF IT.

ALL THOSE POOR OPPRESSED BLACKS——REALLY?

In keeping with the need to revamp the NEO-MARXIST BELIEF SYSTEM under exigent circumstances——

The BLACK OPPRESSED UNDERDOGS now include a heterogeneous assortment of so-called “COLORED” PEOPLE (i.e., “PEOPLE OF COLOR”). The latter phrase is not only the preferred vernacular but the required argot. THE NEO-MARXISTS demand strict adherence to phraseology as they happen to dictate it to the public.

One Dare Not Say, “COLORED PEOPLE,” else one be called down for it. A person must use the phrase ‘BLACK or BROWN PEOPLE’ or ‘PEOPLE OF COLOR’ when mentioning the “OPPRESSED CLASS.”

This NEW WAVE CULTURAL, RACIALIST, ESSENTIALIST POST-MODERN MARXIST considers certain phraseology as inflammatory and insulting even as they wish to lump many NON-BLACKS into a “COLORED” (“BLACK” and “BROWN”) category.

BUT CREATING AN ENTIRE FAIRY TALE ABOUT “RACE” SERVES TO RESURRECT OLD MYTHS AND POINTS TO THE DISJOINTEDNESS AND INCONGRUITY OF THE NEO-MARXISTS’ BELIEF SYSTEM ON THIS MATTER ALONE, FOR THEY ACTIVELY PROMOTE THE INFERIORITY OF THE “COLORED” RACE AND THEN AT ONCE, ODDLY AND ABSURDLY BUT VERY, VERY SUBTLY AND TACITLY DECLARE:

“OF COURSE THE BLACK AND BROWN RACE IS INFERIOR AND THAT IS WHY WE MUST DEMAND ‘EQUALITY OF OUTCOMES’ FOR, OTHERWISE, THIS RACE CANNOT COMPETE ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH THE SUPERIOR, OPPRESSOR WHITE RACE.’”

DOES THE BLACK AND BROWN RACE REALLY WANT TO HEAR THIS? OF COURSE NOT.

BUT, THAT IDEA UNDERSCORES THE NOTION OF THE NEO-MARXIST REVAMPING OF THE IDEA INHERENT IN OUR COUNTRY OF THE IMPORTANCE OF “EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY” AMONG ALL PEOPLE.

INSTEAD, THEY SUBSTITUTE THIS IDEA WITH THE NOTION OF “EQUALITY OF OUTCOME” (“EQUITY”)—AND ONE DESTRUCTIVE TO THE SANCTITY OF THE COMMON MAN AS “INDIVIDUAL.”

THIS DESIRE FOR “EQUALITY OF OUTCOME” IS CONCOMITANT WITH THE IDEA OF A BLACK AND BROWN “RACE” AS ONE NOT ONLY OPPRESSED BY THE “WHITE RACE” BUT ONE MARKEDLY INFERIOR TO THE “WHITE RACE.”

AND THIS RAISES A THORNY QUESTION——

IS A NOTION OF “RACE” EVEN TENABLE?

These FANATIC NEO-MARXIST CULTISTS insist on emphasizing “RACE” and the FAIRY TALE they constructed from whole cloth about RACE—A NATURAL TENSION EXISTENT between “WHITES” AND “BLACKS”—lest THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTED FAIRY TALE EDIFICE COLLAPSE.

But it is through adherence to their manufactured FAIRY TALE that a distinction must be drawn between this NEW School brand of MARXISM and the OLD School brand of MARXISM developed by KARL MARX because the LATTER SCHOOL does not posit any assumption about RACE—BUT ONLY ECONOMIC CLASS:

CAPITALISM AS A DISTINCT ECONOMIC CLASS AND EVER AT ODDS WITH LABOR, AS A DISTINCT ECONOMIC CLASS.

The distinction between the OLD and NEW SCHOOLS OF MARXISM is crucial and it is a major sticking point for NEO-MARXISTS.

CLASSICAL MARXISM is at LOGGERHEADS with THIS NEW BREED OF MARXISM, grounded principally on the notion of RACE POLITICS. See, e.g., the article in Themelios for one perspective on this.

These new wave NEO-MARXISTS bear some similarity to the CLASSICAL MARXISTS only insofar as the new school has evolved from a common belief in an antagonistic relationship between those who PRODUCE GOODS and services—LABOR—and those who reap the ultimate benefit from that labor, the OWNERS of MARKET PRODUCTION, that is to say, the CAPITALISTS. THIS, IN ESSENCE, IS THE MAIN THRUST OF CLASSICAL MARXISM.

But, as the CULTURAL MARXISTS connote labor exclusively with SLAVE LABOR, TIED TO RACE, this NEW BRAND of MARXISM has evolved (OR DEVOLVED) into an entirely new species of economic, political, and social thought—a new academic discipline taking over education: From GRADE SCHOOL and HIGH SCHOOL through UNIVERSITY and POST-GRADUATE LEVEL EDUCATION.

And this BIZARRE THOUGHT has permeated not only through the “SOFT SCIENCES” and through the “LIBERAL ARTS CURRICULA” but through the “HARD SCIENCES”—“STEM”—and has infected the professions, such as law and medicine, as well.

But as for introducing and injecting “RACE” into his theories, Marx would himself puzzle over the need FOR IT and would immediately see the incoherence OF IT precisely because the DISTINCTION BETWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A NOTION OF RACE.

For Karl Marx, both BLACKS (“PEOPLE OF COLOR”) and WHITES illustrate membership in one or the other CLASSIFICATION—CAPITAL or LABOR IRRESPECTIVE OF RACE.

CLASSICAL MARXISM therefore belies the notion that one’s “RACE” predominates or even factors into the calculation of classification.

The fact of wealthy “BLACK” CAPITALISTS in society serves to refute “RACE-BASED” MARXISM and tends to support CLASSICAL MARXISM.

That fact is, at least, internally consistent with CLASSICAL MARXISM, even though MARXISM is flawed as an economic theory.

BUT, RACIALIST, ESSENTIALIST, MULTICULTURAL MARXISM CANNOT EXPLAIN THE INCONSISTENCY, DEMONSTRATING IRREFUTABLY, THE INTERNAL INCOHERENCE AT THE HEART OF THIS RACIALIST, ESSENTIALIST, MODERN MARXISM (NEO-MARXISM).

SO, THEN, HOW DO THE NEO-MARXISTS DEAL WITH THE INHERENT CONTRADICTION IN THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM?

We see what the NEO-MARXISTS DO through the claims that these NEO-MARXIST BLACK MULTIMILLIONAIRES and BILLIONAIRES MAKE.

Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey, among others, SIMPLY IGNORE reference to their considerable monetary wealth and their popularity by claiming, disingenuously and lamely, that they are oppressed. HOW SO?

Because they are BLACK? But, IF SO, then how do the NEO-MARXISTS RECONCILE the claim of FABULOUS ECONOMIC PROSPERITY, ALONG WITH A LIFE OF EASE, WITH THE BALD-FACED AND DUBIOUS CLAIM THESE FABULOUSLY WEALTHY PEOPLE SUFFER EXTRAORDINARY DEPRIVATION SPRINGING FROM SOME SORT OF INHERENT “RACIAL POVERTY” GOING BACK TO THE ANTEBELLUM PERIOD AND BEFORE THAT? SIMPLE AND SIMPLISTIC DENIAL DOES NOT SUFFICE BUT BEGS THE QUESTION: “IS ONE’S SKIN COLOR THE DEFINING FACTOR OR, FOR THAT MATTER, A LEGITIMATE FACTOR AT ALL IN ASSESSING THE QUALITY OR QUANTITY OF ONE’S SUFFERING SUCH THAT AMERICAN SOCIETY, AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS, MUST BE OBLITERATED?”

CONSIDER——

HOW WOULD ACQUISITION OF EXTRAORDINARY WEALTH BY SOME “BLACKS,” NO LESS THAN BY SOME “WHITES,” BE POSSIBLE IN AN AVOWEDLY RACIST SOCIETY?

THE ANSWER? SUCH A THING WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. The NEO-MARXIST CANNOT make a cogent case. It is logically impossible.

And so, the NEO-MARXIST ignores the ECONOMIC REALITY, at the heart of all MARXIST THEORY of CAPITAL VERSUS LABOR, and simply remarks that Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey, and other BLACKS, IN THEIR ECONOMIC CLASS, suffer PRECISELY because they are BLACK, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR FABULOUS WEALTH. BUT THAT WON’T DO!

That begs THE SALIENT QUESTION at issue, which the NEO-MARXIST CANNOT IGNORE. HOW have these “BLACKS” suffered? IF THEY INSIST THAT THEY HAVE SUFFERED AND CONTINUE TO SUFFER AT THE HANDS OF THE WHITE OPPRESSOR CLASS, LET THEM MAKE THEIR CASE TO ONE SUCH OSTENSIBLE MEMBER OF THAT MASTER RACE “OPPRESSOR (PRIVILEGED) CLASS”: THE WHITE COAL MINERS AND THEIR FAMILIES STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE IN APPALACHIA.

IS IT NOT DISCORDANT EVEN TO TALK ABOUT RACE IN THIS DAY AND AGE?  

More to the point, PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY “RACE” THEORY (“SCIENTIFIC RACISM”) is incompatible with modern work in Human Genetics.

SCIENTIFIC RACISM is slipshod, nebulous, or simply degenerate.

It all hearkens back to the writings of Mid-Nineteenth Century and Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Race Theorists such as Arthur de Gobineau, Madison Grant, Hans F. K. Günter, Lothrop Stoddard, and most recently, Carleton S. Coon.

“SCIENTIFIC RACISM” tied to EUGENICS is less hard science and more “ART FORM.”

It is one pointing to and emphasizing “PHENOTYPIC DIFFERENCES” among people as the salient and decisive factor in the discussion of differences among people.

The proponent of this ART FORM extrapolates from one’s PHYSICAL APPEARANCE to false and peculiar ideas about a person’s intelligence and his or her psychological traits, and characteristics, and proclivities and even to matters of aesthetics (“physical beauty”).

The internet is replete with this as posited on sites such as stormfront.org (a virulent purveyor of hatred and contempt for “BLACKS,” “COLORED PEOPLE,” and some “WHITES,” notably JEWS).

BUT, THEN, IS NOT THE NEO-MARXISTS’ CONTEMPT AND HATRED OF “WHITES” (“ARYANS”) AND JEWS (“NON-ARYANS”) ANY DIFFERENT?

Then there are seemingly benign websites discussing at length phenotypical differences among people, dividing “RACES” into categories based solely on physical appearance (primarily facial) and one’s bearing.

A favorite activity of proponents of “SCIENTIFIC RACISM” involves further subdividing members of the “WHITE” RACE into a substantial number of SUBCATEGORIES, such as “NORDIC,” “ALPINE,” “DINARIC,” and “HITHER ASIATIC” to name a few, and further dividing the “WHITE” RACE into SUB-SUBCATEGORIES, as, for example, dividing the NORDIC RACE into SUB-SUBCATEGORIES such as Borreby, Trønder, Brünn, Fälish, Hallstat.

Sites that play around with this include Christogenea, Anthroworld Forum, Racial Compact, and the Apricity Forum.

I would be remiss for failure to note the NEO-MARXIST RACIALISTS, who go on about all these OPPRESSED “COLORED PEOPLE” (“PEOPLE OF COLOR”), include among the OPPRESSED “COLORED,” people of Indian descent, Arabs, Iranians, Native Americans, and a large amorphous group of people lumped into the CATEGORY of “HISPANICS.”

Not surprisingly, and quite understandably, many of these so-called “HISPANICS” loathe such ridiculous neologisms constructed by NEO-MARXISTS, such as ‘LATINO,’ and ‘LATINX’ to describe a large, diverse group of human beings.

The curious thing is that these “COLORED PEOPLE” are, historically, not “COLORED” at all. Those who espouse “SCIENTIFIC RACISM” properly place these people into the domain of “WHITE RACE”.

Yet, the NEO-MARXIST misapprehends this, erroneously lumping these members OF THE WHITE RACE in with “COLORED PEOPLE” or, if you will, “PEOPLE OF COLOR” or, in THIS OR THAT group of “BROWN and “BLACK PEOPLE.”

But, if one truly wishes to abide by the original nomenclature, then why not accept the old simple three categories of “BLACK RACE” (“NEGROID”), “WHITE RACE” (“CAUCASIAN”), and “YELLOW RACE” (“MONGOLOID”) and leave the matter at that?

Hence—“BLACK,” “WHITE,” AND “YELLOW.” Simple, even if hardly useful, an old biological makeweight, and there we have it.

Old ideas die hard, but the NEO-MARXISTS toy with this as well, to make up a fiction of their own as they go along, and it is all designed to tear our society apart, caring not one whit for the worth and dignity of individuals but only concerned about manipulation of groups to which they lump this or that person.

This is a major tenet of COLLECTIVISM”—antithetical to and impossible to mediate with “INDIVIDUALISM” upon which our Nation was built and upon which it prospered and upon which the strength of our Nation, its BILL OF RIGHTS, is firmly entrenched.

But the NEO-MARXISTS need a “RACIAL” classification to make COLLECTIVISM come to fruition.

It is the modus operandi upon which they operate to undermine the entire structure of our Society, grounded on INDIVIDUALISM, which does not adhere to or utilize RACIAL CLASSIFICATION as a tenet.

RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS are inconsistent with the notion of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual.

But the Radical Left dismisses this idea out of hand because it weakens the carefully constructed fiction they have methodically developed and thrust on the public.

But, even with RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS and their need to create preferences, they must tinker around the edges. This demonstrates the ad hoc nature of the entire enterprise.

For example, they deny categorizing “Asians” as “PEOPLE OF COLOR,” for preferential treatment, likely because, as a group, Asians have done very well for themselves, in a society that historically and to its great success and credit promotes the idea of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY— recognizing success grounded on one’s merit, motivation, and ambition. Imagine that! NEO-MARXISTS WON’T SUFFER THAT!

So Asians are treated by the RADICAL LEFT NEO-MARXISTS as DE FACTO members of the WHITE “OPPRESSOR” RACE. This only serves to illustrate and emphasize the incoherence of, inconsistency of, and crass idiocy of the entire edifice the RADICAL LEFT NEO-MARXISTS have constructed to push their agenda, as Asians have suffered prejudice no less so than “BLACKS,” and, in these modern times, arguably more so than “BLACKS.”

If truth be known, every “group,” including “WHITES” of different national origin has suffered prejudice at some point in their past, and many still do, especially Jews. But, Americans have done much, evolving beyond this. People hold onto their culture and beliefs when they come into our Country (LAWFULLY) and become CITIZENS, and that is a good thing. But, from whatever Country they emigrate from, these naturalized citizens and their offspring ASSIMILATE—that is to say, they inculcate an AMERICAN IDENTITY.

BUT THIS IDEA, TOO, “ASSIMILATION,” THE NEO-MARXISTS OBJECT TO ADAMANTLY AND HAVE EMPLOYED MEANS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES TO DESTROY THE CONCEPT OF “ASSIMILATION.” IT DOESN’T FIT INTO THEIR SOCIO-POLITICAL PARADIGM.

Why bring prejudice back to the surface and make it THE MAINSTAY of a BELIEF SYSTEM that only serves to create enmity among people? Is THE AIM truly to help “BLACKS” and other “PEOPLE OF COLOR” or do the NEO-MARXISTS treat “BLACKS” less as VICTIM and more as TOOL TO ASSIST IN THE RUIN OF AMERICA AND, BY EXTENSION, IN THE RUIN OF ALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION?

A reasonable person would think that, if the NEO-MARXISTS ARE DEAD-SET ON TRANSFORMING SOCIETY, THEN A RADICAL REWORKING OF SOCIETY WOULD REFLECT REALITY AS IT EXISTS, AND NOT AS THE LEFT MIGHT PREFER IT TO BE. But this is not the case at all. IT IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT. IT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE AFTER.

THEY INTEND TO MOLD AND SHAPE PERCEPTION TO CREATE A FALSE REALITY THAT COHERES—TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE FOR A SYSTEM THAT IS INHERENTLY INCOHERENT AND INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT—WITH THEIR FEVER DREAM OF A WELL-ORDERED WELL-ENGINEERED SOCIETY REMINISCENT OF AN ANT COLONY OR A BEEHIVE, WHICH MEETS THEIR GOAL OF MAXIMIZING UTILITY, PROMOTING THEIR BIZARRE NOTION OF “THE GOOD.”

The RADICAL LEFT’S constant construction of neologisms and constant tinkering with their own narratives to force Reality to cohere and conform to those narratives, as events constantly dictate the reformulation of their fictions, illustrate the bankrupt nature of and logical fallacies inherent in their entire fictional fantasy world construct.

CONSIDER——

HOW HAS THIS ALL COME TO BE AND HOW IS IT THAT THE RADICAL LEFT, THE NEO-MARXIST CONTINGENT OF THE RADICAL LEFT, AND THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF IT CONTINUE TO GAIN INFLUENCE AND EXERT MORE AND MORE CONTROL OVER THE COUNTRY, AND OVER THE COUNTRY’S INSTITUTIONS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

But, for a massive infusion of monies into their absurd programs and campaigns, and the power of and the sheer EXTANT of forces at work to undermine the SECURITY of a FREE STATE, to undercut the AMERICAN REVOLUTION of 1776, and bring about the dissolution of the U.S. as an independent sovereign Nation and a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC—where the American people are themselves sovereign over Government—the RADICAL LEFT movement would never have gotten off the ground.

That the Radical Left HAS GOTTEN OFF THE GROUND and not only survived but flourished and that its intended aim—as is plain from the effects on the Country and the American people—is DESTRUCTIVE, NOT CONSTRUCTIVE in nature, and is designed to REPLACE a powerful, prosperous Country with a weakened impoverished one, should give all Americans pause.

The citizenry must not fall prey to the dangerous myths perpetrated on it, for this can lead to and is leading to its ruin and its demise as a people and as a Nation.

Americans have a chance—THEIR LAST ONE —to force the RADICAL LEFT’s hand before it is too late.

Voting Donald Trump back into Office will do just that.

Despite all the efforts to hamper Trump’s ability to govern the Country during his Presidency, he showed that America could recover its strength, resilience, and stability, and his policies and initiatives were intended to do just that and they did just that.

But the RADICAL LEFT WANTS NONE OF THAT and they intend to pull out all the stops to prevent Donald Trump’s reelection.

The RADICAL LEFT LEADERSHIP saw what was happening. Donald Trump had awakened the public to the omnipresent danger posed by the RADICAL LEFT, and they would not abide that, as it defeated all their plans to bring about the ruin of the Nation, enabling the remains to be merged into a world empire over which they would rule unimpeded by nation-states, especially the United States that was born in fire and flame and would itself not abide TYRANNY.

Since orchestrating his loss in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, the RADICAL LEFT has, THROUGH ITS POWERFUL CONTROL OVER THE VAST MACHINERY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESS AND EXERTING SUBSTANTIAL CONTROL OVER THE STATES, IT HAD ONCE AGAIN REGAINED THE INITIATIVE AND DEMONSTRATED ITS ABILITY TO HYPNOTIZE A BROAD SWATH OF THE PUBLIC.

With Trump well positioned to secure the Republican Party nomination for U.S. President in 2024, and with over one-half of the population prepared to vote him back into Office having had its fill of both the Biden Administration and a Congress either terrible or effete, and realizing that the attempt to induce a nonsensical rabid hatred of Trump through an intensive campaign of psychological conditioning made possible through their control of the Press and Social Media does not cloak an agenda designed to enervate the Country and dismantle the Nation’s institutions, the RADICAL LEFT LEADERSHIP HAS RESORTED TO MORE EXTREME MEASURES TO PREVENT TRUMP FROM SECURING THE 2024 U.S. PRESIDENCY. THE LEADERSHIP HAS ENGAGED IN UNETHICAL AND OUTRIGHT UNLAWFUL USE OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM IN TO DESTROY TRUMP’S PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION AND BRING ABOUT HIS FINANCIAL RUIN.

Yet, the ridiculous criminal and civil charges lodged against Trump demonstrate not the power of the RADICAL LEFT, but, rather, its inherent weakness (considering the lengths it has gone to destroy the man, beyond all rational understanding).

The RADICAL LEFT has illustrated for the Electorate to see, its frantic fear of Trump, and its enduring, deep-seated suspicion of the American people.

The RADICAL LEFT has pushed to keep the American citizenry in a state of weariness, malaise, and flux. It has pushed the citizenry to the limits of its ability to tolerate ineptitude and deceit, and the public should resist any further attempts to placate it.

This is not the time for Americans to surrender to these forces of evil.

It is time for Americans, the COMMON MAN, to get to work to preserve a Free Republic that the Founders gave us through their courage and sacrifice, and that Americans have worked hard to protect ever since through their courage and sacrifice.

THE GOAL: SAFEGUARDING OUR FREE REPUBLIC AND MAINTAINING OUR SOVEREIGNTY OVER GOVERNMENT.

WHAT COULD BE WRONG WITH THAT?

THE RADICAL LEFT NEVER EXPLAINS. BUT, THEN, THERE IS NOTHING THAT IT CAN EXPLAIN.

Greg Kelly provides clear evidence of the RADICAL LEFT’s GAMEPLAN and explains who they are and what their STRATEGIES are to bring about the ruin of the Country.

I provide context for Kelly’s observations as I analyze his work Chapter by Chapter, and I begin that task forthwith with SUBPART B OF PART THREE of this ESSAY.

______________________

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF GREG KELLY’S “JUSTICE FOR ALL”: REMARKS ON THE “INTRODUCTION” TO KELLY’S BOOK IN THE CONTEXT OF, AND ILLUMINATING THE THREAT POSED TO, THE NATION BY THE “RADICAL LEFT”

A MULTIPART ESSAY, PREPARED BY STEPHEN L. D’ANDRILLI, PRESIDENT AND CO-FOUNDER OF THE ARBALEST GROUP, LLC., CREATOR OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL WEBSITE

PART TWO (UPDATED)

REMARKS ON THE “INTRODUCTION” TO KELLY’S BOOK IN THE CONTEXT OF, AND ILLUMINATING THE THREAT POSED TO, THE NATION BY THE “RADICAL LEFT”

Greg Kelly doesn’t hold back any punches in his book. He’s not afraid to tell it like it is. 

In his “Introduction,” he asserts, “This is a book about justice in America and the consequences to our beautiful nation if it fails.”

He personalizes the discussion by saying, “I’m sick of listening to elected officials, media personalities, and radical advocates who lie through their teeth about the reality of crime, criminal justice, and law enforcement in this country.”

He declares openly and plainly,

I wrote this book to lay out the case against Barack Obama, his politics of division, and the Democratic Party, which he continues to lead behind the scenes. . . .

The mainstream media is now avowedly far to the Left. They all went along with the Democrat lies about Russia-gate and Trump, they pushed the treason narrative, they amplified leftist lies about the police, and they colluded to keep the American people in the dark about essential matters.

The “RADICAL LEFT,”* of which the mainstream media (“MSM”) is a major component, fails to consider or otherwise deliberately avoids acknowledging that police work is dangerous work but essential work.

The job of police officers is to keep their communities safe. And, in doing that job, the police put their life on the line. That is true today. It was true decades ago. This is certainly true of New York City.

He points to the 1970s as an example to drive home the point.

Kelly writes, “During this era, there were so many police funerals.”

The author has provided a photo album in the book to reinforce the memory of NYPD officers who were brutally murdered.

These photographs of individuals make personal what words alone cannot convey, bringing clarity to the horror of the murders.

Two of the officers were Gregory Foster and Rocco Laurie.

The two were cut down in the prime of their life. Members of a radical terrorist group, the “Black Liberation Army.”

One of the “cops” was black, and one was white.

Their killer didn’t differentiate between the two (apparently only seeing “blue”).

Kelly writes,

Gregory Foster was only twenty-two; his murder left behind a widow and two children. . . . Rocco Laurie was twenty-three. His wife, Adelaide, describes her husband as a ‘wound that will never heal.’ . . .

The picture of two young widows, one black, one white, united in their grief, was splashed all over the papers and expressed a key message:

the forces of chaos, disorder, and division may disguise themselves as a movement, of liberation, but their victims come from all walks of life. The idea of a ‘thin blue line’ that protects society from the depredations of the criminal element has a truth it, and that also means that law enforcement officers may have different-color skin, but they all bleed blue.

How ironic it is that Gregory Foster’s grandson, also named Gregory, is a police officer working in the same Ninth Precinct.

The Grandson wears “his Grandfather’s badge number.”

The photos of slain police officers have had an impact on me because I, too, was a young officer in my early 20s back in the 1970s, working in uniform patrol in Chinatown’s Fifth Precinct that borders the Ninth.

Upon request, I would later be assigned to the Ninth Precinct in the East Village, where Foster and Laurie were gunned down.

Coincidentally, I now live in the East Village, and I occasionally pass by the Ninth Precinct.

It is appropriate that a memorial plaque paying tribute to their service hangs on a wall at the Precinct.

Equally disturbing are the photos of two more recent assassinations of officers: Rafael Ramos, a Latino “cop,” and Wenjian Liu, whose ethnicity is Chinese.

They “were assassinated in 2014 by a black supremacist criminal who sought revenge for the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.”

The “cop” killer, a recidivist criminal, Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, was a member of a prison gang that called itself the “Black Guerrilla Family.”

He murdered the two officers, ostensibly as revenge for the deaths of Eric Garner on Staten Island, New York, and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Brinsley was never repentant. After he murdered the two officers, he sarcastically and callously asserted, “I’m putting Wings on Pigs today.”

Individual members of RADICAL LEFT criminal groups and the groups collectively bear responsibility for numerous attacks on and murders of many police officers.

There were many Radical Left criminal groups active in the Twentieth Century. Most are defunct. Others have taken their place.

But something is different between the Radical Left Groups operating in the Twentieth Century and those operating in the Twenty-First.

That difference is NOT one of PURPOSE.

The Radical Left organizations active today in America share the same socio-political philosophy as those in the past.

And the difference is NOT one of TACTICS.

They utilize the same violent criminal TACTICS to sow fear and dissension in society. Those TACTICS include vandalism, arson, and murder.

And the difference is NOT one of AIM.

The central AIM of these groups is the same as those of the past: Destruction of the United States as a Free Constitutional Republic.

What IS different about the Radical Left Collectivist Marxist-Anarchist groups of today and those active in the previous Century has NOTHING to do with their thought processes or tactics, aims, and actions. It has NOTHING to do with any of that. And has NOTHING to do with the organizational structure or framework of these—for example, centralized or decentralized—or with the nature of the constituency of, or composition of, these groups and their members.

RATHER, it has EVERYTHING to do with,

•  THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and with

• THE POLICIES OF MANY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, and with

• THE MINDSET OF MANY INSTITUTIONS, and with

• THE MINDSET OF MANY AMERICANS.

Societal Institutions, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, have become suffused with noxious dogmas and ideology—they have become ONE with these agents of societal destruction.

Venerable, Established Institutions have infused themselves with a fatal virus. Many of their members carry this virus and have infected the structural components of the Institutions along with their members.

WHY IS THIS? HOW HAS THIS COME ABOUT?

The Federal Government can and should DESIGNATE such groups as TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. BUT IT DOESN’T DO THIS.

THROUGH THEIR AGENDA, AIMS, ACTIONS, AND TACTICS, the Federal Government can and should surveil these organizations and should be assertive, even aggressive, in bringing their members—that perpetrate crimes against the Country, its institutions, its homes and businesses, and people—to swift justice. BUT IT DOESN’T DO THIS.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THIS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, DOES NOT DO ANYTHING TO BUTTRESS SOCIETY FROM THE PLAGUE OF RADICAL LEFT DOGMA AND IDEOLOGY. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS, TO THE CONTRARY, EMBRACED IT, AND THRUST IT ON THE COUNTRY.

AMERICANS SEE THIS THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATION’S POLICIES. THE COUNTRY HAS BECOME FRACTURED. THE ECONOMY IS WEAK. THE MILITARY IS WEAK. THE SOCIAL FABRIC IS FRAYING.

THE WORLD IS TODAY IN A PERILOUS CONDITION DUE TO SPECIFIC, DESTRUCTIVE FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS ON THE PART OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, INJECTED INTO IT THAT HAVE DESTABILIZED IT.

THE CREATION OF VOLITILITY CANNOT REST SOLELY IN THE INCOMPETENCE OF THESE POLICY MAKERS. IT MUST BE INTENTIONAL.

A WORLDWIDE TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND JURIDICAL STRUCTURES IS OCCURRING, THE ERECTION OF A NEO-MARXIST EMPIRE IS THE AIM. BUT WHAT IS CONGRESS, SOCIAL MEDIA, THE BUSINESS SECTORS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS IN OUR COUNTRY DOING ABOUT THIS?

CONGRESS, THE PRESS, SOCIAL MEDIA, THE BUSINESS SECTORS, AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS DO NOT PREVAIL ON THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TO GRAPPLE WITH THE INTRACTABLE PROBLEM OF SOCIETAL AND WORLD DECAY WROUGHT BY THE IMMERSION OF RADICAL LEFT BELIEF SYSTEMS INTO OUR NATION AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION, GENERALLY.

MANY STATE GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DO NOTHING TO CURB THE SERIOUS HARM THESE RADICAL LEFT GROUPS AND THEIR MEMBERS CAUSE SOCIETY AND, BY EXTENSION, THE WORLD.

ARE ALL THESE INSTITUTIONS SIMPLY AND INEXPLICABLY OBLIVIOUS TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEM, OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON HERE, BENEATH THE SURFACE THAT HAS ENABLED THE ROT OF RADICAL LEFT IDEOLOGY AND DOGMA TO TAKE HOLD?

Government at all levels and private sector institutions are THEMSELVES filled with RADICAL LEFT PERSONNEL AND LEADERS.

HOW HAS THIS HAPPENED? WHO OR WHAT SHAPED THIS?

Institutions across America take their cue from the present Biden Administration and Radical Leftist members of Congress.

The Press and Social Media organizations follow suit, heralding the actions of violent Marxists and Anarchists, echoing their sentiments, enabling them, apologizing for their horrific actions, proclaiming that the destruction of our Republic is all for the best—THAT IT IS ALL RIGHT AND PROPER, and GOOD AND MORAL.

And our “CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM” AS WELL is supposed to take a backseat to DELIBERATE DESTRUCTIVE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR? Really?

BUT WHY IS THAT? WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS THAT HAVE ALLOWED THIS OR CAUSED THIS TO OCCUR?

Institutions that should protect the American people from the criminal conduct of these Radical Marxist and Anarchist groups and their members willingly, even enthusiastically, abet the criminal behavior. WHY IS THAT?

America’s institutions have cloaked an aura of respectability around these RADICAL LEFT groups and their members, AND HAVE WILLINGLY EMBRACED the Dogma and Goals of these groups, ADOPTING THEM AND APPLYING THEM TO THEIR OPERATIONS. WHY IS THAT? HOW DID THE RADICAL LEFT IDEOLOGY AND BELIEF SYSTEMS GAIN CONTROL OVER OUR INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR PEOPLE? BUT, THIS HAS HAPPENED? AND THE RADICAL LEFT IS NOW VERY MUCH AN INSTITUTION ITSELF, OVERLAID ON THE OTHERS BUT WHO REMAINS IN AMERICA TO RESTRAIN THE RELENTLESS, INEXORABLE ADVANCEMENT TOWARD RUIN?

An uninformed public sees incorrigible, criminal behavior treated as acceptable, even exemplary conduct. The public sees police deliberately failing to make arrests due to policy restrictions from senior police officials (political appointees) and city mayors. Years ago thieves attempted to cloak their thefts. Today, they haul off their plunder openly. California is a case study of this peculiar state of affairs. See, e.g., a story by the Hoover Institution on this. But, a “Radical Left Bastion State like California is no longer an outlier on this as is plain from a New York Post article. See also the article from Retail Dive.

Store employers, managers, and employees look on in disbelief, powerless to prevent the brazen theft lest they suffer criminal sanctions themselves for such “harm” they may cause to the criminals (working alone and often, now, in concert) in the event they attempt to prevent the theft of store inventory. Stores close and costs for the loss of the inventory are passed on to the consumer.

THE SOCIETAL FABRIC IS FRAYED.

The public must grudgingly allow serious, and increasingly constant, and vicious criminal behavior to occur and to accept that criminal behavior will go unpunished.

Some members of the public complain. Most simply tolerate the destruction of their society. And more than a few excuse it, with some of them even applauding it.

GOVERNMENTS HAVE NOW ROUTINELY FORCED POLICE—WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO PROTECT SOCIETY FROM THE ACTIONS OF CRIMINALS AND DEVIANTS WHO SEEK TO DESTROY IT—TO “SIT ON THEIR HANDS” AND “THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM” FAILS.

WHY IS THAT?

NO ONE CAN REASONABLY ASCRIBE THE EXTENT OF THIS, THE CONSTANCY OF IT, AND THE INTENSITY OF THIS TO SOME NOTION OF “ACCEPTABLE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.” What the public is witnessing today has no precedent in American history.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION GOVERNMENT AND MORE THAN A FEW STATE GOVERNMENTS AND MUNICIPALITIES HAVE JOINED IN ON THE RAPE OF THE COUNTRY. THEY HAVE ABUSED AND ESSENTIALLY REJECTED OUR LAWS AND CONSTITUTION, AND ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO TAKE THIS ALL IN STRIDE. WHY IS THAT?

THEY NO LONGER SIMPLY ABIDE BY AND TOLERATE THE DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR OF THESE ORIGINAL NEO-MARXIST AND ANARCHIST RADICAL LEFT CULTISTS. AND THEY NO LONGER SIMPLY EXCUSE THE DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR OF THESE ORIGINAL NEO-MARXIST AND ANARCHIST RADICAL LEFT CULTISTS. AND THEY NO LONGER SIMPLY PRAISE, LAUD, AND ENCOURAGE THE DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR OF THESE ORIGINAL NEO-MARXIST AND ANARCHIST RADICAL LEFT CULTISTS. NO! THEY HAVE COMPLETELY IMMERSED THEMSELVES IN THE RHETORIC, DOGMA, IDEOLOGICAL BELIEF SYSTEM AND FOUNDATIONAL PHILOSOPHY. AND, THEY HAVE FULLY INCULCATED THE AGENDA, AIMS, TACTICS, AND STRATEGY INTO THE POLICIES OF THESE ORIGINAL NEO-MARXISTS AND ANARCHISTS. THEY HAVE THEREFORE MERGED WITH AND INTO THEM.

AS A COMPONENT OF THESE ORIGINAL NEO-MARXIST AND ANARCHIST ORGANIZATIONS THEY ARE THE RADICAL LEFT NO LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL IDEALOGUES AND PARTICIPANTS IN VIOLENCE.

These Neo-Marxists and Anarchists proclaim that they don’t commit violence for the sake of violence BUT that such VIOLENCE is done in the name of “SOCIAL JUSTICE”—OH!—and a NEW ONE, “RACIAL JUSTICE.” These Neo-Marxists and Anarchists proclaim that they don’t commit violence for the sake of violence BUT that such VIOLENCE is done in the name of RACIAL JUSTICE (hence, use of the prefix ‘NEO’ AS AFFIXED TO THE WORD, ‘MARXIST’).

IT SOUNDS SO “GOODY-GOODY” to the UNINFORMED, THOSE ILL-INFORMED, AND THOSE EASILY MANIPULATED.

BUT——

IT’S ALL HOGWASH! Yet, MUCH of the public believes IN THIS IMPERATIVE OF “SOCIAL JUSTICE” and “RACIAL JUSTICE”—VOCIFEROUSLY PROCLAIMED AND MAGNIFIED ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

BUT NO ONE BOTHERS TO DEFINE THESE CONCEPTS. THEY GO UNEXPLAINED, JUST PROFESSED WITH A SMUG CERTAINTY IN THE TRUTH OF THEM. WHY?

THE ANSWER IS THIS——

SO MUCH OF OUR SOCIETY—GOVERNMENT, THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND MUCH OF THE PUBLIC, TOO, IS CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH.

THESE NEO-MARXISTS AND ANRCHISTS HAVE CAPTURED WHOLE SWATHS OF SOCIETY.

And, with few heard to complain, these Neo-Marxists and Anarchists pontificate endlessly and vehemently.

Their polemics consist of vacuous and vague pronouncements, both incoherent and self-contradictory.

BUT THIS IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. AND FEW CARE.

And all the Nonsense is amplified by SOCIAL MEDIA.

IT IS ALL GIVEN THE GOOD HOUSEKEEPING SEAL OF APPROVAL FROM THE PRESS AND FROM THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

THIS MAMMOTH “ADMINISTRATIVE STATE” CONTINUES ITS AGENDA TO DISMANTLE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COUNTRY UNIMPEDED.  

IT IS ALL REMARKABLE.

For, these Neo-Marxists and Anarchists are an eclectic, ragtag assortment of RABID and FANATIC PSEUDO ACADEMIC IDEALOGUES, SOCIOPATHS and PSYCHOPATHS, SOCIETAL MALCONTENTS and OUTRIGHT LUNATICS.

And some AVERAGE AMERICANS have BECOME ACOLYTES OF THE CULT OF NEO-MARXISM or are sensitive to the messaging—all aided by a massive PROPAGANDA MACHINE OF GOVERNMENT and THE PRESS, BOTH CONTROLLED BY THAT OTHER MAJOR COMPONENT OF THE “RADICAL LEFT”: THE NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST “ELITE,” many of whom are presently attending their annual meeting in DAVOS, SWITZERLAND.

This “THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM of 2024” in DAVOS is communicated and hyped by the PRESS. See infra.

BUT BRINGING MERELY SOME AMERICANS INTO THE FOLD OF THE “RADICAL SOCIALIST LEFT” THOUGHT AND DOGMA ISN’T ENOUGH.

THE GOAL? ALL AMERICANS MUST BUY INTO THIS NEW SOCIO-POLITICAL-ECONOMIC DYNAMIC.

They are expected TO ACCEDE to the WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF SOCIETY or, if they happen to have THE WRONG ATTITUDE, then they are compelled TO ACCEPT the inevitability of societal ruin, THAT THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA INTO THE SOCIALIST COLLECTIVIST DREAM OF A VAST MULTICULTURAL WORLD EMPIRE CAN TAKE SHAPE UNIMPEDED AND EVENTUALLY MATERIALIZE—SANS INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION-STATES AND SANS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, THE CONCEPTS OF WHICH WILL BE REDUCED TO QUAINT FICTIONS OF A PAST BETTER OFF DEAD AND ULTIMATELY LOST FROM MEMORY.

And, so, CRIME CONTINUES UNABATED, THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FAILS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE PRESS, SOCIAL MEDIA GROUPS, THE VENERABLE INSTITUTIONS in AMERICA, AND MANY MEMBERS OF the PUBLIC turn a BLIND EYE TO THE WELL-BEING OF AMERICA TO THEIR CONSTITUTION, TO THEIR COUNTRYMEN, AND THEMSELVES.

WHY WOULD AMERICANS FOLLOW A BELIEF SYSTEM AND DOGMA, IDEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY, THAT CALL FOR THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION AS “AMERICANS?”

MOST Americans CAN SURELY see from where the danger to our Country springs and ARE WELL AWARE OF THOSE WHO BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENDANGERING THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. YET THEY DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, EITHER BECAUSE THEY FEEL POWERLESS TO DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT THE RUIN OF EVERYTHING THEY ONCE HELD NEAR AND DEAR TO THEM OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE FALLEN PREY TO FALSE MESSAGING—FIERCE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING THAT HAS WARPED BOTH INTELLECT AND BASIC ANIMAL INSTINCT FOR SURVIVAL.

AND, THESE NEW CAPTIVE INSTITUTIONS OF SOCIETY HAVE NOW SWORN ALLEGIANCE TO POWERFUL INFLUENCERS WHOSE GOALS AND IMPULSES ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE PRESERVATION OF A COUNTRY GROUNDED ON THE TENETS, PRECEPTS, AND PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUALISM, AND ON THE SANCTITY, AND INVIOLABILITY, AND INTEGRITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL MIND, SOUL, AND SPIRIT, AND ON THE SINGULAR IMPORTANCE OF FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.

THESE CAPTIVE INSTITUTIONS NO LONGER FEEL A NEED OR A DUTY TO PRESERVE AN INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE AND FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

THESE INSTITUTIONS NO LONGER FEEL AN IMPULSE TO SECURE A WONDROUS NATION FOR BOTH THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS THAT HAS HERETOFORE SURVIVED AND THRIVED IN BOTH GOOD TIMES AND ADVERSITY.

The TRUE DANGER to an INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION AND FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC does not, then, rest merely in the actions of criminals and dangerous lunatics, terrorist organizations, and international criminal cartels.

They could all easily be dealt with if the Government wished to do so and if the PRESS and “BIG BUSINESS” WOULD PREVAIL ON THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO.

The PRESS and the BROAD BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL SECTORS could prevail on the Federal Government TO ADHERE TO ITS OBLIGATIONS under the Constitution, TO ENFORCE our Nation’s laws, and TO PROVIDE for the common good. BUT THEY DON’T DO THIS.

QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

THIS TREACHERY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, AND OF A HAPLESS, HELPLESS, INEFFECTIVE CONGRESS, AND A SEDITIOUS, DUPLICITOUS, PRESS AND SOCIAL MEDIA, AND OF THOSE SEDITIOUS, SCHEMING, RUTHLESS STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND OBSEQUIOUS “BIG BUSINESS” AND “BIG TECH,” DEMONSTRATE, THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS, THE SOURCE OF OUR NATION’S WOES.

THESE SEEMINGLY VENERABLE INSTITUTIONS—BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE—CLAIM TO WORK FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE. FALSE!

ALL OF THEM, TOGETHER, POSE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COUNTRY AS A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

THE RADICAL LEFT INCLUDES MUCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE PRESS, MANY STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND MANY OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF SOCIETY.

HOW, THEN, CAN AMERICA’S INSTITUTIONS REPEL THE DANGER TO THE VERY SOCIAL FABRIC OF SOCIETY IF THEY ARE PART AND PARCEL OF IT?

THE ANSWER IS PLAIN. THEY CANNOT!

SUCH PRAISE HEAPED ON NEO-MARXIST AND ANARCHIST ORGANIZATIONS IS NECESSARY TO DEFLECT ATTENTION TO A SEEMINGLY INCONGRUOUS FACT. OUR NATION HAS TURNED ITSELF INSIDE OUT.

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE OTHER ONCE VENERABLE INSTITUTIONS OF OUR COUNTRY ARE IN BED WITH—ONE WITH—THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THE GOVERNMENT HAD ONCE SOUGHT TO KEEP IN CHECK AND WHICH OUR ONCE OTHER VENERABLE INSTITUTIONS HAD RIGHTFULLY AND JUSTIFIABLY TREATED WITH CONTEMPT.

Hence, Neo-Marxist and Anarchist terror organizations in vogue today, particularly BLACK LIVES MATTER (“BLM”) and ANTIFA, ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE PAST. The only thing different is that THE INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICA HAVE BECOME ONE WITH THEM.

BLM and ANTIFA serve merely as a RABBLE MOB, doing its fair share of the dirty work to disrupt society. And they are happy enough to do what comes naturally to them.

Lauded by the Government, the Press, and Big Business and Big Tech, the Dogmas and Agenda of the RADICAL LEFT CRIMINAL GROUPS are THRUST ON a naïve and unsuspecting public—the target of a well-orchestrated and implemented campaign of insidious messaging.

WHERE ONCE DENOUNCED, RADICAL NEO-MARXIST AND ANARCHIST GROUPS ARE NOW ABSURDLY ACCLAIMED BY THE PRESS, BY THE BROADCAST AND CABLE ”NEWS” AND COMMENTARY ORGANS, AND BY SOCIAL MEDIA, ALL IN A BID TO ENTICE THE PUBLIC TO ACCEPT THEM TO JOIN IN THEIR CAUSE—TO REJOICE IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF A SOCIETY GROUNDED IN THE TENETS, PRECEPTS, AND PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUALISM, INTO A SOCIETY THAT IS GROUNDED ON THE TENETS, PRECEPTS, AND PRINCIPLES OF NEO-MARXIST COLLECTIVISM.

WHITHER OUR NATION’S SUCCESS AND PROSPERITY?

Our NATION’S SUCCESS AND PROSPERITY are no accident. They derive from the TENETS, PRECEPTS, AND PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUALISM, AS REFLECTED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

THE KEY TO OUR NATION’S SUCCESS, PROSPERITY, AND POWER DERIVES FROM A CORE BELIEF: RECOGNITION OF THE SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL, SPIRIT, AND MIND. THAT CORE BELIEF IS THE BEDROCK OF OUR BELIEF IN AND ADORATION OF OUR NATURAL LAW RIGHTS BESTOWED UPON MAN BY THE DIVINE CREATOR, FROM WHOM OUR MORALITY ALSO DERIVES. ALL THIS THE RADICAL LEFT DENIES, AND STRIVES TO ERASE, TO ERADICATE BECAUSE THIS CORE BELIEF, THIS SALIENT TRUTH, THIS PROOF OUR SINGULAR GREATNESS IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH NEO-MARXISM AND WILL NOT BE BORNE. THAT EXPLAINS THE RADICAL LEFT’S INTENTION TO PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS TO UNDERMINE AMERICA’S FAITH IN ITS PAST, IN ITS FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES, AND IN ITSELF.

THE DEPRAVITY OF OUR ONCE VENERABLE INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE ENGAGED IN DUPLICITY, HYPOCRISY, AND DECEIT TO SEDUCE AND CAJOLE AMERICANS TO DENY THEIR NATION’S FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES AND CORE BELIEFS RAISES ANOTHER TANTALIZING QUESTION WHICH IS THIS:

ASIDE FROM THE MORAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ACCEDING TO OR ADOPTING THE DOGMAS AND AGENDA OF THESE NEO-MARXIST-ANARCHIST TERRORIST GROUPS, WHY, ON PRAGMATIC GROUNDS, ALONE, WOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND MANY STATE GOVERNMENTS REJECT THE NATION, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE WELL-BEING OF AMERICANS, GIVEN THAT OUR COUNTRY HAS BECOME THE MOST SUCCESSFUL, AND PROSPEROUS NATION ON EARTH?

Their TREACHERY is EXTENSIVE, EXPANSIVE, PERVASIVE, and EXTRAORDINARILY DESTRUCTIVE.

WHAT IS THE IMPETUS FOR COMPLETE CAPITULATION TO RADICAL LEFT NEO-MARXISM-ANARCHISM SUCH THAT THE NATION’S INSTITUTIONS—OF GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS AND FINANCE, OF THE PRESS AND MEDIA AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, OF ACADEMIA AND EDUCATION, OF SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT—WOULD SUBMIT UNCONDITIONALLY TO RADICAL LEFT COLLECTIVIST IDEOLOGY?

THE IDEOLOGY OF NEO-MARXIST RADICALISM IS THE ANTITHESIS OF “CLASSICAL LIBERALISM,” THE LATTER OF WHICH IS GROUNDED ON THE PRECEPTS OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY; ON THE ACQUISITION OF AND RESPECT FOR ONE’S EXCLUSIVE USE OF AND THE ENJOYMENT OF HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY; ON EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY; APPLICATION OF FREE MARKET CAPITALISM; EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW FOR EVERY MAN; THE EXERCISE OF ONE’S NATURAL LAW RIGHTS WITHOUT HINDRANCE FROM GOVERNMENT; CHECKS ON GOVERNMENTAL USE OF POWER; AND ALLOWANCE FOR ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH ONE’S MERIT AND THEREBY ENJOYMENT OF THE FRUITS OF ONE’S EFFORT JUSTLY DERIVED FROM ONE’S MERIT.

THE APPLICATION OF THE RADICAL LEFT NEO-MARXIST DOGMA “DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION” (“DEI”) IS THE ANTITHESIS OF “CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.”

NEO-MARXIST RADICALISM, ABHORS THIS AND HAS, IN OUR COUNTRY, EFFECTIVELY SUPERSEDED CLASSICAL LIBERALISM. IT IS THE OBVERSE OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.

THE RADICAL LEFT’S VIRAL MEMES HAVE INFECTED THE BODY POLITIC, IMPRINTING THEMSELVES ON THE PSYCHE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THEY HAVE INFECTED THE MINDS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.

Although not physical, these viral memes are just as lethal as any dangerous physical pathogen.

The infection is seen in the peculiar acceptance of BLM by the Federal Government and by Congressional Democrats who treat these Groups as something other and apart from “criminal” organizations. But that is what they are.

And the Press is loath to condemn these groups for what they are.

The NY Times, for example, had besmirched President Trump for having the audacity of seeking to declare the ANARCHIST “ANTIFA” as a Terrorist organization. Fancy that!

During the final months of the campaign in 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACE, which saw THE INVESTITURE of the “GREAT PRETENDER-STOOGE”—JOE BIDEN—, the NY Times waxed poetic over “ANTIFA,” lauding this TERROR GROUP with propagandistic blather:

As President Trump and his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., enter the final stretch of the presidential campaign, a loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists, known as ‘antifa,’ has been the focus of a series of misleading rumors and false claims.

Seeking to assign blame for the protests against racial injustice that spread across the United States this summer, President Trump has said that the United States would designate antifa as a terrorist organization. The president’s critics noted, however, that the United States does not have a domestic terrorism law and that antifa, a contraction of the phrase ‘anti-fascist,’ is not an organization with a leader, a defined structure or membership roles.

Rather, antifa is more of a loose movement of activists whose followers share some philosophies and tactics. They have made their presence known at protests around the country in recent years, including the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017.

Mr. Trump has also sought to tie Mr. Biden to “radical left” groups, including antifa — even though Mr. Biden opposes defunding the police, has repeatedly condemned violence and property damage associated with the protests, and has called for “arsonists and anarchists” to be prosecuted. . . .

Antifa members campaign against actions they view as authoritarian, homophobic, racist or xenophobic. Although antifa is not affiliated with other movements on the left — and is sometimes viewed as a distraction by other organizers — its members sometimes work with other local activist networks that are rallying around the same issues, such as the Occupy movement or Black Lives Matter.

Misinformation about the group often spreads through personal networks online. In many cases, false or misleading claims appear first in a tweet, Facebook post or YouTube video before they are shared through community texting networks, Facebook groups or the neighborhood social networking app Nextdoor.

Supporters generally seek to stop what they see as fascist, racist and far-right groups from having a platform to promote their views, arguing that public demonstration of those ideas leads to the targeting of marginalized people, including racial minorities, women and members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community.

The argument is that militant anti-fascism is inherently self-defense because of the historically documented violence that fascists pose, especially to marginalized people,” said Mark Bray, a history lecturer at Rutgers University and the author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.”

Many antifa organizers also participate in more peaceful forms of community organizing, but they believe that using violence is justified because of their views that if racist or fascist groups are allowed to organize freely, “it will inevitably result in violence against marginalized communities,” said Mr. Bray, whose defense of the anti-fascist movement incited criticism and generated support at Dartmouth College when he was a lecturer there.

The New York Times is an apologist for Radical Left groups. That is no surprise. And no one should be surprised that the NY Times itself is a component of the Radical Left, and Joe Biden and his Administration are as well.

That he ran as a MODERATE should not have fooled anyone except the most naïve.

And, as we see, the habitually, incorrigibly corrupt Biden Administration has quietly transformed the DOJ/FBI into a SECRET STATE POLICE/DOMESTIC SECRET SECURITY SERVICE modeled after the German GESTAPO/SS-SD.

The problem for this “RADICAL LEFT” controlled Biden Administration is that the U.S. CONSTITUTION/BILL OF RIGHTS and our MAMMOTH BODY OF CASE LAW, CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES, AND JURISPRUDENCE serve somewhat to constrain the Administration.

But, consolidation and usurpation of powers of the Executive Branch of Government has, in three short years, along with the RADICAL LEFT’S control over many other institutions in the Nation, yielded a COLOSSAL, POWERFUL TYRANNICAL STRUCTURE, emboldening it to IGNORE, OVERRIDE, or TOY WITH the CONSTITUTION and LAWS of our FREE REPUBLIC.

In June 2019 and August 2019, the Radical Left seditious NY Times called for a federal law targeting domestic terrorism.

The Patriot Act of 2001 did target domestic terrorism, but the Act referred to international terrorists, namely, and especially, Islamic Terrorists, that operated within the United States.

But the Biden Administration’s DOJ/FBI had something other than INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS OPERATING IN THE TERRITORIAL UNITED STATES when it commenced its attack on “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.”

It was quietly at work—likely without Trump’s knowledge (as Donald Trump was U.S. President at the time)—laying the groundwork for a schema to target U.S. Citizens themselves, i.e., the very citizens who happen to support Trump.

The NY Times discussed this targeting of American citizens PRESUMPTIVELY RIGHT-WING “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS” (BUT NOT LEFT-WING “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS”—NEVER “LEFT-WING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS), and likely did so with some glee. See NY Times articles published on June 4, 2019, and August 7, 2019.

DID THE DOJ/FBI—ANTICIPATING, EXPECTING, PERHAPS KNOWING OF A TRUMP LOSS IN THE COMING 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, quietly lay the groundwork for an ATTACK ON U.S CITIZENS WHOSE BELIEF SYSTEMS WERE DEEMED ANTITHETICAL WITH A NEW POLITICAL REALITY?

Is this idea far-fetched? We think not. And it explains the insistent, incessant, meticulous attacks on Trump, using judicial and extrajudicial means, from the time he took the Oath of Office in January 2017 to the present day.

The attempt by the RADICAL LEFT to destroy this man professionally, financially, and personally has no precedent in American history.

The perpetrators have no scruples, morally or legally about any of it.

The pervasiveness and intensity of it have led to a curious complacency by the public toward it, a sense of normalcy about it, and pervading it—some even deriving pleasure over it.

BUT AT LEAST HALF THE POPULATION IS RIGHTFULLY APPALLED BY THIS OBVIOUS RAPE OF JUSTICE BY A RADICAL LEFT-CONTROLLED EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND BY SEVERAL RADICAL-LEFT-CONTROLLED STATE GOVERNMENTS, USURPING POWER IN AN UNCONSCIONABLE ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.

They are rightfully horrified by this incessant assault on our Nation’s 45th President.

The amount of taxpayer money EXPENDED UNLAWFULLY to destroy a man who had—unlike recent past Presidents and the present GREAT PRETENDER OCCUPYING “THE OVAL OFFICE”—remained true to his OATH OF OFFICE, AND HE IS CRUCIFIED BECAUSE OF IT! WHAT GREATER EVIDENCE IS THERE OF TYRANNY NOW UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

AND THIS RAISES A HOST OF DEEPER QUESTIONS——

WHY WOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE PRESS, AND SOCIAL MEDIA PROPAGANDIZE ON BEHALF OF RUTHLESS ACTIVIST GROUPS THAT INTEND TO DESTROY THE NATION AND A FREE AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLE?

WHY HAVE SOME STATES AND SO MANY OTHER INSTITUTIONS FASTENED THEMSELVES TO THESE FORCES INVOLVED IN THE CORRUPTION OF AND IN THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR COUNTRY—OSTENSIBLY BUT DISINGENUOUSLY CLAIMING TO DO SO ALL IN THE NAME OF SAVING IT?

WHAT COULD TURN POWERFUL INSTITUTIONS OF OUR COUNTRY AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE, DEFYING THE CONSTITUTION AND BRINGING ABOUT THE DEMISE OF THE MOST POWERFUL, SUCCESSFUL NATION THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN—AND A NATION CONCEIVED IN FREEDOM AND LIBERTY? [THIS QUERY RAISED SUPRA]

WHO OR WHAT IS BEHIND THIS EFFORT TO BRING ABOUT THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SUBJUGATION OF ITS PEOPLE?

Of course, this MAMMOTH RADICAL LEFT ENTERPRISE would likely deny the efficacy of the questions. But the DISMANTLING OF OUR CONSTITUTION—THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR COUNTRY—IS OBSERVABLE TO ALL WHO DEIGN TO USE THEIR EYES AND BRAIN TO DIGEST THE ASSAULT ON THEIR COUNTRY. AND SO—

THE AFORESAID QUESTIONS BEG FOR AN ANSWER. NONE TO DATE, TO MY MIND, IS FORTHCOMING. I DON’T SEE ANYONE EVEN ASKING THESE QUESTIONS. WHY IS THAT? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TOO BUSY IMPLMENTING THE RADICAL LEFT AGENDA TO TROUBLE ITSELF TO ASK AND RESPOND TO THESE TROUBLING QUESTIONS.

The DOJ/FBI demonstrates this clearly and unequivocally through its callous, cold, smug, and deliberate misuse of law and the Constitution to attack Trump and to attack many average Americans who happen to demonstrate disaffection with the BIDEN ADMINISTRATION and with other elements of the RADICAL LEFT.

ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND IS ONE MORE TOOL OF AND WITHIN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. THE ADMINISTRATION IS A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE RADICAL LEFT. IT OPERATES AS A TYRANNICAL DESPOT—A POTENTATE, MAKING A PRETENSE OF ADHERING TO LAW AND CONSTITUTION WHILE SHREDDING BOTH.

The operative legal phrase is “MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.” But the onslaught of prosecutorial vindictiveness leveled on Trump and on many other Americans goes well beyond mere occasional incidents of prosecutorial misconduct.

WHAT AMERICANS ARE SEEING IS DEFIANCE OF THE LAW AND OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE FURTHERANCE OF GOVERNMENT POLICY ANTITHETICAL TO THE WILL AND WELFARE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND DETRIMENTAL TO AND DESTRUCTIVE OF CONSTITUTION, OUR SYSTEM OF LAW, AND OF OUR JURISPRUDENCE THAT UNDERPIN THE DOCTRINE OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS UNDER THE LAW.

This is worsened by the actions of Government agents and prosecutors who go through the pretense of utilizing law and the Constitution ethically, responsibly, and fairly when, all the while, they are intentionally and callously misusing both for blatantly partisan and, even more, nefarious purposes—FAR MORE NEFARIOUS PURPOSES—TREACHERY TO NATION, CONSTITUTION, AND PEOPLE.

Merrick Garland, during his Press Conferences, claims the DOJ/FBI applies the law fairly, rationally, and objectively—that all are treated equally before the law.

He undertakes his polemic robotically as an afterthought, ostensibly to hide unethical and illegal conduct on the part of the DOJ and the FBI, thereby only compounding the harm done to the law, the Constitution, and our Nation’s jurisprudence.

THE RADICAL LEFT’S UNDERMINING OF THE UNITED STATES AS AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION-STATE AND FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC WHERE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN OVER GOVERNMENT IS BUT ONE PART OF A BROADER AGENDA—IMPORTANT AS THAT EFFORT IS TO THE RADICAL LEFT’S OVERALL OBJECTIVE—THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL NATION-STATES AND THE REALIZATION OF A ONE-WORLD OLIGARCHIC, COLLABORATIVE NEO-MARXIST-CORPORATIST SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT.

THE RADICAL LEFT NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST ELITES HAVE PROVIDED AN INKLING OF THEIR AGENDA IN THE COMING YEARS IN TERMS OF A NEW SOCIO-POLITICAL-ECONOMIC REALITY FOR THE WORLD.

This was made clear during addresses at the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM of 2024.

The World Economic Forum, held as always in DAVOS, SWITZERLAND, commenced with the keynote address of UN Secretary-General António Guterres on January 17, 2024. He said in part,

I am confident we can build a new, multipolar global order with new opportunities for leadership, and with balance and justice in international relations.

But multipolarity creates complexity.

Left to itself, it could deepen fault lines: between North and South; East and West; developed and developing economies; within the G20; and between the G20 and everyone else.

The only way to manage this complexity and avoid a slide into chaos is through a reformed, inclusive, networked multilateralism.

Now this requires strong multilateral institutions and frameworks, and effective mechanisms of global governance.

And Klaus Schwab, the irrepressible, haughty Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum began his address in DAVOS-2024 with these remarks:

Today, we stand at a unique juncture in human history, facing challenges that are as diverse as they are profound.

The special role of the World Economic Forum is not to look at just one single issue, instead, it is the place at the beginning of each year to analyze the state of the world in a systemic and strategic way, and to find common ground to generate positive impact.

Geopolitically, our world is more interconnected, yet paradoxically, more divided than ever. Economically, we grapple with sluggish growth, and with inequalities and uncertainties that threaten the very fabric of our societies. Environmentally, we confront the relentless challenges of climate change, a threat to our planet's delicate balance. And technologically, we navigate uncharted waters, where innovation offers boundless opportunities but also unprecedented risks.

These deeply transformative challenges which are the cornerstone of our programme lead to uncertainty, generalized fear and pessimism. They force us into a mode of short-term crisis management – to the detriment of long-term strategic and sustainable solutions. This reactionary approach undermines our collective faith in the future and erodes the trust we place in our ability to shape a better world.

To break this cycle, we need a paradigm shift. We must rebuild trust – trust in our future, trust in our capacity to overcome challenges, and most importantly, trust in each other. Trust is not just a feeling; trust is a commitment to action, to belief, to hope.

To achieve this, we must rediscover and embrace the narrative that has driven humanity since its inception: acting as trustees for a better future.

This narrative isn't about short-term gains or individual successes; it's about stewardship, about preserving and enhancing our world for current and future generations. It is about understanding that our actions today have far-reaching consequences tomorrow.

This concept of trusteeship compels us to think beyond borders and beyond our lifetimes. It encourages collaboration over competition, sustainability over expediency, and empathy over apathy. As trustees of the future, we are responsible for advancing a world that is richer in possibilities, more equitable in opportunities, and more secure in its foundations.

Moreover, we, as leaders in government, business, and society, bear a particular responsibility to rebuild trust in how we assume our role as trustees.

The Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum is not a collective decision-making body, but its impact stems from the new insights gained through dialogue and interaction, and more importantly, from the commitments made by each participant to contribute more significantly in their respective areas of responsibility to solving our most pressing global issues.

As many of us here are in a privileged situation, we should not forget those who are suffering – from war, poverty, injustice, poor health, and more. This awareness will only enhance our collective efforts in creating a more inclusive and compassionate world through the work we do.

The cornerstone of our programme is our more than 100 initiatives. These are embedded into workgroups bringing together governments, business, civil society, and the best experts throughout the year at our headquarters in Geneva, and throughout the world, to make tangible progress in finding solutions for the key challenges on the global agenda.

For this Annual Meeting, while the vibrant atmosphere surrounding our gathering is a testament to its global significance, it is essential that we focus on our mission: committed to improving the state of the world by engaging into those action-oriented initiatives. The World Economic Forum is not just Davos, it is an engagement through the year.

In conclusion, trust is a fundamental pillar of our social, economic, and political life. It is vital for cooperation, social cohesion, and effective functioning of institutions. To rebuild trust there is a fundamental need to embody trusteeship, which means to care for the greater good. Let’s use this Annual Meeting to rebuild trust by exercising our trusteeship individually and collectively for safeguarding the future of humanity and nature.

And who is qualified to deal with these problems requiring a “PARADIGM SHIFT”—A NEW WORLD GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE SANS NATION-STATES WITH DEFINED AND DEMARCATED GEOGRAPHICAL/TERRITORIAL BORDERS?

The author of a U.S. News & World Report article on DAVOS-2024 published a few days before the meeting seems to assume that it is on the shoulders of the “ELITES” alone that populations of the world should depend for answers to the world’s problems “ELITES” will solve the problems facing the world and that is as it should be.

That would please Klaus Schwab. That is the salient point of his address. See Ben Shapiro's Podcast on Davos and Klaus Schwab, discussing Schwab and providing a glimpse of what the ultimate aim of the “World Economic Forum” is. See also The Publius National Post Review of A Patriot's History of Globalism: Its Rise and Decline, By Larry Schweikart, posted on January 24, 2024.

Never lose sight of the fact that it is these GLOBALIST “ELITES” (another major component of the RADICAL LEFT) who are THE CAUSE FOR THOSE PROBLEMS.

Is it not strange to depend on answers to problems to emanate from those responsible for the problems? But that is the message delivered over and over again at DAVOS.

AND WHILE THEY PRESUME TO SOLVE ALL THE WORLD’S PROBLEMS, THESE RADICAL LEFT GLOBALIST “ELITES” DESTROY NATION-STATES IN THE PROCESS, ALONG WITH SUCH THINGS AS NATURAL LAW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES AND THEREUPON SUBJUGATE THE MASS OF HUMANITY. THAT IS THE PRICE HUMANITY PAYS TO HAVE THESE BIG SHOTS PRETEND TO CONSTRUCT THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS FOR ALL OF US. ISN’T THAT NICE?

The author of the aforementioned U.S. News & World Report piece highlights a few of those problems facing the world.

I did not find the content of the U.S. News & World Report fascinating. It is superficial and prosaic. I cite it here because it is the title, “DAVOS WELCOMES GLOBAL ELITES TO SOLVE WORLD’S PROBLEMS”, that immediately struck me.

Before reading the article, I thought the author of the article intended for his post to be sarcastic. The title struck me as sarcastic. And I thought that was intentional. It wasn’t. That is clear from a perusal of the article.

The U.S. News and World article, by Tim Smart, shows how out of touch the “MAINSTREAM MEDIA” (“MSM”) is with the American people.

So, the author WASN’T proffering a sarcastic take on DAVOS and the NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST ELITES as a lead-in to their grand entrance. The piece is intended to be dry and serious. Does the author presume to have any idea of the cost that THE COMMON MAN would have to pay for the services of these GLOBALIST “ELITES”?

An opinion by Jonathan Bronitsky Co-Founder, ATHOS, published in Newsweek, on November 1, 2022, answers this question. It is titled, Global Elites: “'No Money, No Problems' | Opinion.” The title of that article also hints (more than a little) of sarcasm with more than a touch of iron. From a perusal of the content of the opinion, the reader must wonder whether Bronitsky had Voltaire in mind, as the article reads like “Candide” updated to the present day. Plainly, Bronitsky DID intend his piece to read as SARCASTIC IRONY.

Bronitsky writes,

The Marxists of yesteryear just wanted you to have as much as your fellow citizen—no more, no less. Or at least that's what they claimed.

Today's totalitarians, by contrast, don't want you to have anything. They are globalist elites, and they're frank about their aims. Back in 2016, perhaps their most prized club, the World Economic Forum (WEF), largely known for its flashy annual meeting in the Alpine resort town of Davos, offered eight predictions for the world in 2030. The number one prediction, at the time, was literally: "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy."

The rapper Notorious B.I.G. famously observed, "Mo money, mo problems." Global elites, however, desire that you subscribe to an utterly different dictum: "No money, no problems." Indeed, this isn't merely their "prediction"—it's their explicit plan. And don't be fooled. They won't be satiated by seizing all your material property. They want to own you. To do this, they will infiltrate, corrupt, and control every component of our humanity. This is the near-term future global elites seek, and one they're within striking distance of achieving given their extraordinary influence over the major institutions of high society. They were just awaiting the right moment to pounce.

Enter the COVID-19 pandemic. Since, according to the Left, no good crisis should go to waste, the WEF openly asserted in 2020 that "the COVID-19 crisis" was an inimitable moment that needed to be exploited to "improve the state of the world." It has since built upon that proclamation with the Great Reset initiative, a breathtakingly audacious framework for overhauling "the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models, and the management of a global commons." Practically ripped straight from the tyrannical revolutions of yore, the Great Reset initiative now also promises to build "a new social contract that honors the dignity of every human being."

Upon closer examination, what can be deciphered from the framework is that the WEF intends to will into existence its 2016 aim and render as many people as possible penniless serfs. In his contribution to Against the Great Reset, a recently released, must-read collection of essays, scholar Michael Anton makes this crucial point about the goal of our internationalist overlords. "Note that the WEF doesn't say they will own nothing, only that you will. They most assuredly will own a great deal—more than the considerable amount they already own, and you will make up the difference."

For this PARADIGM SHIFT to occur, as Schwab mentions, the destruction of the nation-state must follow. Tacitly, this must include the loss of NATURAL LAW RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES—a point Ben Shapiro makes in his podcast, that I cite supra.

THE LOSS OF NATURAL LAW RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WOULD PROBABLY NOT BOTHER THE DENIZENS OF THE EU AND OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH NATIONS. SUCH RIGHTS AS THEY HAVE ARE ONLY THOSE THAT GOVERNMENT DEIGNS TO PROVIDE THEM. BUT IT DOES TROUBLE SOME PERCEPTIVE INDIVIDUALS. JUST ASK JORDAN PETERSON, WHO POINTED OUT, IN A COMMENT POSTED IN THE CANADIAN PUBLICATION, “NATIONAL POST,” ON JANUARY 17, 2024,

“Canadians, mark my words: Your much-vaunted Charter of Rights isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, . . . .” But, then, the “CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS” are not and was never intended to be A CODIFICATION OF TRUE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, UNLIKE AMERICANS’ “BILL OF RIGHTS.

AMERICA’S “BILL OF RIGHTS” IS A CODIFICATION OF TRUE NATURAL LAW FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, ETERNAL, ILLIMITABLE RIGHTS, PREEXISTENT IN MAN, BEYOND THE LAWFUL POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO TAMPER WITH.

AND ONE RIGHT—THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS— MAKES PLAIN THAT AMERICANS (MOST AMERICANS AT ANY RATE WHOSE MINDS HAVEN’T BEEN POISONED BY THE RADICAL LEFT PROPAGANDISTS) HAVE BOTH THE MEANS AND WILL TO REPEL TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT.

THE RADICAL LEFT BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TRIES TO DEFEAT AMERICANS’ NATURAL LAW RIGHTS IN MANY A ROUNDABOUT WAY BY DILUTING THE POPULATION WITH MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL UNASSIMILABLE ALIENS WHO HAVE NO COMPREHENSION OF THE IMPORT AND PURPORT OF NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.

THEY COMPRISE A VAST SHAPELESS BLOB OF USELESS FREELOADERS, INTERSPERSED WITH RABID, MURDEROUS, PSYCHOPATHIC MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CARTELS AND COLD, CALCULATING, CALLOUS PSYCHOTIC INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.

In the United States, Americans observe all this occurring apace, with millions of these illegal aliens marching up to and over or through our Nation’s borders and our Nation’s Border Patrol officers must wave them through.

AN OPEN SOUTHERN BORDER IS WHAT THE RADICAL LEFT NEO-MARXISTS AND NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST “ELITES” WANT AND AN OPEN SOUTHERN BORDER IS WHAT THE CORRUPT RADICAL LEFT BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS DELIVERED SINCE TAKING OVER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IN JANUARY 2021.

Biden’s Department of Homeland Security is instrumental in effectuating this, in defiance of our Nation’s comprehensive immigration and naturalization laws. The Neo-Marxists are behind this effort, as are the Neoliberal Globalist Elites. They are components of the “RADICAL LEFT” (see footnote infra).

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE RADICAL LEFT IS TO USHER IN A ONE-WORLD AMORPHOUS INTERNATIONALIST SOCIALIST ORDER PRESIDED OVER BY AN OLIGARCHY COMPRISING GLOBALIST “ELITES” AND NEO-MARXIST CLERICS.

BUT THERE WAS SOME PUSHBACK AT DAVOS THIS YEAR.

The President of Argentina and the President of the Heritage Foundation took these “ELITES” to task.

See, e.g., the articles in World (WNG); two from The Daily Signal, both posted on the same date: January 18, 2024: here and here; a message from the President of the Heritage Foundation; and a second one from the Heritage Foundation, dated January 12, 2024; and one from Business and Politics (BPR), dated January 19, 2024.

One must wonder why naysayers of the “DAVOS ELITES” would be invited. Was it perhaps to allow them to have the floor so they could be mocked? Surely, there was an ulterior motive at work here.

Radical Left Neo-Marxist and Anarchist groups, along with Governments around the world, grease the skids on behalf of the DAVOS CROWD and others to assist in the wholesale destruction of Present PARADIGM predicated on the concept of independent nation-states.

The RADICAL LEFT INTENDS TO WEAKEN THE PREEMINENCE OF NATION-STATES BY FRACTURING SOCIETAL COHESION IN THOSE NATION-STATES, THEREBY bringing about this “PARADIGM SHIFT” in all Western nations and, not least of all, the United States. That is Klaus Schwab’s ambition.

As in the EU, Klaus Schwab and others see Governments forced to accede control over policy decisions to the dictates of TECHNOCRATS, WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE WEALTHY GLOBAL ELITES.

This idea were it to come to fruition would have a decisive negative impact on the citizenry of the U.S. The principles of individual FREEDOM and LIBERTY are incompatible with the “PARADIGM SHIFT” that Schwab and others have in mind.

They see the concepts of FREEDOM and LIBERTY as “messy” and impediments to the EFFICIENT APPLICATION of TECHNOCRATIC EDICTS.

A COLLECTIVIST SOCIETY REQUIRES UNIFORMITY IN THOUGHT AND CONDUCT AMONG THE PROLETARIAN MASSES. NECESSARILY, THAT LEADS TO CONSTRAINTS ON INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION, THE EPITOME OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.

I continue to hone these points in the next segment, PART THREE, drawing on remarks from Greg Kelly’s book, “Justice For All”, for support.

_________________________________________________

*The expression ‘RADICAL LEFT, like the acronym ‘MAGA’, has become ubiquitous in American politics.

Both have SOCIO-POLITICAL connotations. Like all such pervasive expressions, overuse of the expressions in discourse, absent any definition and explication creates confusion in the mind of the target audience. This confusion is intentional.

Take the word, ‘Democracy.’ What does the term mean? It has no simple definition, and it is not easy to decipher.

Historians, philosophers, and experts in political science and theory have for millennia, up to and through the present time, written extensive and intensive essays and tracts on it and about it, and will continue to do so.

Congressional Democrats love to use it but never trouble themselves to define it. It is one of those things that politicians elicit to “TRIGGER” an emotional “positive” response in the public psyche rather than to convey meaning to spur cognitive recognition and a desire for rigorous cognitive reflection, especially given the dire state of affairs facing this Country both on the NATIONAL and GEOPOLITICAL fronts.

Democrats use it incessantly and emphatically and always to suggest that they, rather than ‘MODERATE’ REPUBLICANS” “POLITICAL CONSERVATIVES”,—and more to the point, “TRUMP CONSERVATIVES”—LACK the CAPACITY FOR UNDERSTANDING “DEMOCRACY” and seek to impose “AUTOCRACY” on America.

THIS IS ALL UTTER ROT, but many Americans buy into the implausibility of it and are blind to the AUTOCRACY-TYRANNY all around them, already imposed on them, by the BIDEN ADMINISTRATION and those orchestrating the Administration’s every decision.

Curiously, the American public never hears Congressional Democrats use the expression “REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY” and, rarely, the term ‘REPUBLIC,’ both of which convey more accurately the nature of our political structure.

What they allude to is akin to “DIRECT DEMOCRACY”, a thing the FOUNDERS of our Republic, the FRAMERS of our CONSTITUTION, surely considered and promptly threw into the dustbin, both the FEDERALISTS and ANTIFEDERALISTS among them, as they knew such construction would invariably lead to MOBOCRACY and MAJORITARIAN TYRANNY—THINGS ANTITHETICAL TO PRESERVATION OF FUNDAMENTAL UNALIENABLE, PREEXISTENT, ILLIMITABLE AND UNMODIFIABLE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

I am seeing this very thing occurring, despite THE IMPORT OF DIVINE LAW, AND THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND U.S. SUPREME COURT IMPRIMATUR.

How many times have I heard from POLITICIANS and THE PRESS that a MAJORITY of AMERICANS want to see, rabidly insist upon, enactment of more “COMMON-SENSE” GUN LAWS—without any understanding of what such SLIPPERY SLOPE thinking, as is evidenced from what has already occurred, means: AN EFFORTLESS IMPOSITION OF TYRANNY ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE—INVASIVE AND OPPRESSIVE TO AN EXTENT THAT THOSE AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE IN “DEMOCRACY” HAVE NEVER SEEN AND CANNOT EVEN IMAGINECANNOT, CONCEIVE OF GIVEN THE PERSUASIVE FORCEFULNESS PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING DUE TO ADVANCES IN THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING.

Consider how the acronym “MAGA” which is essentially nothing more than a shorthand descriptor for “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN”—Donald Trump’s principal slogan during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—has become a POLITICAL TERM in its own right, LESS because Trump had thought to make it so, but MORE because the “RADICAL LEFT” (see explanation infra) has insisted on making it so.

Trump recently pointed out in a 2020 U.S. Presidential Campaign speech that “MAGA” simply means “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.” The point is that no one American can rationally take issue with that without also denying one’s identity as a citizen of the United States.

It is far easier for the RADICAL LEFT to transform the import of the term “MAGA” into an outright ‘PEJORATIVE’ than it is to transform the phrase “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” into a PEJORATIVE.

How incongruous does it sound for a RADICAL LEFT POLITICIAN LIKE BIDEN to bellow out—

“‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN’ ELEMENTS IN AMERICA INTEND TO OVERTURN DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS AND TO DESTROY ‘DEMOCRACY’”?

Does that not confuse the target audience—THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SEDUCED TO LITERALLY “HATE” TRUMP?

Does not the RADICAL LEFT POLITICIAN better influence his target audience with:

“‘MAGA FORCES’ IN AMERICA INTEND TO OVERTURN DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS AND TO DESTROY ‘DEMOCRACY’”?

In the absence of abundant clarification—pointing out that “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” is a TRUMP AGENDA AMOUNTING TO “EXTREMISM” and “FASCISM”, THAT RUPTURES THE FOUNDATION OF THE COUNTRY, and so forth—which defeats the purpose of simple propagandistic messaging/sloganeering, constant references to “MAGA” in a maligning, derogatory sense works its magic of seduction on the psyche more effectively.

And, on the other side of the political spectrum, what does the expression ‘RADICAL LEFT’ mean?

A perfunctory search of the meaning using Microsoft’s AI “ChatGPT 4.0” provides the following response:

The term radical left refers to the political ideology that is further to the left on the left-right political spectrum than the standard political left. The term does not have a single, coherent definition; some scholars consider it to represent the left of social democracy, while others limit it to the left of communist parties1. The far-left politics, also known as the radical left or extreme left, are politics further to the left on the left-right political spectrum than the standard political left. The term does not have a single, coherent definition; some scholars consider it to represent the left of social democracy, while others limit it to the left of communist parties1. Far-left ideologies often include types of socialism, communism, and anarchism12. Far-left politics is seen as radical politics because it calls for fundamental change to the capitalist socio-economic structure of society1.”

AI suggests the expression ‘RADICAL LEFT’ has many CONNOTATIONS and has no uniform DENOTATION, a specific “coherent” definition. What is needed is a catalog of entities to which the expression accurately applies.

This is imperative since I have referenced THIS “RADICAL LEFT” throughout this Essay.

The Arbalest Quarrel (“AQ”) has provided a working definition in PART ONE of the Essay, and AQ reiterates it at the bottom of this footnote.

One thing is clear: those on the POLITICAL LEFT” DO NOT USE THE EXPRESSION. They don’t like it. They see it as a pejorative. AQ sees it simply as an apt DESCRIPTOR.

But the “LEFT,” for its part, relishes using the TERM ‘MAGA’ when talking about TRUMP SUPPORTERS, and they intend for it to be considered a pejorative. Let them consider to think of it as such.

Trump’s supporters use it as a BADGE OF HONOR, and rightly so, for the EXPRESSION “‘MAGA’ AMERICAN” equates with the phrase “AMERICAN ‘PATRIOT.’” And, there is nothing derogatory about the latter phrase, and therefore nothing derogatory about the former phrase, but that those who hate and fear Trump and his supporters make their hatred and fear abundantly clear. Fine!

Of note, the word, ‘PATRIOT,’ is a word that the “RADICAL LEFT” rarely uses to describe itself. Many perceive the word ‘PATRIOT’ as alluding to the term ‘NATIONALISM’—a thing they eschew.

Some on the Political Left, though, profess to have an ambivalent attitude toward the word, ‘PATRIOTISM.’

A few writers argue the Political LEFT—without bothering to differentiate the degree of leftward slant—should embrace the term for itself.

See, e.g., discussion in CNN, the Daily Beast, The National News, and an article in Harvard Political Review.

And that brings me back to the expression, ‘RADICAL LEFT.’

What are Americans to make of THAT expression?

In his work, “Justice for All,” Greg Kelly uses the expression as a shorthand for Marxist and Anarchist Groups such as “BLACK LIVES MATTER” (BLM) and ANTIFA.

This is consistent with the way the expression ‘RADICAL LEFT’ is used by many writers and political commentators, albeit more so for ANTIFA and less so for BLM, likely because doing so impinges—if only obliquely—on issues of “RACISM” which has, through time, become a dangerous thing to touch, especially for members of the “WHITE RACE” (what BLM and others consider, by their FAIRY TALE NOTION of an AWFUL OGRE: Members of “THE OPPRESSOR (PRIVILEGED CLASS)—THE “WHITE RACE”.

And a member of THAT “PRIVILEGED” CLASS—THAT “WHITE RACE”—must be EVER circumspect. It must handle the issue gingerly, as one ought to handle with care—IF ONE EVER HAS NEED TO—SULPHURIC ACID,—lest that person “GET SERIOUSLY BURNED” if he is not careful.

Those individuals who might willingly and even proudly consider themselves “POLITICAL PROGRESSIVES” or “‘SOCIAL’ DEMOCRATS” and who describe themselves as such would never deign to, or dare to, call themselves “MARXISTS” or “SOCIALISTS,” much less “COMMUNISTS” or “LENINISTS.”

And they would not deign to call themselves “RADICAL LEFTISTS” as that expression, and the aforementioned four PHRASES, would TAINT THEM AS OUTRIGHT EXTREMISTS, notwithstanding that these “POLITICAL PROGRESSIVES” and “SOCIAL DEMOCRATS” are already WELL BEYOND THE PALE of what it means to be an American, CONSISTENT WITH THE IMPORT OF THE CONSTITUTION and with notions of ‘FREEDOM,’ ‘LIBERTY,’ and ‘FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.’

AND FOR MANY AMERICANS, PHRASES SUCH AS “SOCIAL DEMOCRATS” AND “POLITICAL PROGRESSIVES” ARE BUT ONE STEP REMOVED FROM LABELS OF OPPROBRIUM ANYWAY—DEFINITELY NOT POLITICAL LABELS FOR ONE TO BE PROUD OF AS DESCRIPTORS FOR ONESELF.

BUT, AS FOR THE SUGGESTIVE IMPORT OF THE PHRASE “RADICAL LEFT,” THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT.

THOSE TO WHOM THE LABEL IS PROPERLY AFFIXED SHUN IT. BUT IT IS FOR THE ACCURACY OF IT THAT IT CONTINUES TO BE USED.

But some writers disagree, finding it somehow offensive even as applied to a despicable outfit like ANTIFA.

But these writers struggle to declare it inapposite as applied to ANTIFA and its members, even though it is AMONG THE LEAST OFFENSIVE APPELLATIONS to be affixed to this MARXIST-ANARCHIST-INTERNATIONALIST GROUP. See, e.g., the article in Forbes.

I demur. I agree with Greg Kelly that the term, ‘RADICAL LEFT’ is an apt descriptor for organizations like ‘ANTIFA’ AND ‘BLM.’

Further, it is AQ’s learned conjecture the expression ‘RADICAL LEFT’ is an apt descriptor for anyone or for any organization, group, political bloc, or secretive cabal, that calls for OPEN BORDERS and. either wittingly or not, or openly or tacitly, or knowingly or not, disparages or denies, or naively dismisses the import of, the concept of ‘nation-state,’ and of ‘natural law’ rights, and of ‘citizen of ([name of Country]’) (as opposed to the vacuous and nonsensical notion of the phrase, ‘citizen of the world’).

The Arbalest Quarrel has identified THREE DISCRETE (DISTINCT) COMPONENTS of the ‘RADICAL LEFT’ as named and described in PART ONE of this MULTI SERIES.

AQ sets forth in PART ONE——

THREE POWERFUL COMPONENTS or CONTINGENTS—operating at times singly, and often jointly—comprise the “RADICAL LEFT”:

ONE: Neo-Marxist (Racialist) Globalist Idealogues,’’ Classical Marxist Idealogues, and Gender Idealogues. These are the “true believers” (Cultists).

They infest the social media sphere.

Substantial numbers are found in higher-tier academia and lower-tier education.

Many are opinion writers for newspapers and periodicals or commentators in Cable and Broadcast news (the “mainstream media”).

They proliferate in mid-level management positions in the private sector and mid-level management positions in the public sector (Federal, State, and local bureaucracies). They populate Congress, the Federal Bureaucracy, and state, county, and municipal governmental offices.

They include individuals who work for powerful NGOs, the UN, and the EU, and many are staffers for Congress.

They are also found in the vast Entertainment and Sports industries. 

TWO: Neoliberal Globalist “Elites”—the Billionaire Industrialists and Financiers. These people control the vast corporate sectors. Their acumen, political interests, and influence extend to the U.S., EU, and the British Commonwealth Nations—essentially over all of Western Civilization. [FOR EXAMPLE, REGULAR PARTICIPANTS OF THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (DAVOS, SWITZERLAND), INCLUDING  REPRESENTATIVES OF NATIONS, AND INFLUENTIAL ELITES AMONG THE ATTENDEES AT DAVOS]

THREE: Political Leaders, Policy Makers, and High-ranking Bureaucratic Functionaries at all levels and Branches of Government (Federal and State)

These people populate much of Congress. Many are crass opportunists who, for personal gain, espouse loyalty to those orchestrating the destruction of the Republic, and do their part to effectuate its dissolution.

Many are proponents of “Democratic Socialism,” also referred to as “Political Progressivism”—benign verbiage for ‘Communism’ or ‘Leninism’).

They include Political “Moderates” (sometimes referred to as “Centrists”) and “Liberals.” Many Republicans also fall into this camp as well (chameleons?)

Operating often in unison, they bear responsibility for the calamity affecting and negatively impacting our Nation, our Constitution, and our people.

These three components have formed an informal confederation or coalition of sorts, often operating in unison.

They draw many of the hoi polloi to their cause—assisting, if unconsciously, in the ruin of a Free, Independent, Sovereign Nation-State.

Inexorably and with increasing swiftness, a transformation of our Free Republic has occurred.

There may be other components that AQ has yet to consider. And arguably AQ ought to include average members of the public—those individuals who do not exert influence but for their voting patterns and belief systems. Together, these individuals form a force to be reckoned with.

These average Americans may have a natural proclivity toward NEO-MARXIST DOGMA and/or NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST IDEAS AND AIMS or may have fallen prey to the seduction of PROPAGANDA foisted on them via the PRESS and SOCIAL MEDIA, and CABLE and BROADCAST NEWS SHOWS and COMMENTARY, TALK SHOWS and COMEDY SHOWS. Or they may have developed a proclivity toward NEO-MARXIST and/or NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALIST sensibilities from having taken part in informal discussions or through idle conversations with family members, with friends and acquaintances, or with business associates, or with those they have met through social activities.

The “RADICAL LEFT” is VERY REAL and definitely a FORMIDABLE FORCE. It is everywhere in our Nation and in the nations loosely comprising Western Civilization. And it permeates through every layer of society. It is as prolific in this Country—as it is in any other Country.

The RADICAL LEFT has directed substantial and continuous effort, in TIME, MONEY, and ORGANIZATION, TO DESTROY Americans’ STRONG bonds to its HISTORY, HERITAGE, CULTURE, NATIONAL ETHOS, and JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ETHIC, and, most importantly, TO ITS BILL OF RIGHTS—THE ONLY TRUE AND EFFECTIVE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE WORLD—GROUNDED ON NATURAL LAW RIGHTS OF MAN, PREEXISTENT IN MAN, BESTOWED ON MAN BY THE DIVINE CREATOR, AND BEYOND THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO LAWFULLY DENY, IGNORE, OR TAMPER WITH IN ANY MANNER.

AMERICANS’ continued continuous exercise OF THE NATION’S FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL LAW RIGHTS is the only way to thwart TOTALITARIANISM.

ALL other Western Nations face the incipient threat of dissolution into Tyranny because the people lack a truly tenable Bill of Rights.

Consider the FALL FROM GRACE of CANADA, under the RADICAL LEFT FLUNKY, JUSTIN TRUDEAU.

THE AWFUL FATE of CANADA, that of the EU, and of the BRITISH COMMONWEALTH NATIONS hangs over THE UNITED STATES.

Will we suffer their fate? THE RADICAL LEFT WOULD WISH IT SO AND ARE DOING EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO MAKE IT SO.

AT LEAST HALF OF THE U.S. POPULATION HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT, AND THEY ARE ARMED TO THE HILT. THE RADICAL LEFT WRINGS ITS HANDS IN CONSTANT FRUSTRATION AND CONSTERNATION OVER THAT. LET THEM CONTINUE TO DO SO.