WHAT DOES A BIDEN PRESIDENCY MEAN TO AMERICANS?

PART ONE

Electing Donald Trump to a second term this November is as critical to our Nation’s preservation as the outcome of the American Revolution was to our Nation’s creation.

Some Americans, though, who intend to vote for Joe Biden—assuming the DNC doesn’t pull the plug on him and selects someone else to run against Trump in his stead if Biden’s cognitive decline worsens precipitously between now and the day of the Election—don’t see the election as a watershed moment. They see the coming U.S. Presidential election as they see all Presidential elections: political pendulum oscillations from left to right to center, ever back and forth, analogous to the natural tendency of the stock market to self-correct when discordant fluctuations in the market due to panic selling or exuberant buying inevitably drive stock market valuations back to a more sensible level.

Periodically, or so these members of the electorate assume, a pendulum swings too far in one direction. When that occurs, a political course correction is necessary. The pendulum must be brought back to the center: to stability, to normalcy, to stasis, to a point of equilibrium in all matters political, social, cultural, and economic. But, if so, this presumes that Trump’s 2016 victory represents a radical shift away from political equilibrium rather than, itself, a self-corrective step toward equilibrium from the irrationality of the Clinton/Bush/Obama eras that saw the Nation moving ever further away from its traditional roots. Of course,  the movement away from our Nation’s roots, our Nation’s core values, has taken place gradually, imperceptibly, over decades. The American public had been mostly unaware of the shift. Yet, perhaps on a subconscious level, many Americans did come to suspect something awry and that would suggest why the electorate voted Trump into Office.

Rather than an anomaly, the election of Trump represents, then, a return back to the political mean; a return to sanity, and not a rocket trajectory away from it that the mainstream media has painted ever since Trump took the Oath of Office.

Be that as it may, many Americans, poisoned by media propaganda, truly see Joe Biden as the political “moderate,”  someone who will bring the Nation back to a moderate political, social, cultural, and economic stance; back to normalcy; back to equilibrium. This idea is to us either wishful thinking or delusional, but it explains why the DNC, including the RINOs, believes an otherwise weak candidate like Biden has the best shot at beating Trump in November 2020.

The also-ran Democrat Party candidates—charismatic, articulate, and/or merely youthful—fell by the wayside because the DNC concluded they were not well known or were perceived by the DNC and the Democrat Party leadership as politically too far afield for the majority of the electorate, or, as in the case of Tulsi Gabbard, perceived as too mainstream: center-right, or dead center, and therefore distasteful to Democrats who, having grown, through time, so radicalized, cannot stomach Tulsi Gabbard even if she, unlike any of the other Democrat Party candidates, might be more palatable to Americans outside the Party. So, Joe Biden, the most inept candidate of all, becomes the default Party candidate.

Many in the electorate see Joe Biden’s obvious mental deficiencies as de minimis, of little concern, or even de rigueur, obligatory: a cognitively impaired, uncharismatic, stumbling, bumbling, rambling, fool—just the sort of person to bring this Nation back to its senses and to a sense of decorum, as this shell of a man cedes authority to the Bureaucratic Deep State.

But ceding authority to the Bureaucracy is something Trump would never do; has never done; and, in fact, ought never to do, as no U.S. President should ever do, since the President of the United States is the only person under and pursuant to Article II, who wields Article II authority. But, Trump is so loathed by the “establishment”—that the alternative to a continuation of the Trump Administration, is an Administration grounded on obsolescence and decrepitude, as the “establishment” considers that to be preferable to an Administration run by a President who would actually wield Article II powers that the Constitution provides for him; that the Constitution demands from him; and that the voters who elected Trump to Office expect of him. But, the Democrats and RINOs, these Destructors, want none of that. They wan,t from the person who serves as  President, someone who obediently, willingly, happily, answers to those who are supposed and expected to answer to him: the Federal Bureaucracy. No better person to symbolize that obsolescence, decrepitude, and inanity of the Presidency the “establishment”  seeks to install in lieu of Trump than the frail, feeble, fragile, senile, hopelessly lost, unqualified, and ill-equipped shell of a man, Joe Biden.

What better man is there to enfeeble the Nation itself than Joe Biden, the weakest, most feeble, infirm, debilitated man ever to run for political office?

Other Americans who plan on voting for Joe Biden in November, assuming he does in fact run against Trump, have, as well, no illusions about Biden’s incapacity for Office. They, too, perceive Joe Biden’s infirmities and deficiencies as a “plus,” an opportunity to wipe the slate clean. These people doubt that Biden, if elected, would serve out one term, let alone two, and that is what they want. Indeed, that is what they are banking on. And there will be no placid course correction to the political center if Biden does emerge victorious in November.

Even now The New York Times gloats over the fact that Sanders and Biden are, together, formulating the Radical Left agenda, nothing like it ever seen in our Nation’s history: an agenda directed to erasing our Nation’s history, setting it up for inclusion in a Global world State.

Seeing the political pendulum swinging and sending the political pendulum back to center isn’t what those on the radical left of the political spectrum have in mind. For they have no intention of bringing the Country back to the political, social, economic, and cultural centrist midpoint. They plan to use Biden as a surrogate for Sanders, the latter of whom failed to secure the Democrat Party nomination in two election cycles, throwing his supporters into a tantrum, to send the political pendulum to such an extreme position on the left, that it remains frozen there in perpetuity.

WHAT IS THE COMING 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION REALLY ABOUT?

This general election and the one preceding it isn’t an election between “Republicans and Democrats.” In fact, the terms ‘Republican’ and ‘Democrat’ have long ago lost whatever meaning they originally had.

From a political, social, cultural, juridical standpoint, the coming election is one between adherents of the tenets of Collectivism and the adherents of Individualism. It is about those who support the Bill of Rights—and the one fundamental right that preserves all other rights along with the sovereignty of the American people, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—and those who abhor, absolutely loathe, the very notion of the supremacy of the individual over that of the Collective, and who intend to erase free speech, free association, and the ability of the American citizen TO BE his own person, individual; to see Government amass unlimited power, usurping the natural sovereignty of the people. These radical Marxists and Billionaire Globalists do not intend to leave the American citizen alone, but to subjugate the citizen, reduce the citizen to penury, and to keep the American citizen in a constant state of fear. We see the plans of these Destructors of our Nation playing out today, even before the General election.

These Destructors of our Nation are providing the American citizenry a foretaste of what it can expect, what it will experience if the Destructors do secure complete control over the Federal Government. They will never permit the individual TO BE individual. They will never leave the individual alone. They will control all thought and conduct. And to avoid revolt, they will never sanction the citizenry’s ownership of and possession of firearms and ammunition. Guns and ammunition will be the first things they will confiscate. They will reconfigure the Country, turning it from one where Government is the servant of the people to one where the people are the servants of Government, a Government to be merged into a new world order.

Supporters of Individualism are fighting back against this push of Destructors both here and abroad who intend to wrest the Nation from the citizenry. Supporters of Individualism wish to preserve our Nation as the founders presented it to us, as set forth in the Nation’s blueprint, the U.S. Constitution; as the framers of our Constitution intended for our Nation to remain: a free Constitutional Republic, in which the people, themselves, are sovereign. Supporters of Collectivism want to eradicate our Nation’s history, culture, and core Christian values. They intend to create an entirely new and alien economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical construct, grounded on an expansive, powerful, centralized governmental authority through which the lives, thoughts, and actions of individuals are strictly controlled and modulated, according to a uniform standard, permitting no deviancy in thought, action, or conduct.

Nothing better exemplifies the vast irreconcilable differences between those who adhere to the tenets of Individualism and those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism than in the manner each perceives the Bill of Rights. Individualists perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as codifications of natural law bequeathed to man by the Divine Creator. The Bill of Rights are fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights, and liberties that rest outside the lawful power of the State to modify, abrogate, or ignore. It is through the exercise of these basic, God-given rights that the American citizenry retains its authority, power, and sovereignty over Government; and this is deemed a good thing; the way things ought to be.

Collectivists perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as nothing more than codifications of man-made laws that arise with the creation of a State. Collectivists perceive the Bill of Rights as auxiliary laws of man, created by man, bestowed on man by other men; laws that therefore fall within the prerogative of men to modify, abrogate, or ignore at will. They perceive the Bill of Rights, not as permanent ineradicable fixtures, but as an insufferable obstacle to their usurpation of authority. They see the Bill of Rights as no more than a collection of antiquated, obsolete alienable man-made rules, unacceptable constraints on and restraints against their accumulation of Government power; as an unacceptable restraint and constraint on their own unconscionable, unlawful usurpation of authority from and unlawful grasp of the sovereignty of the American people; an unlawful grasp of authority, power, and sovereignty that belongs solely to and rests solely with the American people, themselves, not with Government; not with the usurpers in Government.

The Collectivists slowly, inexorably encroach on individual freedom and autonomy; they attack the very integrity of selfhood. They see the average American as intractable, requiring constant guidance and control no less than a wayward child. Thus, Collectivists refuse to accept, cannot even comprehend the idea that, within man’s nature, within his very being, exist God-given unalienable rights, intrinsic to man’s very being.

Collectivists see the Bill of Rights only as mutable privileges, not immutable rights. They perceive the Bill of Rights not as illimitable and expansive in their reach but limited, transitory, to be exercised by the citizenry, if at all, solely by the grace of Government, subject to carefully circumscribed parameters when exercised, at all; privileges that are capable of rescission at any time.

These differences in perception of the Divine nature of man and of the relationship of man to Government have more than philosophical import. They have real-world consequences for every American. See the Arbalest Quarrel article on “The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”

Collectivists do not perceive the Bill of Rights as sacred and inviolate but as obstacles to control over the citizenry; and they are correct in their observation that the Bill of Rights does operate as an intolerable, insufferable, frustrating obstacle to those in Government who desire to wield absolute control over the thoughts, actions, and conduct of the citizenry, as of course, the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent. This is as the framers of the Constitution intended so that the sovereignty of the Nation would always rest in the hands of the citizenry, not in the hands of Government, and it is this idea, crystallized in the soul of the American psyche, indefatigable, tenacious notion that Americans will not so easily relinquish, that Biden and his handlers, as with all those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism, intend to wrench from the American citizen. But to accomplish this, the Destructors of our Nation must corral the Bill of Rights; they must turn the Constitution on its head. And they are making headway: shaming Americans, humiliating them; creating victims of us all.

______________________________________________

TO CONTROL AMERICANS, DEMOCRATS MUST CONTROL SPEECH AND FIREARMS

PART TWO

Collectivists are sly, deceitful creatures. They erode our fundamental rights under the cloak of morality and pragmatism, hoping that few Americans will notice.

Consider the Biden campaign’s war on the fundamental right of free speech. Recently, Biden and other Collectivists argue that free speech ought not to extend to “hate speech.” Superficially, that may seem reasonable to some Americans. But is it? What constitutes “hate speech?”

Indeed, what constitutes “speech” as free expression under the Constitution?

Does Flag Burning constitute “speech” protected under the First Amendment? Does the display of firearms at rallies constitute “speech” protected under the First Amendment? Is the latter an expression of “hate speech and not the former? If so, how does one make that determination?

As one academic writer aptly said: “Hate speech is a vague concept with varying definitions. Generally, it includes speech that is abusive, offensive, or insulting that targets an individual’s race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.” “Verbal Poison—Criminalizing Hate Speech: A Comparative Analysis and a Proposal for the American System,” 50 Washburn L.J. 445, Winter 2011, by Thomas J. Webb, J.D. Candidate, Washburn University School of Law.

The author continues,

“Regulating hate speech in the United States is problematic because of the value the nation places on free speech. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .’” The author adds, “There are three prominent justifications for protecting free speech: (1) it acknowledges human autonomy and dignity, (2) it promotes the marketplace of ideas, and (3) it is an effective tool of democracy.”

But, the Collectivist Democrats and other Collectivists of all stripes—Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Globalists, Anarchists, and others—will have none of that.

But, assuming that Congress could devise an operational definition of ‘hate speech,’ would such statute prohibiting such speech still conflict with the First Amendment? Yes! The U.S. Supreme Court has made this point clear, succinct, and categorical, opining, in Snyder V. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011): 

“Such [hate] speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. ‘If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.’ Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989). Indeed, ‘the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.’ Hurley v. Irish-American  Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 574, 115 S. Ct. 2338, 132 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1995).

But Collectivists don’t give a damn about the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause; nor do they give a damn about the High Court’s interpretation of it. As a prime example of what this means, what this entails, consider the Collectivists’ seamy, degenerate attacks on Zuckerberg’s social media vehicle, Facebook. The Collectivists’ have recently vented their fury on Zuckerberg’s Facebook. And, the toady and mentally deficient, presumptive Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, in whose name the Collectivists present their aims to the American public, doesn’t really have a clue what is going on all around him; how it is the Collectivist puppet masters are playing him for the fool he is and parading him, now and then, before the public.

Of course, Biden’s policy planks, marching ever leftward toward a cliff, are and must be coextensive with those of the Collectivists, who are feeding Biden his lines; his messages. They have simply stepped in his shoes, and, in his dim-witted muddled mind, Biden accepts whatever his handlers require of him, understanding nothing, and caring little, if at all, of the clown he has become; his words meaningless jabber, both to him and everyone else. 

The website, Reason, says,

“After being asked by the Times about previous comments Biden has made regarding Facebook’s refusal to remove negative ads targeting his campaign, the Democratic front-runner attacked both the social media platform and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.

‘I’ve never been a fan of Facebook,’ Biden says. ‘I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan, I think he’s a real problem.’

Biden and Facebook have been feuding for months, as Reason has previously covered. In an October letter to Facebook, Biden’s campaign called on the social media site to reject political ads containing ‘previously debunked content’—like a Trump campaign ad linking Biden and his son, Hunter, to corruption in Ukraine. Shortly afterwards, Zuckerberg said the company’s policies were ‘grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.’

Zuckerberg is correct, but that didn’t sit well with Biden. In a CNN town hall event in November, Biden said he would be willing to rewrite the rules for all online platforms in order to force social media companies to ‘be more socially conscious.’”

The Collectivists have gone to task on Zuckerberg. On July 9, 2020, as reported in the NY Times, Facebook’s “auditors,” said, “the prioritization of free expression over all other values such as equality and nondiscrimination is deeply troubling.”

Deeply troubling to whom? The Collectivist censors? Apparently, these Facebook auditors aren’t familiar with the critical importance of the First Amendment in a free Constitutional Republic.

“Free expression” isn’t a mere “value,” it’s a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, natural right, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, and its meaning is straightforward. The expressions, ‘equality,’ and ‘non-discrimination,’ though, are vague concepts and apply to aspirations, not fundamental rights.

In the absence of explication, expressions such as ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination,’ that the Facebook auditors mention, do not, however, denote “rights,” fundamental or secondary. Equality for whom and in what sense? And, non-discrimination in terms of what?

People as individuals are decidedly unequal. Some have been blessed with one or more gifts such as intelligence, or beauty, or athletic ability, or business acumen. Others do not have such gifts. In terms of talents, abilities, physical features, and even with respect to motivations and drives, people are decidedly and decisively unequal. Yet, even in physical, mental, and emotional attributes, Collectivists strive to force commonality on everyone, destroying that especial aspect of a person that defines the individual soul. This generalized, nebulous concept of ‘equality’ the Collectivists allude to has nothing to do with equal protection under the law as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But, apropos of “free speech,” everyone has an “equal” right to say their mind. If someone’s words hurt me, then all the worse for me. If my words hurt another, then all the worse for him. But all the worse for both of us and our Nation if the Collectivist censors determine what either of us can assert verbally or in writing, thereby denigrating and curbing the force of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Similarly, people discriminate all the time: in terms of their interests, their proclivities, their passions, the people with whom they choose to associate or not, and in terms of their political and social and religious preferences; and, while the law prohibits discrimination, as for example, on the basis of race, color, age, or sex, and as, for another example, in employment, and in restaurant or hotel accommodations, anti-discrimination laws are statutory constructs, not fundamental rights.

But, Collectivists subsume aspirations to the level of fundamental rights. They raise secondary man-made rights, such as ‘abortion,’ to the level of fundamental rights. And, they dismiss out-of-hand rights that are natural, fundamental, God-given, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment.

Biden and his handlers have made clear that preservation of the Second Amendment does not factor into their Party plank. While some Collectivists, like retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens would strike the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights altogether, Biden and the Democrats are, at the moment at least, circumspect about their intentions, couching the denial of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in terms of a desire to curb “gun violence” and a desire to end what they refer to as a “gun culture” existent in America. See: “The Biden Plan To End Our Gun Violence Epidemic.”

And, keep in mind how the Biden gun safety plank insinuates the First Amendment into the Second Amendment, and observe how the Destructors of our Nation don’t attack the Second Amendment head-on, but obliquely:

“Close the ‘hate crime loophole.’ Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual ‘who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission’ from purchasing or possessing a firearm.”

This “hate crime loophole” would add another criterium to the Federal Penal Code, denying a person the right to possess firearms for “thought” crimes. Eventually, the Collectivists wouldn’t even bother to use the excuse of a misdemeanor conviction to deny an American the right to keep and bear arms. If one’s speech is construed as “hate speech,” that would be enough to deny a person the right to own and possess firearms, expanding the domain of those not permitted to own firearms, exponentially. Would Collectivists argue that merely to desire to own and possess a firearm is tantamount to “hate speech” on its face? Considering how far the Radical Left Collectivists have come since Charlottesville—defacing the monuments of Confederate War Heroes—to arguing for the removal of monuments to the Father of our Nation, George Washington, and to the other Founders, there is no limit to the extravagant outrageous, laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and executive orders that will come down the pike if the Collectivists take control over all three Branches of Government.

But if Radical Left Marxist control of all thought, deed, and action is what you fancy, then feel free to give a sawbuck or two to Biden’s campaign at “Can you donate to Elect Joe Biden?” I’m sure he would appreciate it.

___________________________________________

Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.