THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEBATE THAT WASN’T

On December 19, 2015, on Saturday night, the week before Christmas, when vast numbers of Americans are out and about, the Democratic Party held its last “debate” of the year, hosted by ABC News. If you missed it, you weren’t alone. The Democratic Party bigwigs obviously don’t want Americans to see it – hence, the reason for holding it on a weekend night, and the New York Times didn’t even bother to report on it. Take a look at the Sunday, December 20, 2015, print edition of the NY Times; you will find nothing about it.The “debate,” which took place in what appeared to be a small lecture hall at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, was filled with a handful of the Party faithful. Hillary Clinton, grinning, as always, but not smiling, looked as if she would rather be somewhere else. She did her best, as always, to avoid answering pointed questions. Her responses invariably carried the message: if I am elected your President, you can rely on me! Two of the salient issues covered during this debate concerned the continuing threat posed by Islamic extremism, and, one of the Democratic Party’s favorite subject: gun control.So, where does Clinton stand on threats to the Nation posed by Islamic extremists and on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms in their own defense? Since Clinton has a lock on the Democratic Party, her responses to last night’s debate, give some clue of what a Clinton Presidency would look like.The ABC news moderator, David Muir, established the setting for the first set of questions, directed to Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley. They concerned the San Bernardino incident. As Muir pointed out, that incident, is deemed to be an act of terrorism, as acknowledged by Obama, who had said, dubiously, just before Thanksgiving, that there was no credible intelligence, indicating a plot on America. Muir pointed out that the couple who had committed the act of terrorism on U.S. soil had assembled an arsenal, were not on law enforcement’s radar, were completely undetected by intelligence and yet, for all that, just before Christmas, Obama is again telling the American people that no credible terrorist threat exists against America. That remark is inconsistent with the reality of the fact of an Islamic terrorist attack on our land. Therefore Obama’s remarks are altogether inexplicable.Muir asked Clinton to respond to how confident Americans should be, in spite of, or, perhaps, precisely, because of Obama’s remarks, that there aren’t other such couples in the U.S. who are as yet going undetected, and how Clinton would go about finding them. Clinton responded as she usually does, by evading the question and interjecting empty feel-good pronouncements. She said that her job is to keep America safe and to keep the families of America safe and that she has a plan to go after the Islamic State. That, of course, is all well and good. But, what would she actually do to keep Americans safe in this Country? She said only that she would work with Muslims in this Country who would be “our early warning system” and that she would rely on them to learn what they are doing about dealing with the radicalization of Muslims.Clinton intimated that technology companies must work with government. What she meant by that, as she clarified her remarks, later in the debate, is that technology companies must be willing to give up their encryption keys to government. This of course weakens our Fourth Amendment right to privacy and opens Americans’ computers to hackers both here in this Country and abroad.Martha Raddatz, the second ABC news moderator, pointed out to Clinton that, in the wake of the San Bernardino attack, Clinton has emphasized gun control but that in recent ABC poll most Americans now feel that arming themselves, rather than stricter gun laws is the best defense against acts of terrorism. Raddatz pointedly asked Clinton, “are they wrong?” Clinton responded, with her wry smile, that you have to look at the role that terrorism plays at home and abroad, “and the role that guns play in delivering the violence that stalks us.” Clinton then went off on a tangent talking about the need to build a coalition at home and abroad to take on the "Islamic State."Raddatz then brought Clinton back to the question at hand, asking Clinton, “can we stick to the question about gun control? Clinton responded: “Guns in and of themselves, in my opinion, will not make Americans safer. Arming more people . . . I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism.” Applause from the peanut gallery. “I think what is, is creating much deeper, closer relations, and, yes, coalitions, within our own Country. The first line of defense against radicalization, according to Clinton, is in the American Muslim community. People we should be welcoming and working with.” Clinton then goes into a diatribe against the Republican Party generally and Donald Trump in particular. Clinton begs the question when she says that the Republicans are sending the wrong message that there is a clash of civilizations. Perhaps, there is just that: a clash of civilizations. Certainly, from the standpoint of Islamic State, there is a clash of civilizations. And, we would do well to consider the problem posed by Islamic State as just that serious. Clinton ends her response, with this: “guns have to be looked at as their own problem, but we also have to look at how we are going to deal with radicalization here in the United States.”Guns, in the minds of both Clinton and Obama are seen as a broader problem that encapsulates terrorism. Thus, Clinton speaks of the San Bernardino attack on innocent Americans, not as an act of Islamic terrorism but, rather, as a gun issue. The killers are described as “shooters,” not “terrorists.” Thus, Clinton places emphasis on the weapon used in the attack, rather than emphasizing the reason for the attack. She therefore places Americans in danger of further attack by Islamic radicals, for she absolutely refuses to consider that more armed Americans would best forestall such attacks.  And, there you have it. Clinton says, not only that guns serve no purpose as tenable means of self-defense, but that they present their own “problem.” And, as for Islamist radicalization, her answer to lone-wolf acts of terrorism is that Americans should simply rely on the Muslim community, who harbor them, to turn them in to the authorities.What can Americans expect from a Clinton Presidency? Just this: one, further erosion of the Fourth Amendment right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; two, erosion of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, out of fear of retribution from Islamic extremists and to spread the gospel of “political correctness;” and, three, destruction of the Second Amendment because ownership and possession of firearms in this Country is to be perceived not as a fundamental right but simply as a problem.We have a question for each of the candidates from either party: “If you were given carte blanc, to rewrite any one or more Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, would you desire to do so? And, if so, how would each of the Amendments, that happen to remain, if any, read? We would especially like to see Clinton’s honest response to that[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RE: TPP ~ Trivial Questions Trump Substantive Issues In 2016 Republican & Democratic Presidential Debates

After three Republican Party debates and one Democratic Party debate, there is one issue that has yet to be discussed. It is one issue that has yet even to be broached. It is an issue that no moderator of any debate to date has requested a candidate respond to, and it is an issue that no candidate of either Party who seeks the Office of President has ever brought up. It is an issue that impacts our Nation’s economy and, at one and the same time, it is an issue that affects the very application of our Nation’s laws. It is the seven ton elephant in the debating halls that is as yet altogether ignored. It is the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its companion, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the latter of which will draw the U.S. into the orbit of the International Socialist Conglomerate State – the European Union (EU).That the mainstream media talks about the TPP only in whispers, and about the TTIP not at all, and that both centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats have conspired with Obama through an unholy cabalistic alliance that seeks to keep its sinister machinations wholly private – well away from the eyes and ears of the American Public – bespeaks a state of affairs remarkable in the depth and breadth of its scope and truly horrific in its aim. The TTP and TTIP are not simply about or even mainly about “trade.” These acronyms for international agreements that hide deceit bespeak nothing less than the waylaying of American Sovereignty by those who have the duty to safeguard it. The American Public is denied the truth at every turn and served a plate of lies.Thus, it was refreshing, at last, to hear one candidate, at least, Ted Cruz, take the CNBC mainstream media machine to task for failing to ask substantive questions, inciting, instead, a brawl, where the candidates were encouraged to tear into each other – even as this same mainstream media machine handles the Democratic Party candidates with kid gloves. And the public could plainly see the moderators – like emperors with no clothes – squirming in their seats and looking at once ashamed and indignant at the achingly obvious truth of the accusation.Still, even after Cruz had the nerve, the courage, to bring up this painfully obvious truth, not one of the Republican candidates attributed the ransacking of the U.S. economy by the World’s powerful, ruthless Globalist interests to awful “trade deals.” But, who is really to blame for the destruction of the U.S. economy: is it powerful private interests who seek monopolistic power or is it Big Government?Carly Fiorina danced tortuously around the issue – asserting that, yes, the rich and powerful – Crony Capitalism – use Big Government to their advantage but claiming that the fault for Crony Capitalism rests with Big Government itself. Carly Fiorina argues that, in order for private business to succeed, such business had to grow in size with Government. The fault, then, for the dire state of our economy, according to Carla Fiorina, rests not with the rich and powerful, themselves, but with Big Government. Thus, Carly Fiorina concludes, Big Government itself is the cause of Crony Capitalism.That’s quite a story. Might it not be more reasonable to conclude that the rich and powerful, through the influence of money, has ever had Government in their pocket? Would it not be more reasonable to argue that the Federal Government – whatever its size – could and would just as easily be bought by the rich and powerful if politicians allow themselves, in the first instance, to be corrupted? Has this not in fact happened? Indeed, might one not more reasonably argue that the distinction between the monstrous entities that have crushed small business and competition into submission in this Country and which have now entered the global arena, have, all along, colluded against the American People – against small business and true competitive capitalism? Would it not be more reasonable to conclude that the Federal Government and the rich and powerful are both to blame for Crony Capitalism and that the two are essentially merging – perhaps already have, in a very real sense, merged – into one amorphous blob, intent on constructing, with Globalists around the World, a single, grand, Socialist Order? And, if so, what becomes of the Nation State? Is the Nation State reduced to ceremonial insignificance, like the British Monarchy – taking what little money remains in the pockets of its People simply to pay for the mere trappings of State?Did not Clinton’s NAFTA usher in a Global political and economic nightmare? Did not NAFTA pave the way for destruction of America’s manufacturing base. Have these seekers of a one World Government not encouraged millions of Mexican Nationals to surge, illegally, across the border, along with tens of thousands of psychopathic Mexican gangsters – the mega-drug cartels? Is there not a concerted effort behind – an orchestrated design to use – these illegal aliens as a vehicle to slowly erode our Country’s heritage, culture, and history? Is there not a malevolent intent to fracture the foundation of our unique Nation State?Now, Donald Trump did intimate that NAFTA is the vehicle that has made Mexico a lot of money at the expense of the U.S. And, therefore, Trump argues, the Mexican Government should pay for a border wall to lock out further incursions by illegal Mexicans into this Country. By extension, this border wall would also effectively lock out illegal incursions of individuals from Honduras, Guatemala, San Salvador and from other Central and South American Countries. But, Trump failed to mention “NAFTA” by name, as a salient driving force behind our failing economy – a salient force responsible for the erosion of small business in and the dismantling of the middle class of this Country. But, then, during this last debate, Trump was given precious little opportunity to expound on America’s horrendous trade policies.Yet, for all that was said during the debates, to date, the TPP and the TTIP are the most audacious and insidious of all the secretive trade deals. They represent the culmination of Globalist efforts to benefit multinational corporate interests at the expense of our Nation’s economy and of the small American businesses that once survived and thrived in it, but don’t any longer.You would think that discussion of TPP and TTIP would have warranted at least a few words from the candidates of either Party. The mainstream media – the lackeys of Globalist interests – obviously were told to refrain from pointing to that seven ton elephant in the debating halls. And not one of the Republican or Democratic Party Candidates for the Office of President of the United States have mentioned a word of it in any of the debates to date. And, why is that? Would any of the candidates actually support TPP and TTIP? If so, why? Let each of those candidates that might support TPP and TTIP sound off. Apparently, they cannot, or, perhaps, they simply will not. But, then, why is that? Is the subject matter of these secret trade deals so sensitive that it cannot be discussed in the debates -- cannot even be referred to if only obliquely, despite the clear reach and impact of these trade deals on the American economy, upon our legal system and, indeed, upon the continued sovereignty of our Nation? Is the issue of the trade deals, which clearly crosses Party lines, too sensitive to discuss precisely because it defines neither Party but subsumes elements of both? Might these trade deals, which clearly benefit the rich and powerful of this Nation and other signatory Nations to the detriment of everyone else -- that benefit the very "rich and powerful" that Carly Fiorina mentions -- be taboo? Are these trade deals too sensitive even to touch upon because their very essence illustrates beyond refutation the identity of aims between the "rich and powerful" and Big Government -- a confluence of interests between the "rich and powerful" multinational business interests on the one hand and the centrist Democrats and Republicans and Obama Administration, on the other? If so, then the truth of that premise reduces to absurdity Carly Fiorina's claim that the aims of the rich and powerful and those of Big Government are not co-extensive at all. And, more to the point, the truth of the premise illustrates that, in some matters at least -- namely and specifically -- political and economic benefits that serve  the power "elite" are shared goals of that power "elite" on the one hand, and the Obama Administration and substantial elements of both political Parties on the other -- a goal that the power "elite" and elements of Big Government are willing to pay even if the price of that goal is the subordination of this Nation's laws to those of international, foreign bodies and the loss, too, of the economic well-being of this Nation's citizenry.What can be gathered from leaked documents about the TPP and TTIP is that these deals are not just about trade, they are about the sovereignty of this Nation as reflected in the supremacy of our Nation’s laws. If foreign companies doing business in the U.S. can bring suit for alleged grievances before international tribunals instead of American Courts, what does that say about the import and purport of America’s laws? Once our legal system is subordinated to those outside our Country – to foreign tribunals or foreign courts – America loses its sovereignty. And, would not our loss of sovereignty also require, at some point, a complete revamping of our Constitution? Do you think that could not happen?Might not a secret Constitution to replace our “old” one – as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refers to it seemingly derogatorily – be not ready for publication, to be taught to our children when the time is right? Might not such a “new” Constitution, sans our Second Amendment, or a Second Amendment that retired Justice John Paul Stevens would like to see reworded, be in the offing as he argues for in his book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution”? And isn’t Justice Stephen Breyer’s new book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,” curiously, frighteningly prescient, as it serves those powerful, ruthless interests behind the TTP and the TTIP? After all, Justice Breyer argues that foreign laws should inform our own case law because, as the title of his book makes clear, there are, now, “new global realities.” The welfare and supremacy of this Country must, apparently, make way for new, global realities – new economic and political imperatives.Are we not witnessing the slow, not so imperceptible movement toward eradication of the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ – eradication of our “Nation State?” Do we not see this implicit in the very manner in which the mainstream media handles the debates? Do you not feel that the debates of late – with all the hoopla that the mainstream media can muster – have less the stately grandeur one might expect of a real debate among those who seek the highest Office in the Land, and more the appearance of trivial spectacle like “America’s Got Talent”? Are you sure you didn’t see a vendor hawking popcorn and peanuts, cotton candy and hotdogs, to the audience? Take a closer look during the next debate. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, if you do.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DONALD TRUMP: A DISCUSSION ON THE CANDIDATE'S STAYING POWER

What Character Traits Are Most Critical In Assessing A Person's Fitness For High Public Office?

Apart from a recent surge by Ben Carson in the latest Iowa poll, Donald Trump has been, from the inception, the Republican front runner – the man to beat – and he continues to hold a strong lead over most of the other Republican candidates, who seek the Office of U.S. President. This hard, incontrovertible fact comes as a surprise to Washington’s centrist Republican politicians and to the shadowy, ruthless power brokers who control them – those who intend to maintain an iron grip on and stranglehold over our Government. But surprise among those centrists and power brokers has now transformed into something more: concern, dismay, even shock over the staying power of Donald Trump.These international socialist forces, neoliberal Globalists, and other sinister, shadowy, secretive groups, both within the U.S. and outside it, who seek, ultimately, to destroy our Free Republic, our Nation State, and our “Bill of Rights,” cannot understand why Donald Trump continues to be such a formidable Republican candidate – the one to beat. The super PACs have infused the Bush candidacy with a war chest of $100 million. Yet, Jeb Bush, the darling of the “power elite” cannot – unlike that other darling of the “power elite,” Hillary Clinton – gain even a modicum of traction among the rank and file Republican voters. Clinton, for her part, with strong help from a subservient news media, can, apparently, pull the wool over the eyes of those members of the public who look to Big Government to protect them and who buy into Clinton’s nonsensical and vacuous sound bites and slogans. Most Americans, though, are not taken in by the insidious, incessant drone of misinformation, disinformation, and non-information that fills the airwaves and that is spread through other mainstream media controlled news sources. This of course upsets the Bush clan.In a front-page article published in the October 25, 2015 Sunday edition of The New York Times, in an article titled, "Bush at 91: Irritated and Invigorated by '16' Race," "George Bush (Senior) “is straining to understand an election season that has, for his son (Jeb) and the Republican Party, lurched sharply and stunningly off script and he is often bewildered by what he sees.” In other words, the centrist forces, in both political Parties, that control politics in America – of which the Bush clan is certainly a part -- cannot understand that, with all the money at their disposal and with clear control of the mainstream media, the average American citizen dares to question the collective wisdom of the so-called “elites” who seek, forever, to dictate how we, the “Hoi Polloi,” should think. That we, conservative Republicans within the “Hoi Polloi,” would dare to go “off script” is not only incomprehensible to Bush and his kind; it is heresy. But, the public has had enough of the Clinton and Bush puppets of the international socialists and neoliberal Globalists who are wresting control from the American people and who are, now attempting – through “phase two” – to destroy the very reality of our unique Constitution and, thus, of our Nation State that is molded from it.But what, in all of this, are we to make of Donald Trump? He is, of course, extremely wealthy, extremely powerful, and, clearly enough, extremely ambitious. But, what does the public really know about him? Can the public really trust him? Is he not a “power broker,” of a sort, himself? And, if so, what is different about him? What is his agenda? Is he a proponent of the status-quo, too, or does he truly intend to “shake things up.” As President, would Donald Trump defend our Republic and the foundation of it, our “Bill of Rights?” Or would he work to destroy our Free Republic and trample our “Bill of Rights” just as President Barack Obama is doing – and as Jeb Bush or, worse, Hillary Clinton, would undoubtedly continue to do were either one of them to gain the Office of President? Jeb Bush is difficult to read and this may very well be by design. But, most Americans can see through the pretense projected by Hillary Clinton. Her incessant dishonesty, deceitfulness, condescending attitude toward the American public, her lack of integrity, her mendacity – all of it smacks one in the face. But, then, is Donald Trump wearing a mask, too – albeit one that cannot so easily be discerned? How can we get a handle on Donald Trump’s real motivations? Is he as “authentic” as he seems? Would he truly work toward implementing the policies he lays out, as many Republican voters would like to see?Fortunately, one expert in the field of political propaganda provides the key to unlocking the truth about the candidate, Donald Trump. And he provides the public with a novel, and keen perspective on Trump. Dr. Brian Anse Patrick is a professor of communication at the University of Toledo, in Toledo, Ohio. He teaches undergraduate and graduate level courses in research methods, group communication and propaganda. Dr. Patrick holds a Ph.D. in Communication Research from the University of Michigan. He is a fervent supporter of America’s “Bill of Rights” and, a fervent supporter, in particular, of America’s Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Dr. Patrick is a nationally recognized expert on American Gun Culture, and is a frequent speaker at events and symposia. He is also a prolific writer. Dr. Patrick has published several books, many dealing directly with the manner in which antigun forces utilize propaganda to undermine Americans’ gun rights.In a recent article, appearing on Dr. Patrick’s website, titled, “Aristotle on Trump: The Phenomenon of ‘The Donald,’” Dr. Patrick points out that individuals who are extremely wealthy and powerful, such as Donald Trump, represent a specific “character type” that was known to and dissected by one of the greatest of the ancient Greek philosophers, Aristotle, over a thousand years ago. Dr. Patrick adds the interesting point that Aristotle would know Donald Trump very well. For, Aristotle has seen that “type” in the Greece of his day. Donald Trump, as Dr. Patrick explains, as dissected by Aristotle, exudes the venial traits of any other extremely wealthy and powerful individual: arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence. Such people existed during the time of Aristotle, and such people certainly exist today in our own society.It is clear enough that the mainstream media is doing its best to emphasize those venial characteristics of Trump even as that media downplays the existence of those very same traits in other candidates, including – and especially – Hillary Clinton and, to a lesser extent – at least as observed – in Jeb Bush. The mainstream media is casting Donald Trump as a villain and suggesting that he, rather than Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, cannot be trusted. But, what it is that the public should be zeroing in on, when rating and deciphering the nature of a candidate for high Public Office, as Dr. Patrick cogently points out – extrapolating from the works of Aristotle – is the inner moral “ethos.” The measure of a person is that person’s “ethos.”The word, ‘ethos’ refers to the moral fiber – the character of a person. Dr. Patrick points out, as Aristotle had reasoned, that a person can display the venial traits of arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence and still possess a strong moral fiber. So, is Donald Trump a good man? Is he virtuous? How can the American public, know? Well, in today’s political climate, the quality of being virtuous is tenuous at best, and, if it exists at all in a person, especially a politician, it is one merely of degree. But, the measure of one’s virtue is something that the public – especially the American public – should be most concerned about. The American public should attempt to discern the character of each candidate who seeks high Public Office. And this transcends the relative importance of so-called, “experience” – assuming you can rationally accept the claims of the mainstream media that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have “experience” – of a beneficial kind, if at all. If a person lacks a strong moral “ethos,” then that person lacks, in the first instance, the most basic trait, a necessary quality for holding high Public Office. For, the existence of a strong moral “ethos” is a condition precedent to holding high Public Office. Regardless of whatever other qualifications a person might have – depth and breadth of experience, for example – counts for naught if that person lacks a strong moral compass.In that regard, even the most jejune among us knows that Hillary Clinton is completely unvirtuous, and altogether immoral. She completely lacks any semblance of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and genuine concern for the safeguarding of America’s institutions, its culture, its history, and its Constitution. And it is those failings – her lack of a strong moral “ethos” – rather than her arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence, venial though those character flaws be – that make her unfit to hold any Public Office, let alone the highest Office of the Land. It is Clinton’s lack of a guiding moral “ethos” that should be of most concern to American voters. Now, several of the Republican candidates are adept at holding their own arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence in check. Jeb Bush and the other Republican candidates are certainly -- to some extent at least, consistent with Aristotle's understanding of politicians -- arrogant, insolent, and self-indulgent -- even if as they tend to mask those traits when "operating" in front of the masses. But, apropos of the major character flaws in those candidates -- flaws that count the most – dishonesty, untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of any genuine concern for the safeguarding of America’s unique institutions and for the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution – in a word, the lack of “ethos” – it is this lack of a guiding “ethos” – the lack of a moral compass – that should be of paramount concern to Republicans and, for that matter, of paramount concern to all Americans when assessing the character of a candidate who would deign to lead this Country.Donald Trump does speak his mind. He is not the most tactful of speakers. And that is an understatement, to be sure. But, he can be forgiven that, even as the mainstream media tends to emphasize his apparent insouciance, that is to say, his apparent lack of regard for how he happens to project himself to his audience, the American people. However, there is one thing Trump is not. He is not a liar – although all too many politicians, unfortunately, are.  And, that ability of politicians to lie – indeed, that very desire to lie – unashamedly, convincingly – that capacity for lying constantly, incessantly, without remorse – is a thing absolutely unforgivable. No American should forgive anyone – no American should ever forgive anyone – who claims to serve in our name, who happens to be an inveterate liar and hypocrite. As Saint Thomas Aquinas made amply clear: “As a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest The Truth.” If a person lies to another person, the liar manifests his clear lack of respect for that other person – his contempt for that person. Nothing is clearer than the fact that Hillary Clinton has naked contempt for the American people – a contempt that is palpable, insufferable, hurtful in the extreme, and therefore altogether unacceptable in one who aims to secure the highest Office of the Land.Clinton is a hypocrite. Trump is not. Trump inculcates a moral compass – a moral “ethos.” Clinton most certainly does not. How do we know this? We know this less by what Trump says and more by what the mainstream media, at the behest of the centrists -- of both political Parties -- who are fighting essentially for the status quo -- say about him. Clearly, the Party centrists -- whether Republican or Democrat -- and their vehicle for dissemination of information, the mainstream media, both detest Trump. The Republican centrists say he is ruining the Republican Party – “their” Party. And the Democrats simply think he is "out of touch" with the majority of Americans. Clinton pokes fun at Trump. But, the real clown -- a dangerous one at that -- is Clinton, herself. If Clinton suggests that Trump is foolish, then she is making that claim of the American people, whom she clearly denigrates through every outrageous, disingenuous, and vacuous statement she makes. Yet, both Clinton and Bush claim to speak for the American people. And the mainstream media perpetrates and perpetuates the illusion. But, to maintain the illusion that these candidates for high Political Office -- these Party centrists -- speak for the American public, it is important that the polls reflect the illusion. But, the polls do not! So, the centrists may very well manipulate the poll results or do away with them altogether. They are intent, at all costs, to push a Bush or a Clinton in the “White House.” But, what of Trump? Well, he is a brawler. There's no doubt about that. And that is a good thing. That is a necessary thing today. He is waking the American people up. Carson realizes this and is adopting Trump's own tactics to sound more like Trump – to be more like him. Carson realizes that, to gain the Public's trust, he must appear authentic -- but more, he must be authentic. So, whether you agree with Trump’s stated policy positions or not – whether you are troubled by his brusqueness, his arrogance, his insolence, his self-indulgence, his self-aggrandizement – the venial traits that Aristotle noted as traits peculiar to the fabulously wealthy and powerful – you should look past all that; for those character traits are not critical character flaws. Indeed, virtually all politicians exhibit them. But, lack of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and insensitivity to our unique heritage and to our Constitution – these are grave character flaws. Any individual who exhibits them is unworthy of holding high Public Office or, for that matter, of holding any Public Office. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump does not lie to the American people. Clinton does and has. Trump doesn’t equivocate. Clinton does and has. Trump doesn’t obfuscate. Clinton does and has. Trump doesn’t meander. Clinton does and has. And, it is Donald Trump’s honesty, his heartfelt expression of concern for the safeguarding of our culture, our heritage, our history, our “Bill of Rights,” that the public is most drawn to. The so-called “elite” don’t understand this. And many in the mainstream media don’t understand this either. All too many members of Congress, and the Globalists, and the socialist internationalists, and the sitting President, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton – all these individuals who lack high ideals – who lack any moral principal, who lack a guiding moral “ethos,” a moral compass – not surprisingly – cannot grasp this – are, in fact, altogether incapable of fathoming this.So, the next time you hear a candidate talk – you should listen – really listen – to what that person actually says -- listen to the content. Do not get side-tracked by incidentals. Do not get side-tracked by the venial traits. And, do not become mesmerized by the magic show – the smoke and mirrors extravaganza that the mainstream media puts on for you, to distract you from what is really important. You don’t need, nor should you rely on, any talk show host, or news commentator, or advert, to tell you how to think, or what to think, or how to vote. You can do all that very well, and much better, for yourself.To learn more about how the media circus uses propaganda to attack our sacred Second Amendment, we encourage our readers to take a look at  and peruse perceptive articles on Dr. Brian Anse Patrick’s website: http://riseofantimedia.blogspot.com.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES BRAZENLY ATTACK SECOND AMENDMENT DURING DEBATE

While it may seem a waste of words even to discuss the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential candidates’ positions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, some elucidation is in order since we can zero in on the current strategies each of the five Democratic candidates would employ for undermining the Second Amendment were that person elected to the Office of President. So, let us consider where each of the five candidates stand on the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as laid out during the October 13, 2015 Democratic Party Debate, held at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas.Well, none of the Democratic Party candidates serve as a supporter, much less an exemplar, of the Second Amendment. That, we know. But, if so, how can an American -- any American -- claim to represent all Americans who does not vow to uphold the “Bill of Rights” of the U.S. Constitution – all Ten of them, not Nine or Eight of them?Now, some might argue that Jim Webb, who, as the moderator, Anderson Cooper, pointed out, had, at one time, at least, received an “‘A’ rating from the NRA,” is, in fact a supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, Cooper asked Webb whether Webb would agree that arming more people is Webb’s answer to a mass shooting. Webb did not take the bait but said that there are two fundamental issues involved in this discussion and that both need to be respected. The first issue, Webb said, goes to the question “who should be kept from having guns.” Webb said that criminals, gang members, and those who are mentally incapacitated should not have access to guns. The second issue, Webb asserted, goes to the tradition in this Country. Webb pointed out that people have a right to have access to guns to protect their families from violence since they do not have bodyguards as those in high levels of Government do. Now, these assertions might suggest that Webb is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment but, if you carefully analyze what he said, Webb qualified and effectively undermined his position by arguing for more “background checks,” and he clearly asserted that mental health practitioners should share their patients’ medical information with Government.The use of background checks as well as the introduction of measures compelling mental health practitioners to divulge medical information that is subject to the doctor/patient privilege serve only to destroy the inherent right to privacy. And both measures result in secretive Government registration lists – all part of “Big Data” for the benefit of “Big Government.” So, if you think that Jim Webb is a devoted protector of Americans’ Second Amendment Right of the people to keep and bear arms and, as well, protector of Americans’ Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, you better think twice. Many viewers of the televised debate were taken in by Webb’s pronouncements, believing that he supports the Second Amendment. At one time, perhaps he did. As a Democratic candidate for President, he most certainly does not.Anderson Cooper then asked Bernie Sanders to address his position on guns. Cooper, pointed out – among other things – that Sanders had, at one time, shielded gun companies from lawsuits. Cooper suggested, without explicitly stating, that Sanders supports gun ownership. In his response Sanders corrected Cooper, beginning with Sanders' point that he had received a “D Minus” rating from the NRA -- shamelessly boasting to the American public that the NRA does not approve of Sanders’ position on “guns.”To exemplify the import of the “D-Minus” Rating, Sanders said that he had, since 1988, supported a ban on “assault weapons” – this coming from a man who also remarked that Vermont has virtually no gun control laws -- a curious addendum to Sanders' statement, indeed.Sanders also said that he has, through the years, supported instant background checks and that he ascribes to “doing away with this ‘terrible’ gun-show loophole.” He also said that we have to deal “aggressively" at the federal level, with straw man purchases. Finally, Sanders said that people who face mental health crises must get mental health counseling immediately.Anderson Cooper pressed Sanders on whether he wishes to shield gun companies from liability. Sanders replied, “of course not.” Sanders added that he does not believe that a gun shop owner who had legally sold a gun to a purchaser should be held accountable if a crime is committed with that gun. But, he added, where a gun shop owner or gun manufacturer had knowingly sold a gun to a criminal, then that gun shop owner or manufacturer should be held accountable.As with Webb, Sanders is arguing for mandatory mental health care intervention and the sharing of private medical records – even if this is only tacitly stated. Is this such a bad thing? Yes, it is!Since the distinction between non-serious mental health problems and serious mental health issues is nebulous at best, those Democrats, and Republicans, too, for that matter, who are jumping on the mental health care bandwagon, are essentially setting the stage for a gun ban impacting a tremendously large segment of the American population – a population consisting, conceivably of tens of millions of Americans. Moreover -- and it bears repeating -- the requirement that mental health care practitioners must share medical information with government officials absolutely destroys the sanctity of the doctor/patient privacy privilege and destroys, as well, the import and purport of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Anderson Cooper, obviously providing a leg up for Hillary Clinton, then asked Clinton whether she felt that “Bernie Sanders is tough enough on guns.” Hillary must have gotten a pleasant jolt out of that question, thinking to herself, “thank you Anderson Cooper.” She responded, “no, not at all!” Clinton pointed out that we lose ninety people a day to gun violence and that this has gone on for far too long. Clinton didn’t trouble herself to support the assertion with evidence. Clinton never does. Nor did Clinton bother to explain what groups of people are responsible for the gun violence. Clinton, as always, is notoriously vague. So, was Clinton referring to criminals as the source of gun violence or was she referring to law-abiding citizens? Anderson Cooper, obligingly, never bothered to ask Clinton for clarification.Clinton – now on a roll – she must have loved that Cooper brought up the issue of "guns" – said, “it is time the entire Country stood up against the NRA.” Clinton got a large round of applause for that last remark. Clinton is always at her best when posturing to her audience who are satisfied receiving choice sound bites from her – never demanding cogent, comprehensive, coherent, intelligent arguments in support of her positions -- assuming she has a firm conviction about anything, apart from her singular lust for securing the Office of the Presidency.Clinton in her remarks is essentially asserting that the NRA is something other than the millions of Americans who compose it and millions more who derive benefit from it – whose interests the NRA represents. Is Clinton suggesting that tens of millions of Americans – stand up against themselves – against their own interests? Once again, Anderson Cooper didn’t trouble himself to ask Clinton to expand upon her bald, bold pronouncements. Rather, he allowed her to bask in the limelight of her mesmerized devotees, who hang on her every empty and, often, inconsistent word. Clinton then unleashed another volley of ludicrous assertions that -- one might reasonably suspect -- she expects the public to take for profound aphorisms. She blurted out that the majority of Americans support background checks and even the majority of gun owners do. Oh, really? But, instead of quizzical gazes from the audience, she gets another round of applause.Clinton then attacks Sander’s record on guns. She said that Sanders voted against the “Brady Bill” five times and that, according to Clinton, since the passage of the “Brady Bill,” more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. If true, one must wonder that, if the “Brady Bill” were so successful, why are the Democrats proclaiming the need for yet more restrictive gun legislation?Oh, and now that Hillary is on a roll, more nonsense gushes forth. She asks: Did you know that the gun manufacturing industry in America is the only industry immune from lawsuits? She further asserts that gun manufacturers are the only manufacturers who are not accountable. Clinton would have you believe that this nonsense is just common knowledge rather than vacuous remarks, devoid of any legal or logical substance.Sanders responded that we need to expand background checks, do away with the “gun show loophole,” deal with mental health issues, and do away with straw man purchases. This all boils down to: limit as far as possible the number of Americans who can possess firearms, and make sure that those few remaining law-abiding Americans, who can and do lawfully possess firearms, register them so all governmental bodies know who those Americans are -- which makes confiscation of firearms, then, a relatively simple task.Not to be outdone, Martin O’Malley blurted out his own righteous indignation. O’Malley referred to a lawsuit that was filed by a couple against a person who sold several thousand rounds to the individual who killed their daughter in a “mass shooting” in Aurora, Colorado. O’Malley said that the game was rigged against this couple. The case – we’d all like to have the citation to it – was thrown out of court. Worse, according to O’Malley, the couple were “slapped with $200,000.00 in court fees.” And, who was responsible for this alleged perversion of justice, according to O'Malley? The proverbial Bogeyman! The NRA of course. The NRA, according to O’Malley, gets its way in Congress and “we” – whoever “we” refers to – take a backseat. O’Malley concludes his rant with: “It’s time to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation in this Nation!” More applause.Sanders and O’Malley then get into it – as egged on by Cooper. Clinton, for her part, standing calmly between the two – nods her head knowingly, and smiles vacantly, demonstrating seeming composure, as Sanders and O’Malley exhibit a very un-presidential loss of control.Finally, Cooper deigns to give the lost black sheep of the herd, Lincoln Chafee, a couple of minutes to chime in. Chaffee remarks that he has consistently voted for “commonsense gun safety legislation,” and that he has earned an "F" Rating from the NRA -- something to be proud of, apparently. Continuing to smile at seemingly nothing, as he has done throughout the “debate,” Chafee adds that “commonsense” gun safety legislation cannot be passed because the “Gun Lobby” comes in and tells the people, “they’re coming to take away your guns.” Well, aren’t "they" though?So, there you have it: the Democratic Presidential Candidates' policy positions and strategies for undermining the Second Amendment. Oddly enough, though, as each of the Democratic Party candidates for President denigrated “guns,” during the lengthy ten minute tirade, not one of them bothered to explicitly mention the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is really what the "gun" issue is all about, which the candidates talked roundabout, climbing over each other in their mindless zeal to excoriate.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

Microstamping Of Firearms: A Synopsis

By Stephen L. D'Andrilli

As Presented at the 29th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference on September 27, 2014, in Chicago, Illinois, 2014

MICROSTAMPING OF FIREARMS

As I discuss the topic of microstamping of firearms, keep in mind that California is the first State to implement the microstamping of semiautomatic handguns. It sought to implement microstamping on January 1, 2010. But, patent restrictions precluded putting the law into effect on that date. However, on May 17, 2013, the California Attorney General certified that the technology was not encumbered by patent restrictions. The law, Section 31910(b)(7) of California’s Penal Code took effect immediately. The law sets forth in principal part: all semiautomatic pistols must be “equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.” The lawfulness of that Section is presently being contested by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute.  Other States are likely to follow California’s lead.  We have to wait and see.What is microstamping? Todd Lizotte, the inventor of the technology, describes it as a method for inscribing information onto a component part of a semiautomatic handgun.  He filed two patents for it, and subsequently assigned all of his right, title and interest in it to a Pennsylvania company, Identification Dynamics, LLC., that, according to the patent registrations, is the current owner of it.Lizotte’s first patent abstract explains his microstamping technique for inscribing information onto a component part of a firearm. His second patent describes the method and apparatus needed to read the identifying information.So, why have it? The answer to this question gives us the rationale, good or bad, for using the technology.  Antigun groups say that it has made comprehensive ballistic identification a reality; it enables police to trace a gun without ever physically recovering it; and, a traced firearm is a valuable lead in a criminal investigation.The antigun crowd has latched onto microstamping with enthusiasm, invigorated by the notion that it will help police solve crimes. But, does it really work in practice? Not according to the experts!  Here are ten of the problems with it:First: Microstamping analysis has repeatedly failed tests that were conducted at the University of California, Davis Campus. And, the firearms examiner of Suffolk County, New York, who conducted tests in the police crime lab, found the vast majority of microstamped characters in the alphanumeric serial number could not be read on any of the expended cartridge cases generated and examined.Second: Studies revealed the technology is easily defeated.  The codes on firing pins, for example, were easily removed in minutes, and serial numbers were obliterated using simple household tools.Third:  Most gun crimes cannot be solved by microstamping, or simply do not require it to be solved; notwithstanding TV shows that portray crime-solving as impossible without sophisticated technology.Fourth: Microstamping does not allow for the quick and simple identification of spent shell casings, by forensic specialists, at the scene of a crime.  The testing process is laborious and requires specialized equipment that is very expensive.  Lizotte noted the need for such equipment in the second of his two patents.Fifth: According to the BATFE, almost 90% of gun crimes are acquired through the black market and it takes on average about 11 years for the police to recover those guns. Still, such guns are eventually traced back to the criminal. Microstamped guns, on the other hand, can only link a gun to the lawful owner of it. So, a criminal is likely to turn to a gun source that can never be traced to him: the law-abiding gun owner. Gun thefts are likely then to become more frequent in jurisdictions, such as California, where firearm microstamping laws have been enacted.Sixth, Similarly, one of the biggest dangers is the possibility that anyone could collect microstamped shell casings from firing ranges and plant them at the scene of a crime. This ultimately could lead to a false arrest or implicate an innocent person in criminal activity, and police can expend needless resources “on a wild goose chase.”Seventh: It’s unlikely that microstamping technology would be admissible in court.  In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ruled that scientific evidence produced at trial must not only be relevant, but reliable. Microstamping technology, to date, isn’t reliable because it has not gone through extensive peer review to warrant a finding of reliability.Eight: Credible estimates by gun manufacturers suggest that the cost of a gun incorporating this technology would increase by $100 to $200.  As we all know, a “good” semiautomatic pistol can run anywhere from $500 to $1,000, or more.  This additional expense would place the cost of owning a semiautomatic pistol well out of reach of many, if not, most Americans.Ninth: There is the so-called “remainder problem.”  There are millions of handguns presently on the market.  None of them make use of microstamping technology. California law doesn’t require retrofitting of those guns.  Could you imagine the backlash among residents of the State, if California did?  Also, many handguns are revolvers.  Revolvers do not eject spent shell casings.  Criminals need only use a revolver in the commission of a crime to defeat the technology.Tenth: Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger, will not sell semiautomatic handguns in California.  Microstamping adds too much cost to the manufacturing process and does nothing to promote gun safety.  In effect, then, California’s microstamping law acts as a restraint on trade.This brings us to the most important question, “does microstamping infringe on our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms?”California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act” is a prelude to gun registration. It requires precisely what Lizotte warns against. It turns microstamping of firearms into a de facto registration scheme because California law requires etching more than a random series of alphanumeric characters on a firearm, but the make, model and serial number of the firearm itself, none of which, at the moment, at least, can be reliably read anyway.As the Federal Government and certain State Governments seek to keep track of all Americans, to learn ever more about us – our thoughts and habits, our hopes and fears, our beliefs and dreams, what we own or simply what we may wish to own – the microstamping of firearms is yet one more device through which Big Government controls our lives. Registered guns make confiscation of guns much easier. Confiscation of guns is a salient feature of a “Police State.” It isn’t a feature of a “Free Republic.”Thank you.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

Arbalest's Stephen D'Andrilli Addresses U.S. Gun Rights on 'INSIDE AMERICA'

[video type="youtube" id="G_8mU7kgoKk" autoplay="true"]Arbalest Group's co-founder, Stephen D'Andrilli, defends Second Amendment and 'Right to Bear Arms' on INSIDE AMERICA: Can the US Solve Its Gun Problem?