WHAT IS THE TAKEAWAY FROM JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT’S CONFIRMATION HEARING?

AN ARBALEST QUARREL PERSPECTIVE

Liberal and Radical Left media sources made much of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s failure, as they perceived it, to respond candidly and honestly to questions thrown at her by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats during her confirmation hearing.The Progressive news source, The American Independent, for one, said this:“Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer 95 questions posed to her by members of the committee.In declining, she repeatedly referred to the words spoken by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her own confirmation hearing in 1993: ‘A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.’” Notwithstanding the words of the late liberal-wing leader of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the seditious Press concluded that, while they would gladly dismiss the late Associate Justice’s own reticence, they were loath to absolve Judge Barrett for doing the same, attempting, lamely, to draw a distinction between Justice Ginsburg's justifiable hesitation to discuss the specifics of a particular case, and Judge Barrett's demonstrating a similar restraint.MSN news, had this to say about Judge Barrett’s responses Senate Democrat Committee members’ questions designed to commit Judge Barrett to taking a particular stand on Constitutional issues.“During a nearly 12-hour question-and-answer session, Judge Barrett evaded Democratic senators’ attempts to pin down her views on the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, gay marriage, and a possible election-related case. She played down her history of taking conservative stances in legal writings and personal statements, arguing that she might view issues differently as a sitting justice. ‘I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that,’ she told the Senate Judiciary Committee on her second day of confirmation hearings. ‘I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.’. . . Judge Barrett’s refusal to discuss specific cases or commit to recusing from particular matters was in line with a decades-old playbook used by Supreme Court nominees to avoid giving substantive answers during confirmation hearings. But her attempts to deflect such questions were more conspicuous than usual, given how explicit Mr. Trump has been about how he would want his nominees to rule.” Huh? Judge Barrett's attempts to deflect questions were more conspicuous than the late Associate Justice Ginsburg's deflecting of questions?The mainstream seditious Press dares to suggest that Judge Amy Barrett’s justifiable wariness to being pinned down—and therefore, thereafter, constrained—were she to give categorical responses to matters of Constitutional dimension amounts to a disturbing lack of candor on her part, if not outright insolence. This is a conscious, unconscionable attempt to malign Judge Barrett.But Judge Barrett needn't assert and, in fact, shouldn’t assert how she would decide legal issues before the fact. Indeed, how could she? Activist jurists, of course, do so all the time as the public knows full well. Reflect, for a moment, if you will, on any one of a plethora of decisions handed down by activist Judges on Second Amendment and immigration matters. Activist judges almost invariably prejudge cases that come before them. They work backward from their decision to the central issue, constructing premises along the way, designed to cohere with the decision they have already made.But a methodical, meticulous, jurist, such as Judge Barrett, is perspicacious, not judgmental.Judge Barrett carefully analyzes a case; draws her inferences therefrom; and comes to a purposeful, informed, well-considered decision, never a spontaneous one. As Judge Barrett has demonstrated through her dissenting opinion in the Second Amendment Kanter case, she applies sound logical reasoning before rendering a decision. See Arbalest Quarrel article. And Judge Barrett complies with, is devoted to, and pays assiduous, diligent, and laborious attention to firmly established jurisprudential doctrinal methodology, a methodology grounded in strict adherence to the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution as written, consistent with and faithful to the intention of the framers of it. In this way—and only in this way—can a jurist know that he or she is protecting the fundamental, natural, rights and liberties and sovereignty of the citizenry, and preserving a free Constitutional Republic.Of course, ruthless elements both here and abroad want none of that. They have made clear an intention to tear down our Republic, erase our history and traditions, destroy our sacred rights and liberties, and undercut our Judeo-Christian ethic and faith in a loving Divine Creator. And they have been assiduously, seditiously at work and, now, openly rewriting the U.S. Constitution to cohere with a weakened Nation, a subjugated, subservient citizenry, and a bloated Government subordinated to the will and dictates of the EU and Xi Jinping's China.These ruthless elements, through their puppets—Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee—do not want a jurist on the High Court who happens to appreciate, and who esteems, and who cherishes the U.S. Constitution as written. They want a jurist who does the bidding of Democrats in Congress, thereby turning the Court into an adjunct of the Legislature and of the ignorant mobocracy among the polity who obediently obey the commands of their taskmasters as conveyed to them through incessant, noxious propaganda.The Democrat Party lackeys of China and of secretive Billionaire Globalists are, understandably, upset with Judge Barrett, sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court; as she is a person “who will not get with the game plan,” who will not pay homage to them and who will not defer to their wishes. That is something they cannot and will not abide.Judge Barrett has made abundantly clear to all who would pay note, that she is a person of integrity, both in her personal conduct and in her role as a jurist. She has made clear that, as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, she will never interpose her personal predilections in the judicial decision making process. She hasn't done so as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and she would not do so as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. How can the American public be certain of this?It is through the methodology employed in deciding cases that the full measure of a jurist can be accurately, adequately deduced. And, on that score, Judge Barrett has been honest, forthright, and open, and, on the methodology she employs in deciding cases, she has been completely candid. That should give Americans—who, as with Judge Barrett, cherish a free Constitutional Republic, who cherish the U.S. Constitution as written, and who cherish our natural, fundamental rights and liberties, as bestowed on and in man, etched into man's very being by a loving Creator—the necessary, requisite assurances that Judge Barrett qua Associate Justice Barrett will never betray the Constitution and will always remain true to our sacred, natural, fundamental rights and liberties.  This of course drives the Destructors of our Nation into a psychotic rage as they have other plans for our Nation, for our Constitution, and for our people; and they have not been shy about what those plans portend. If these Destructors can deceive enough Americans to vote for the so-called “moderate” Joe Biden and if they are able to take control of the United States Senate, then all is lost. The American electorate must see to it that this doesn’t happen.___________________________________________________________

JUDGE BARRETT'S METHODOLOGY FOR DECIDING CASES EXPLAINED

Unlike activist lower Court Judges and liberal-wing High Court Justices who routinely affirm legislative enactments they find palatable, couching their personal predilections in convoluted legalese, rubber-stamping unconstitutional government action, Judge Barrett—soon to be Justice Barrett if all goes well—stated clearly, unequivocally, and categorically that she does not and would not render judgment on the basis of personal bias for or against a particular statute. And, from the cases she has heard and opined upon as a Judge, sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and from her academic writings, Americans can rest secure in the knowledge that Judge Barrett, will remain true to the written word of the U.S. Constitution and to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.Judge Barrett grounds her decisions on legal and judicial considerations alone, not on legislative policy considerations that fall within the purview of legislative bodies, outside the purview of courts.She asks: “Is this legislative enactment consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, as written?” She frames her analysis accordingly, and her decision follows logically from that analysis. Judge Barrett does not ask, nor should she ask: “Does this legislative enactment cohere with prevailing public whim and fancy, fashion and sentiment, shaped and molded by Progressive ideologues with whom I must adhere?”Through Senate Democrat questioning of Judge Barrett, it becomes abundantly clear that Democrats perceive the U.S. Supreme Court not as an independent Third Branch of Government, but merely as an adjunct of the legislature—a body that has no other purpose than to rubber-stamp Congressional enactments—statutory enactments that cohere with international law and norms, superior to the U.S. Constitution and dismissive of and antithetical to our citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties. That is what these Democrats want. That is what they desire from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But that isn’t what they will get once Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to sit on the High Court as Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And that enrages Democrats. And, so, they threaten “to pack the Court” if they are able to gain control of the Executive Branch of Government, along with control of the U.S. Senate.During the Senate confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham, Republican South Carolina, asked Judge Barrett matter-of-factly how she perceives the role of a jurist.Senator Graham's question was a proper and fitting one to ask of a nominee who might sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Judge Barrett welcomed the opportunity to answer the Senator's question, and she was remarkably candid in her response.Senator Graham likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, first, to impress on members of the public—many of whom probably have little comprehension of the specific and appropriate role of a jurist—what the proper role of a jurist is under our Constitutional and jurisprudential framework. And he likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, second, to impress on Senate Democrats who most certainly do comprehend the proper role of a jurist but who desire to impose an improper role on our jurists, that their insinuation that Judge Barrett must do the bidding of Congress—that she owes her soul to the company store, so to speak—is wrong and wrong-headed, for such a role that Senate Democrats demand of our jurists is: one, antithetical to our Nation's Constitutional framework; two, antithetical to our Nation's jurisprudential traditions; and three, antithetical to the separation of powers doctrine. The desire of Senate Democrats to impose their will on judicial nominees was clearly apparent through their long-winded, generally imbecilic monologues and through their impertinent, often insulting queries directed to Judge Barrett. Senate Democrats' insinuation that the U.S. Supreme Court belongs to Congress, and must do the bidding of Congress, is blasphemous. It is dangerous to the well-being of our Nation. It is arrogant in the extreme, and wholly untenable.In response to Senator Graham, Judge Barrett, explained clearly and succinctly: “I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” See, Washington Examiner article, as posted by MSN news.Judge Barrett explained that the framers of our Constitution never meant for the U.S. Supreme Court to operate like Congress, and, more to the point, never intended for the U.S. Supreme Court to take its cue from Congress, advocating for and on behalf of Congress.Congress enacts laws predicated on policy choices. Those policy choices may or may not be consistent with the Constitution. If those policy choices, as reflected in law, are at loggerheads with the textual meaning of the Constitution as the embodiment of the intent of the framers of it, then the Court must step in to overturn the law. That is the solemn duty of an American jurist.That isn’t what activist Judges and Justices do and, so, that isn’t what Senate Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted to hear. They want docile, obedient jurists, answerable to Congress. Their frustration with, resentment of, even anger with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, was painfully evident.They remonstrated over Judge Barrett's refusal to take a definitive stand on pending legal issues and on legal issues apt to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in the future. They insisted that she acquiesce to their absurd policy objectives; demanding that she declare categorical, unequivocal, acceptance of and adherence to their pernicious, horrific Collectivist vision for the Country, one that reduces Americans to subservient cattle. This Collectivist vision is characterized by uniformity in thought and conduct among the masses; dependency on Government largess for one's physical needs; and the deliberate inculcation of confusion and fear in the masses, effectuated through a targeted campaign of systematic predation on the polity that is unable to effectively defend itself because firearms will have been universally banned.It was all on constant, ignominious display throughout the hearing. And through it all Judge Barrett remained noticeably and notably calm but alert; courteous; unruffled; even, at times, convivial. And that must have enraged Senate Democrats even more; their vote against confirming Judge Barrett to a seat on the High Court a foregone conclusion, a vote that Senate Republicans, fortunately, do not or ought not need._______________________________________________

ON THE DOCTRINES OF PRECEDENT AND SUPER-PRECEDENT IN U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE LAW

A legitimate, perceptive question for Judge Barrett—one that has been asked of previous nominees but, was not asked of her, during the hearing, or otherwise was not dealt with in any extensive appreciable way—involves the judicial doctrine of case law Precedent, referred to as Stare Decisis. The Cornell Law School website defines ‘Stare Decisis,’ thus:“Stare decisis is Latin for ‘to stand by things decided.’ In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.” Democrats on the Senate Judiciary though weren't interested in eliciting profound, insightful responses  from Judge Barrett on that score, which they certainly could have obtained had they bothered to ask her to expound upon the the doctrine of stare decisis. Judge Barrett would certainly have been inclined to elaborate on that matter. But, Democrats weren't interested in that or on any other jurisprudential or juridical subject of any real significance. They were only interested in, or mostly interested in, scoring political points to help them get the feeble, frail Joe Biden over the finish line in November, and in maintaining a majority of Democrats in the House, and taking control of the Senate. If successful, that would give them all the power they would ever need "to pack the High Court" with their lackeys, thereby neutralizing Judge Barrett's seat on the Court.So caught up were Senate Democrats in the frenzy of the moment that, what otherwise could have been a profitable, informative confirmation hearing, devolved, by turns, into, one, a harangue against Trump; two, an annoying, uncalled for, insulting accusation that Judge Barrett must be a pawn of the President; three, a demand that Judge Barrett recuse herself on this, that, or the other case that might happen to come before her once she is seated on the High Court; four, incessant odious, presumptuous, recitations of  Democrat Party policy positions that Judge Barrett was compelled to suffer through; five, insulting innuendoes concerning Judge Barrett's private life and personal religious convictions; and, six, an extended, extensive Democrat Party campaign advert in support of the Harris/Biden ticket.During the hearing, Senate Democrats made manifestly and adamantly clear their fervent desire and their firm intention to raise both abortion on demand and the ACA to the level of fundamental rights, and, as if that weren't enough, they audaciously sought Judge Barrett's imprimatur on abortion and the ACA. They never obtained it. Senate Democrats also made abundantly clear their vehement abhorrence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and of their deep-seated, enduring wish to reduce a clear illimitable, immutable, unalienable, fundamental, natural right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—to the status of a mere Governmental privilege, to be bestowed upon and rescinded at the whim of Government bureaucrats.Had someone but troubled to ask Judge Barrett to expound on a paper she had written on the very subject of stare decisis, she would have acknowledged that resolution of Constitutional issues is not always clear-cut, thereby ameliorating, perhaps, some of the harsh criticism leveled against her by Senate Democrats. Then, too, if Senate Democrats devoted more time eliciting critical juridical doctrinal ideas from the nominee and less time delivering heated polemics and exhibiting fits and bursts of histrionics, the confirmation hearing could have been, and likely would have been, much more productive. Alas, they didn't; and, it wasn’t.In her article, written for a symposium on Constitutional disagreement, Judge Barrett laid out her thesis on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, thus:“Over the years, some have lamented the Supreme Court's willingness to overrule itself and have urged the Court to abandon its weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases in favor of a more stringent rule. Stare decisis purports to guide a justice's decision whether to reverse or tolerate error, and sometimes it does that. Sometimes, however, it functions less to handle doctrinal missteps than to mediate intense disagreements between justices about the fundamental nature of the Constitution. Because the justices do not all share the same interpretive methodology, they do not always have an agreed-upon standard for identifying ‘error’ in constitutional cases. Rejection of a controversial precedent does not always mean that the case is wrong when judged by its own lights; it sometimes means that the justices voting to reverse rejected the interpretive premise of the case. In such cases, ‘error’ is a stand-in for jurisprudential disagreement.”A lesser known, quasi-judicial, principle, that of ‘super-precedent,’—was raised by Senate Democrat Amy Klobuchar, but, unfortunately, wasn't pursued. Senator Klobuchar simply brought up the principle to emphasize and to capitalize on a Democrat Party talking point. She wanted to know whether Judge Barrett thought that Roe vs. Wade was so fixed in Supreme Court precedent that it could not or should not be overruled, which is to say that it should be perceived, then, as a super-precedent.Judge Barrett rightfully demurred. The pointed question pertaining to Roe vs. Wade was altogether inappropriate, and Judge Barrett respectfully, but firmly, declined to take the bait.In any event, Roe vs. Wade may be cast in stone as some people see it, but that is no reason to believe its precedential value is beyond reasonable legal dispute.The fact remains that Roe vs. Wade was a bizarre attempt at a judicial “squaring of the circle.” Yet, it was no more than a crude attempt to create a fundamental right out of whole cloth. Still, notwithstanding that some people strenuously and indefatigably, albeit bizarrely, extol that ruling as a thing sacrosanct and inviolate, is not to mean that the ruling carries with it or should carry with it some paramount attribute or weight and must, therefore, never be overruled—only enhanced, if anything, to the point where the murder of a child is lawfully permitted up to the moment of live birth.In fact, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s law on abortion does allow for abortion up to the very moment of birth, contrary to Cuomo’s claims that the new, strengthened, New York law is consistent with Roe vs. Wade. It isn’t. Cuomo is either a liar or ignorant of the import of his own law because the word ‘abortion’ has been excised from the New York Criminal Code. The AQ has explained Cuomo’s duplicity on this issue.On the other hand, in contradistinction to Roe vs. Wade, one might ask if Heller vs. District of Columbia is super-precedent case law. Senate Democrats and other political and social progressives would argue it isn’t, predicated, no doubt, on their abject abhorrence of and repugnance toward firearms and firearms' possession, which raises an aesthetic and/or psychological argument against the Second Amendment, not a pertinent legal one.The critical legal question in Heller was whether the Second Amendment embraces an individual right.The High Court Majority held that the Second Amendment—the Majority Opinion written by the late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia—does embrace an individual right; and that it does so on logical, as well as legal, grounds; for were it not so, then the right codified in it would be reduced to a nullity and there would have been no point to it.Heller, unlike Roe vs. Wade, must, then, be construed as a manifestly super-precedent ruling: a ruling that resists overturning lest irreparable damage be done to the Bill of Rights itself and, no less, to the sovereignty of the American people whose sovereignty is only assured through force of arms; the principal bulwark against the inexorable slide toward and inevitable onset of tyranny.But, assuming arguendo that Heller were to be overruled—something well within the realm of possibility if the Democrats make good their threat “to pack the Court” if they gain control of the Executive and of the Senate, and a Second Amendment case then wended its way to the Court. But, for Heller to be overturned, a High Court majority would be compelled to opine that the original holding was wrong, which is tantamount to saying the Second Amendment has no meaning at all. But Democrats wouldn’t have a problem drawing that conclusion anyway. Yet, it is patently absurd to say the Second Amendment has no import. From a logical point of view, apart from the legal certainty, the Second Amendment does embrace and must embrace an individual right. So the Heller ruling that the Second Amendment codifies an individual right is dead-on correct. This brings us to Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat, Illinois, and to his singularly odd remarks during the hearing. For all that he had to say about firearms, it would have been interesting if he had had the wherewithal to broach the import of, and the historical imperative of the Second Amendment, with Judge Barrett—instead of going on about black powder muzzle-loaders as if he had any idea what he was talking about, anyway. But he didn’t. And that is just as well, for Senator Durbin obviously has no comprehensive knowledge of nor appreciation for the technical characteristics of firearms; nor does he care one whit about the sacred, natural, immutable, unalienable right of the American people to keep and bear them._____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT AND SEDITIOUS PRESS WEAPONIZE CHINESE VIRUS TO ADVANCE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL AGENDA

RADICAL LEFT AND SEDITIOUS PRESS WEAPONIZE CHINESE VIRUS TO ADVANCE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL AGENDA

PART THREE

THE ATTACK TO OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE FROM WITHIN

“A scorpion, which cannot swim, asks a frog to carry it across a river on the frog's back. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung by the scorpion, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung the frog despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: “ ‘I couldn't help it. It’s in my nature.’” The fable of the Scorpion and the Frog as posted in Wikipedia. A rendition of this fable, as delivered by the character played by the actor, Forest Whitaker, appeared in the 1992 thriller, the Crying Game that also starred Stephen Rea. Americans have been carrying a scorpion on their back for decades but many do not know this. And, what is this scorpion? It is an amorphous collection of diabolical, amoral, ruthless, powerful interests bent on destroying the very fabric of our Nation: a free Constitutional Republic. These ruthless elements, adherents of the ideology of Collectivism, loathe the idea that in, our Nation, the American people are sovereign, not Government. The Collectivists routinely ignore the fact that the sovereignty of the American people is etched in stone—etched in that critical part of the U.S. Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights.The Bill of Rights is a codification of fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights that exist intrinsically in each American. These rights cannot be lawfully modified, ignored, or abrogated; ever. That some rights exist in man, beyond the lawful power of the State to modify, ignore, or abrogate, is repugnant to the Collectivists and always has been. They deem the American citizenry as pawns of the State. But, as long as our Constitution survives intact, the Collectivists cannot modify, ignore, or abrogate our fundamental rights. So, they are attempting to regulate those fundamental rights out of existence and to replace them with others: such as the fundamental right of a pregnant woman to murder her own child. See article on abortion posted in the Arbalest Quarrel on July 4, 2019While the nation-state still held a measure of utility to the Collectivists, decades ago, they stood back, patiently awaiting the day when they could proclaim the U.S. Constitution—the backbone of our nation-state—to be archaic, obsolete. Now, however, these ruthless interests feel the very concept of ‘nation-state’ no longer has utility. So, these Collectivists are not standing back any longer. They are attacking the concept of the nation-state head-on. The U.S. Constitution that Collectivists claim to be a “living” Constitution—and by the term, ‘living’ Constitution they mean a Constitution subject to change in accordance with a changing world—is actually a “dead” Constitution; namely, a Constitution that has no further use in a one-world Collectivist State, in which vast populations are controlled and subjugated by a small ruling elite.This scorpion on our back—the Collectivists comprising the Democrat Party Leadership along with other smug, sanctimonious Radical Left and New wave Progressive Left elements, pockmarked and permeating through business, government, academia, the entertainment establishment, and the Press—has been spreading their noxious, deadly poison for decades. Many Americans, perhaps most, haven’t been keenly aware of this because the insidious effort to overthrow of a free Constitutional Republic has, heretofore, taken place systematically, and quietly in the shadows; but, no longer, and the effects of the disassembling of a free Constitutional Republic is plain.Americans have seen the erosion of their First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They have seen more and more brazen attempts to weaken the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms to the point where exercise of it would be reduced to a nullity—this in spite of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald. They have seen the erosion of our fundamental Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as the surveillance State engages in the unconstitutional act of profiling every citizen and obtaining every iota of data on that citizen. Americans have seen a once mighty manufacturing base gutted and sent off packing to China, along with the Nation’s technology, and our money. Americans have seen the Government waste trillions of dollars on foreign intrigues and escapades that serve to weaken our Nation’s security, rather than strengthening it. And, Americans have seen the Southern border opened up to criminal cartels and to waves of discontented flotsam from other Countries whose governments are all too happy to rid themselves of the carrion that feeds on our own Government largess, only to leave our own people destitute. And, Americans have seen the Federal—that is to say, “Private”—Reserve engaging in unconventional monetary policies, doing what exactly? Operating for the benefit of average Americans or operating solely for the benefit of its own member banks and for multinational corporations, housed both here and abroad; leaving the Nation gutted of its wealth; laden with more and more debt.Like a scorpion, the dangerous, ruthless forces here at home, that would crush our Nation and our people into submission as they thrust their vision of the world on all of us, seem oblivious to just how pernicious and damaging their Collectivist vision is for both our Country and our people. Either these abjectly ruthless forces are oblivious to the dangers they would dare inflict on our Nation and our people, or they simply don’t care.

THE COLLECTIVIST VISION AND THE THREAT OF GLOBALIZATION

The impact of the Chinese Coronavirus on our people and our economy is horrific. But even as it devastates our Nation, the Collectivists in the Press and in Congress seek to use this pandemic to their advantage, against the President and, by extension, against the American people. Still, even as our economy suffers and as our people suffer, and as a seditious Press continues an unrelenting, remorseless attack on President Trump at the behest of the ruthless Collectivists, with whom the Press is in league, these Collectivists must realize that Americans are seeing the negative consequences of Globalization in a way they have never seen before. The viral pandemic is not, then, something that the Collectivists can effectively use to force their bizarre vision on our Country. The pandemic has demonstrated the danger of relying on other Nations to provide for our economic needs.If our Nation’s medicines and medical equipment, and medical apparel were solely manufactured at home, as once was the case a half-century ago—before the vast  majority of our manufacturing was handed over to Asia, particularly to China—China would not be able to threaten our healthcare system, as it is threatening our healthcare system now. Breitbart says:“China could effectively shut down America’s healthcare system within months given the one-party state’s ‘global chokehold’ on the manufacturing of medicines and medical supplies, explained Rosemary Gibson, author of China Rx: Exposing the Risks of America’s Dependence on China for Medicine.”It is ironic that China, the Nation that bears sole responsibility for unleashing this virus on our Nation and on the rest of the world, whether wittingly or not, could and would dare to choke the lifeblood out of us by denying us vital medicines and medical supplies. Such is the result of Globalization and our dependency on other Nations, even our enemies, to supply us with our basic needs.We see that the instrumentality of ‘Globalization’  is vital to the realization of the Collectivist vision of a one-world government; heralding, indeed hastening, the end of independent, sovereign nation-states that have lost their self-reliance and resiliency precisely because of Globalization.  The website Investopedia, defines the word, thus:“Globalization is the spread of products, technology, information, and jobs across national borders and cultures. In economic terms, it describes an interdependence of nations around the globe fostered through free trade.”But Globalization involves something much more devious and insidious: the restructuring of the entirety of the social, political, economic, educational, legal, and cultural domain in which man lives.The Collectivists see Globalization as a good thing, an inevitable thing, and a necessary thing if they are to realize their vision of a one-world government. Not surprisingly, the concept of 'globalization' has parallels in the material of Karl Marx. In Das Kapital, Marx lays out his economic theory. But, Das Kapital, is, more broadly speaking, a discourse on the social evolutionary process of man, as Marx sees it.Elizabet Sahtouris, an essayist, who was almost certainly familiar with the writings of Karl Marx and possibly emulated him, posted, on July 21, 2001, an essay for the Living Economies Forum, titled, “Globalization as a Natural Evolutionary Process.” She begins her essay with this:“Globalization, from the perspective of an evolution biologist, is the natural, inevitable, and even desirable process by which humanity matures as a species, shifting from the competitive, acquisitive mode of a juvenile species to the cooperative, sharing mode of a mature species.In any case, globalization is already well on its way and is not a reversible process. Some aspects of it beautifully demonstrate our ability to cooperate.” Globalization is one of a handful of implements in the Collectivists’ toolkit they have utilized to engineer the destruction of independent nation-states, including our own.  The phenomenon of globalization has become ubiquitous and may very well be impossible to curtail. Collectivists intend for globalization to usher in the New World Order. But, with a world-wide viral plague upon us, the inherent complexity, unwieldiness, and attendant deficiencies of globalization have been illuminated. Because of the viral pandemic, nations now realize they must regain and thenceforth retain economic self-sufficiency that globalization has harmed. So, even as the economic health of our Nation and that of other Western Nations has deteriorated, the realization that each Nation must once again relearn self-reliance and self-sufficiency may secure the survival of independent sovereign nation-states, much to the chagrin of the Collectivists.In hindsight, then, the assertion that globalization is “natural, inevitable and, even desirable,” must invite incredulity and skepticism, not enthusiasm and trust, for Globalization is really none of those things.Globalization is an artificial construct, not a biological necessity. It isn't inevitable; and, while it may be desirable to some, i.e., a few wealthy, powerful transnationalist Collectivists who envision a one-world government that they alone preside over, such an eventuality would be a veritable Hell for everyone else._____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES FEAR AND HATE AN ARMED CITIZENRY AND WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO DESTROY IT

PART THIRTEEN

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS DON’T ACCEPT EXISTENCE OF BILL OF RIGHTS AS NATURAL RIGHTS AND WANT TO CREATE A NEW SET OF UNNATURAL RIGHTS TO REPLACE OUR NATION'S BILL OF RIGHTS

THE SEVEN COMMANDMENTS1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.3. No animal shall wear clothes.4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.5. No animal shall drink alcohol.6. No animal shall kill any other animal.7. All animals are equal.~ George Orwell, “Animal Farm” ((a satire on the duplicity and idiocy of the Communist vision of the perfect world order)(published in 1945)) (quotation from Chapter 2)

THE RADICAL LEFT’S GRAND DESIGN IS CLEAR: THRUST OUR NATION INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Rothschild clan and its minions in the EU are no longer even attempting to disguise their contempt for Western Nation States and for the populations of those Nations States. And, they are no longer attempting to disguise their plans to destroy the Nation States of Europe, along with the Commonwealth Nations—those that embrace Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.  They intend to destroy the independence and sovereignty of all Western Nations, including the destruction of the independence of the United States. These ruthless, diabolical, insufferable transnationalist “elites” have made their contempt of Western Nation States and of the common people of those Western Nation States transparently, poignantly obvious.’Consider the words of the outgoing European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, as reported by the website, Kentucky Hunting:"Ahead of the EU elections, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has blasted 'stupid nationalists,' who dare to 'love their own countries' and dislike migrants. Juncker took to CNN on Wednesday to share his belief the nationalist politicians pose a distinct threat to European unity with their stance on migration.“'These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries,'” he said, urging the EU to show 'solidarity' with migrants instead."U.S. legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, perceives the ominous portents existent in the pronouncements of the EU overseers; sees, in fact, the deviousness inherent in the entirety of the EU project, and Turley is not at all amused, as he makes clear in a post  on his website, jonathanturley.org, in May 2019: "We have previously discussed President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and his controversial statements. Juncker for many is the face of the detached and arrogant bureaucracy that dictates policies and practices in various nations. While the EU has long tried to assure people that it is not replacing their national identity or self-determination, Juncker has always been dismissive of such concerns, even with growing anti-EU movements. That dismissive attitude was evident this week when Juncker said on CNN 'These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries.'"The notion of people being stupid for being 'in love with their own countries' embodied the fears of critics that the EU was always an effort to erase national identity, as least in governance and policy. He added 'They don’t like those coming from far away, I like those coming from far away. . . we have to act in solidarity with those who are in a worse situation than we are in. . . It’s always easier to mobilize negative forces than to mobilize positive forces.' Of course, Juncker has never mobilized any forces beyond the top European elite. His CNN interview embodies his leadership style of disdainful and cavalier comments. He previously blasted the very notion of national borders.It is remarkably stupid for Juncker to openly maintain such a position when the EU is fighting to dampen calls for exits from the organization."Obviously, arrogant jackasses, like Jean-Claude Juncker of the EU, and such “luminaries” like Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell, and, other similar vultures in the U.S., don’t care what the commonalty of the Nations of Western Europe and of the U.S. think. They pretend to know better. These Radicals are so enamoured with themselves, so convinced that a  single and singular transnational system of governance will succeed, and should succeed, that they now let fly their true feelings toward the peoples of Europe and of the United States—all those who ascribe to the spirit of “Nationalism”—those who profess pride in their own Nation, culture, history, and language.Transnationalists—those pushing for an end to Western Nation States—tend to treat “Nationalists” as close-minded, reactionary elements, who would hold to their unique history and cultural heritage. And, THAT attitude is considered wrong, even outrageous? Apparently so. And so it is that the Radical elements both here and abroad, those seeking to establish, among Western Nations, a new transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, cultural, and legal system of governance, are now ever more open to letting the people of Europe and of the U.S. know the true horrific extent of their aims for Western Civilization. They are convinced that Great Britain will never actually leave the EU; that the Nationalist wave in Europe will burn itself out; and that Donald Trump will never secure a Second Term in Office—perceiving both Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 and Britain’s majority vote to leave the EU, and Nationalist fervor in Europe as no more than momentary anomalies, a temporary setback to their plans for Global domination.So, through the first of a two-prong attack on Western Civilization, the transnationalist Rothschild clan and its minions clamp down hard on Nationalist fervor in the EU and they denigrate and ridicule and rebuff efforts of the populations of the Europe to reassert their National Sovereignty and independence and they place obstacles in the path of the British people who voted to leave the EU.Contemporaneously, through the second of a two-prong attack on Western Civilization, the Rothschild clan and its minions, through their cohorts in the U.S. to denigrate President Trump. They attempt to derail the work of his Administration; to keep Trump preoccupied, fighting endlessly, aimlessly, all efforts to topple him. They seek to frustrate Trump at every turn. They operate in secret, machinating to undermine the U.S. Constitution; particularly, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. They seek to undercut the U.S. Constitution, because that sacred document does not cohere with the Rothschild plan for a transnational global system of governance. Is it any coincidence, then, that we see heretical speech emanating from Leftist Radicals, and, thence, echoed in the mainstream media Press and in such propaganda media sources as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, and PBS, becoming ever more strident and bizarre?

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS IN OUR COUNTRY SEEK TO REPLACE OUR FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL AND UNALIENABLE AND RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WITH OTHER MAN-CREATED “RIGHTS” OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING

Consider: only in very recent years have Progressive and Radical Left-wing politicians and their friends in the mainstream media dared openly to call for restraints on speech and on freedom of association among the polity; abridgment of the free exercise of religion; abrogation of the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; encroachment on the right to own and possess personal property; and outright eradication of the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms—audaciously refusing to accept the simple truth of the right to own and to possess firearms as a fundamental, natural, individual right, notwithstanding the clear and categorical meaning of the right codified in the Second Amendment, and openly contemptuous of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, that set the high Court’s imprimatur on the transparently clear meaning of the Second Amendment, if anyone happened to harbor any misunderstanding of the import and purport of the Second Amendment.Further, these Radical Leftists and Progressives in our midst have called for repeal of the Electoral College; have sought to pack the high Court with individuals who would demonstrate no reluctance in imposing their own Collectivist belief system on the Constitution, when deciding cases. And, it doesn’t stop there. They dare to create out of whole cloth an entirely new set of rights—rights that nowhere exist tacitly or expressly in the U.S. Constitution; In fact, these new “Rights” that the Radical Left and Progressives would impose on the American citizenry are  antithetical to very meaning and purpose of the Constitution that the framers of our Nation bequeathed to us. But, they don’t care. As it is their intention to destroy the Constitution, they have drummed up a “new” set of nonsensical “rights,”—as nonsensical as the “Seven Commandments” that Orwell dreamed up for inclusion in his satire, “Animal Farm.”

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE  ELEMENTS HAVE CREATED A NEW SET OF PROTOCOLS FOR A NEW WEAKENED AMERICA TO REPLACE THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS THAT THE FRAMERS IN THEIR WISDOM SAW NEED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

The Protocols that the Radical Left and Progressive Elements envision might very well include the following, preposterous--indeed imbecilic--protocols, as predicated on their own pronouncements:

• Abrogation of the original Bill of Rights
• The right of a pregnant woman to kill her unborn child up to and including the very moment of birth.
• The right of non-citizens to insist the United States grant them asylum
• The right of anyone residing in the United States to obtain free, public-supported higher education
• The right of anyone residing in the United States to access unlimited, free health care
• The right of non-citizens to free housing, free health-care, and unlimited welfare, all at taxpayer expense
• The right of non-citizens and convicted felons to vote in Federal elections
• The right of those groups of people, deemed to be victims in times past, to obtain reparation payments
• The right to receive public assistance, sustenance, and remuneration even if a person doesn’t wish to work
• The right of Government to determine what rights inure to the people and who may enjoy them.
• The right of Government to add to, modify, suspend, or revoke and right as exigency demands.
• Adoption of the European Union's “Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” *

What is difficult to believe is that the aforesaid protocols are not satire. They are in fact the feverish dream of Radical Left and Progressive politicians, and they are deadly serious about making them a reality. Imagine if these reprobates had their way and could actually substitute their “rights” for those codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights? If that were to happen, then slowly, inexorably, the U.S. would begin to look much like the EU, and the EU would begin to look increasingly like this new version of the U.S.; and who, then, would be able to tell the difference between us and them?“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” ~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (Chapter 10, last paragraph).How much easier it would be, then, for the U.S. to slip easily into the throes of the New Global World Order. Americans would hardly know it were even happening--until it were much too late to do anything about it!___________________________________________________*There are several important implications that beg to be addressed apropos of the “Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” and which we must needs consider, as they may not be obvious, but are critical to an understanding of the inherent limitation on “rights” as perceived by the Governmental EU bureaucrats who created these rights at the behest of the silent true rulers: the Rothschild clan and their ilk.First, this set of rights, bespeaks an autonomy that is beyond the member States of the EU to question, once the respective State Governments ratify this Convention. Second, as a corollary to the first point,  these “rights” qua “protocols” take precedence over the laws of the individual member Nations of the EU. Thus, the European Commission and European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, have political, legal, and legislative authority and control over each of the member State Governments. Third, while several of these protocols may seem on their face, at first glance, to be eminently fair—as a few allude to our own fundamental rights as set forth in our Bill of Rights—still, there is a major difference between the EU protocols set forth in the "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" and the Bill of Rights of the United States; for, every one of the European prootocols comes with conditions attached, as specifically set forth in the Articles, that reduces the protocols to a set of nonsensical rather than commonsensical "rights and freedoms. For, unlike our Nation's Bill of Rights, the protocols of the European Union operate with built-in constraints on the free exercise of such presumed "rights." And, it is through those conditions, which follow the recitation of the purported "rights" that it becomes manifestly clear that the engineers who constructed the "rights" intended them to be understood to be mere man-made creations--subject to modification, suspension, or outright abrogation at the whim and caprice of the overseers of the European Union. Thus, the "rights" (or protocols as they are often referred to) are understood not to be the creation of the Divine Creator, and, therefore, are understood not to be preordained in the people, unlike the rights that comprise our own Nation’s Bill of Rights, which renders them legally incapable of being modified, weakened, suspended, ignored, or altogether abrogated by Government.Unlike the natural, fundamental, primordial, immutable, unalienable rights of the American people, as codified lovingly by the framers of our Constitution into the Bill of Rights, the "rights" referred to in the EU's Convention" are all constructs of Government, subject to the EU Government’s built-in conditions that operate as constraints and as restraints on the exercise of any right or freedom. In that regard, it is incumbent on those who peruse the European Union's Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to realize, fourth, that the protocols are worthless, even as they seem pertinent and demonstrative of tangible force and efficacy. For the Human Rights the EU speaks of clearly are not to be perceived as a check on or guard against Government encroachment on the lives, thoughts, and actions of the people of the EU, but, rather, as simple Rules of Etiquette as between one person and another. Also, pay close attention to Article 15 of the Protocol, titled, “Derogation in Time of Emergency.”  To wit: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”Essentially, Article 15 means that each of the “Rights” set forth in the preceding “Articles 1 through 14” of Section I of the Convention, may be suspended when the overseers of the EU deem suspension of rights to be necessary, namely, when the the EU's overseers then determine what state of affairs operates as a “public emergency.” There is no debate; no appeal by any person or by any member Nation. While, it may be noted that secret (with particular emphasis on the word, ‘secret’) Executive Orders may exist in our own Nation that might serve to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and other Rights and Liberties of our Bill of Rights when public exigency demands, such secret U.S. Presidential Executive Order—if such does exist (and there may be more than one such secret Order)—is prima facie Constitutionally unlawful, and therefore invalid. See, Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (Circuit Court, D. Maryland) (April 1861, Term).Government--any Government, including our own--may, through dint of power, prevail on subduing the populace, but power to act against the people does not equate with right. In any event, an armed citizenry--our armed citizenry--is the ultimate guard against ("failsafe")  against misuse of power by the Government against the citizenry—and 'misuse of power' here is meant to be used in reference to "misuse of power" by any of the Three Branches of our Government, as against the citizenry. This brings us to the Fifth  and final point pertaining to the EU's Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Not one of the 14 Articles of “Rights” says anything about a right of individual citizens within a Nation of the EU to possess firearms. Fancy that? Was this just an oversight? Obviously, not. For, only an armed citizen can enforce rights that Government would seek to constrain, ignore, or revoke. Article 15 provides for and reserves one very specific right for itself, that it bestows only on itself: the right, as pointed out supra, to suspend or abrogate any of the 14 other purported rights mentioned in the Convention. It would hardly do for the EU to provide for the citizens' right to keep and bear arms--even if only understood as a man-made construct--for an armed citizenry might have much to say about Government that would dare reserve for itself the overriding, ultimate right to suspend or abrogate all of the protocols--Article 1 through 14--of the EU Convention. That would prove exceedingly difficult were the populations of the EU armed. For the populations could then really and truly compel the EU Government, to honor and commit to the rights and freedoms that it so pompously and sanctimoniously presents to the populations of the EU, through the Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That the EU Government fails, then, to provide for the right of the populations of the EU to keep and bear arms--even if such right as articulated specifically mentioned, as its stated purpose, the right of self-defense--that should tell the populations of the EU all it needs to know about the speciousness of Articles 1 through 14 of the Convention. For, clearly it isn't misuse of firearms by the occasional lunatic or criminal that frightens the EU overseers. It is, rather, the very real power existent in the populations of the EU that the overseers fear if the populations of the EU are armed. The EU, after all, belongs to the Rothschild clan and to the other architects of the EU. Only the police and military, who serve the EU, not the public, will be permitted to have access to firearms. And, the overseers, themselves, will equip themselves with firearms to protect themselves from the public if the public should at long last realize that the EU does not serve the interests of the public; that the EU overlords never intended to serve the interests of the public; that the EU overlords never did serve the interests of the public; that the EU was never  created to serve the public; and that the EU overlords will not, ever, serve the interests of the public. Rather the architects of the EU intended the populations of Europe to serve as mere subjects and serfs of the EU overlords, themselves. And with each passing day, that fact becomes ever clearer. The overlords of the EU operate with impunity. Their power increases. The Government of the EU becomes more entrenched; the lives of the public worsens. Their rights and freedoms--if such ever existed--is a thing of the past. If they truly expect to regain rights and freedoms, they will first have to reclaim their own Nation's sovereignty and independence from the EU puppet masters.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A LICENSE TO KILL: NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019 AMOUNTS TO “LAWFUL” MURDER

PART EIGHT

ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, LEADER OF THE STATE AND A ROMAN CATHOLIC, NOT ONLY SANCTIONS MURDER OF INNOCENT LIVES, BUT, THROUGH AN UNQUESTIONED AT-WILL ABORTION POLICY, HE TACITLY ENCOURAGES THE TAKING OF LIFE OF INNOCENT AMERICAN INFANTS

And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon. 2 Kings 24:2 - 24:5 King James Version (KJV)These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look; a lying tongue; and hands that shed innocent blood; An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief; A false witness that speaketh lies; and he that soweth discord among brethren.~2 Kings 24:4 King James verison, Proverbs 6:16-19 King James Version (KJV)Governor Cuomo’s dangerous policy objectives and initiatives do not rest solely on his disdain for the Second Amendment. He also demonstrated a desire, indeed, a passion to upend all New York laws that had hitherto restrained abortion. With enactment of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, New York has now removed any constraint or restraint on abortion. The Governor muscled through his reprehensible abortion policy through the Democratic Party controlled New York Legislature, just as he had previously muscled through his horrible antigun policy. He did this with cold, calculated, laser-focused intention and resolveOnce enacted in Albany, it was a mere formality for Cuomo to sign the deceptively titled, “Reproductive Health Act of 2019,” into law. The 2019 Act, doesn’t promote health, any more than the 2013 NY Safe Act ensures safety from gun violence. Instead the “Reproductive Health Act of 2019” destroys life, the most innocent life, and it is now, all oh so nice and legal in New York to do so.How was Cuomo able to do this? He was able to accomplish this by sleight-of-hand. Heretofore, abortion was a crime in New York. But, with Democrats presently in control of both Houses of the Legislature in Albany--the Assembly and the State Senate--Cuomo encouraged and cajoled the Legislature into striking the word, ‘abortion,’ from the New York Penal Code and from other New York Statutes—wherever the the term, ‘abortion,’ appeared. This then opened the door to legally sanctioned murder, infanticide. Peculiarly and insidiously, Cuomo dares proclaim late-term abortion—abortion literally up to the moment of birth—to be a fundamental right even though nothing in the U.S. Constitution remotely supports such an absurd notion.* Cuomo and other supporters of late-term, essentially at-will, abortion believe that an audacious proclamation raising licensed murder to the level of a Constitutional right can pass Constitutional scrutiny. But, is that so? It is only a matter of time before New York’s Reproductive Health Act will be challenged in the Courts.

NEW YORK'S CARDINAL TIMOTHY DOLAN CALLS GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO OUT OVER THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019: CUOMO'S  LICENSE TO KILL

As the battle over abortion-murder brews in the States and is fought over in our Nation’s Courts, the horror over this act of legalized murder isn’t lost on the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.Cardinal Dolan took Cuomo to task in blunt, forceful language, asserting in his Op-Ed appearing in the New York Post:“I’m thinking first of the ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law, which allows for an abortion right up to the moment of birth; drops all charges against an abortionist who allows an aborted baby, who somehow survives the scissors, scalpel, saline and dismemberment, to die before his eyes; mandates that, to make an abortion more convenient and easy, a physician need not perform it; and might even be used to suppress the conscience rights of health care professionals not to assist in the grisly procedures. All this in a state that already had the most permissive abortion laws in the country.As if that’s not enough, instead of admitting that abortion is always a tragic choice, and that life-giving alternatives should be more vigorously promoted, the governor and his ‘progressive’ supporters celebrated signing the bill. At the governor’s command, even the lights of the Freedom Tower sparkled with delight.Those who once told us that abortion had to remain safe, legal and rare now have made it dangerous, imposed and frequent.Then our governor insults and caricatures the church in what’s supposed to be an uplifting and unifying occasion, his ‘State of the State’ address.”The National Catholic Register ran Cardinal Dolan’s direct and vehement denunciation. And, it is patently clear that Cardinal Dolan isn’t simply venting his righteous outrage and indignation upon New York’s abortion Act that legally sanctions the murder of innocent lives, but is directing his outrage on the Governor Cuomo, since, after all, the Governor is the author of the Reproductive Health Act, and bears ultimate responsibility for it. Real blame rests, then, on Cuomo himself, for forcing through this abortion Act abomination in the State Legislature, and, in so, doing, making New York the Abortion Capital of the Country. Cardinal Dolan makes his disgust of Governor Cuomo, a Roman Catholic himself, crystal clear, as Cuomo's actions bespeak a direct attack on the Church itself!“ ‘Andrew Cuomo has insulted the Church, flaunted publicly his dissent from Catholic doctrine, and celebrated the Jan. 22 signing of the state’s ‘ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law.’Cardinal Dolan’s criticisms of Cuomo were direct: “Why would he publicly brag in a political address about his dissent from timeless and substantive Church belief? Why would he quote Pope Francis out of context as an applause line to misrepresent us bishops here as being opposed to our Holy Father? Why did he reduce the sexual abuse of minors, a broad societal and cultural curse that afflicts every family, public school, religion and government program, to a ‘Catholic problem?’”“I’m a pastor, not a politician, but I feel obliged to ask these questions, as daily do I hear them from my people, as well as colleagues from other creeds. I’ve been attacked in the past when I asked — sadly and reluctantly — if the party that my folks proudly claimed as their own, the Democrats, had chosen to alienate faithful Catholic voters. Now you know why I asked,” Cardinal Dolan added.Cardinal Dolan said that while the state’s Democrats purport to be progressive, their recent abortion bill is anything but.”Cardinal Dolan does not stand alone in his directed outrage toward Governor Cuomo. Cardinal Dolan has supporters in New York, standing firmly with him, including some Democrats, notably the Democrats for the Life of America. The National Catholic Register reports,In a Jan. 29 statement, the group said: “Abortion is big business in New York, with unlimited public funding and an abortion rate twice the national average. The governor’s new law will not address the high abortion rate, nor will it help pregnant women who feel pressured or coerced into abortion. The law will help influential and financially flush abortion corporations increase their customer base and profit margin. One in three aborted children were African-American, and one in four were Hispanic. The new law further exploits women, particularly minority populations who are overrepresented in these numbers,” the group said.“We call on New York legislators — particularly Democrats — to embark on a mission to make New York, the state, have the lowest abortion rate in the nation. The estimated $18 million that would be spent yearly on abortion could be put toward programs to prevent pregnancy, including contraction and sex education, prenatal and postnatal health care, public housing, affordable child care and paid maternity leave. Furthermore, we recommend outreach to minority communities to vastly bring down the perceived targeting of women and babies of color.”“As Democrats, we advocate for progressive solutions to problems facing the weakest in society: the poor, minorities, women and children — even if they are yet to be born. New York should repeal this anti-women law, and no other state should replicate it,” the statement added.The National Catholic Register added, in its article, this critical point about Excommunication from the Catholic Church:While Cardinal Dolan has been outspoken in his opposition to the abortion law and Cuomo’s support for it, some Catholics have called for him to excommunicate or impose some other canonical sanctions on the governor, but Cardinal Dolan has recently indicated he is unlikely to do so. The cardinal’s office did not respond to a request from CNA for comments on that possibility. Excommunication from the Church is an extremely serious action, reserved for the most serious of transgressions against the Church. But is excommunication of the Roman Catholic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, practicable, even if clearly warranted, as it is here?

WHAT IS EXCOMMUNICATION?

The website Vatican.com explains the act of 'Excommunication':“Excommunication was a method used by the Roman Catholic Church to exclude one of its members from participating in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. The Roman Catholic Church operates as a society and therefore has the right to excommunicate any of its members, either temporarily or permanently. . . if they go against the church’s constitution and teachings or do not operate within the given authority. According to the Roman Catholic Church, excommunication is the most serious ecclesiastical penalty.” Governor Cuomo must answer the charge. What does he do? Like the adept and cunning rhetorician that Cuomo is, he attempts to reconcile Catholic stricture against abortion with his public policy avidly supporting abortion. As reported in the Weblog, The Deacon’s Bench, Cuomo tries to parry Cardinal Dolan's strident criticism:“I was educated in religious schools, and I am a former altar boy. My Roman Catholic values are my personal values. The decisions I choose to make in my life, or in counseling my daughters, are based on my personal moral and religious beliefs.Thanks to the nation’s founders, no elected official is empowered to make personal religious beliefs the law of the land. My oath of office is to the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York — not to the Catholic Church. My religion cannot demand favoritism as I execute my public duties.”Cuomo cannot and does not refute what amounts to demonstrable hypocrisy, try as he might, for there is an inherent problem with Cuomo’s sanctimonious remarks. Catholic stricture condemns murder; but, then, the laws and Constitutions of both this Nation and of New York condemn murder, too! There is no safe harbor for Cuomo and others of the Radical Left on the matter.** The intentional taking of innocent human life is contrary to God's will, and, therefore, no less contrary to what may be otherwise deemed a justifiable act of man.  ___________________________________________*Cuomo’s statements to the contrary, the New York abortion law permits abortion at any stage of pregnancy, up to the very moment of birth. This is clear from the text of the actual Act. See AQ article.**Abortion, the intentional taking of a human life sans any ethical justification, such as to secure the life of the mother, is a homicide, the unjustified taking of human life: namely, manslaughter or murder. The New York Penal Code, NY CLS Penal § 125.27 of Article 125, Homicide and Related Offenses, of Part Three of the Penal Code of New York, defines the crime of 'murder' in the first degree' as follows: "A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person and [specific conditions set forth]. Note: while 'abortion', in New York historically and technically fell under the serious crime of manslaughter, and not, murder, even when conducted with intent, it was nonetheless still a homicide in New York, and therefore punishable as such, with serious penalties attached. Abortion was defined as a specific form of  homicide, falling within the purview of Manslaughter, either in the first degree or second degree, both forms of which were specifically and categorically repealed on January 22, 2019, as specifically set forth in the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, enacted on January 22, 2019. There is, at present, no crime under which abortion falls, in New York. It is for this reason that abortion may be performed at any time, for any reason whether self-induced or performed by a third party, in New York, regardless of both newspaper accounts and the accounts of other pro-abortion apologists to the contrary. If there is no penalty associated with an act, there is in effect, no crime, and there is no  longer any crime of abortion in New York. Understandably, and certainly unsurprisingly, many, many non-residents are traveling to New York for the very purpose of having an abortion. This is likely to continue and gather speed in the future, especially as some States are enacting laws to curb abortion. Hence, New York will likely become, and be known as, the abortion Capital of the Nation, as well as the Nation's financial hub. ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK SANCTIONS MURDER THROUGH ENACTMENT OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019

Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.These two reprehensible policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies. With his political clout Cuomo forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter into law, recently, on January 22, 2019.The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as most laws do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But a perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public.The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. A person has difficulty finding them all, as they are peppered throughout the New York State Code. Once found, their meaning is difficult to discern and fathom, even for lawyers, as the verbiage is ambiguous and vague. Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or due to a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.Cuomo exclaims that he is more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act makes the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as it becomes an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety and everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability.It should come as no surprise then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a measure that amounts to legally sanctioned murder in the case of the State’s new “Reproductive Health Act,” for it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets. Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ When Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in a broad sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called utilitarian consequentialism. This is an ethical system devoid of reference to or concern with a person’s intentions and motivations; only with the results of one’s actions. Motives and intentions fall out of the equation entirely. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective.The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is nebulous. It means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means; nothing more. Utilitarian consequentialism an ethically bankrupt system as is ‘utility maximization, underlying it since, for the utilitarian consequentialist, good and evil are relative to times and circumstances. They aren’t, contrary to a person’s expectations. with the notion of fundamental rights and liberties, as relative concepts derived from and created by man, not by God.Not surprisingly, utilitarian consequentialists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but only for that of an amorphous mass. Thus, Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, does not express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the individual souls of the body politic, but only concern for the well-being and welfare of the collective, “the hive.” Understandably, Andrew Cuomo would help draft the text of, avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Both these Acts have a decisive, negative impact on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen. Cuomo and others attempt to hide the awful impact of these schemes on Americans. They do this through carefully conceived and orchestrated campaigns of deception.Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it. Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system. But he thrusts his beliefs and belief system on others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in utilizing that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse, thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, as with so many other Collectivists that comprise the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs, and unmindful and, indeed, disdainful for the thoughts and feelings of others.As a private citizen of the United States, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate and express any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right--the right of free speech--as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor of New York, one would hope the Governor would be circumspect. He isn't. As a Public Official, Cuomo thrusts his belief system onto others. He now harms everyone; and what he has ordained cannot and ought not be countenanced; and, indeed, ought to be roundly and soundly condemned.Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. Cuomo operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist. Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, he operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and may therefore be erased from existence.

GOVERNOR CUOMO DEMONSTRATES NO RELUCTANCE IN DENYING, TO A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS--A RIGHT CLEARLY CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, YET HE DEMONSTRATES, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, A WILLINGNESS TO READ INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE VIEWS AS INHERENT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EVEN THOUGH SUCH NOTION IS NEITHER EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION NOR IMPLIED.

Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Cuomo dares to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. And, having done so, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.Contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. But, with enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, an oxymoron, the State of York now sanctions murder, and has the audacity of raising murder to the level of a fundamental right.How does Cuomo and other proponents literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child. But, where in the Constitution does this right of presumptive privacy for the mother over the life and well-being of the unborn child exist? The answer is: nowhere.Privacy is nowhere mentioned in any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and certainly not in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution subsequent amendment to the U.S Constitution. To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise. The concept of ‘privacy’ is abstract and vague. Certainly, no sane argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child equates with a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The framers of the Constitution could not have feasibly, rationally have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise.Now, one may argue that a general right to privacy, apart from the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right of each American to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures does, arguably, exist as an unenumerated right of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but, again, no one can reasonably construe the idea of the assault on the life of an unborn child as something that is to be subsumed in or as something that can rationally be subsumed in a general notion of privacy, even if only as an unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment. Further, although there have been attempts to interject privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn child.The New York abortion law dares raise abortion to the level of a substantive, fundamental right. It does so despite the absence of either a clear legal or moral foundation for it. And for those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child. They do not wish to contend with that fact. But, if pressed, supporters of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child isn’t a person. The unborn child is simply perceived as a nonentity. Advocates of abortion thereupon deny to the unborn child the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Act, and in the New York Safe Act. Both acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act demonstrates a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a cost: the concomitant loss of any benefit accruing to the individual.Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent beings. Thus, the proponents of abortion on demand, claim to maximize a benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of the most critical need of all—life itself—as it is individuals who suffer the consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER

Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by amending New York law: by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other laws related to and regarding abortion.A new section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:"A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion, when according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health."Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion after the third trimester, one loses sight of the fact that the Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. Whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether during the first, second, or third trimester. In other words, abortion should not be countenanced at any point during pregnancy.Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may conduct an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give anyone pause.Third, when analyzing the Act, one should pay attention to how the Reproductive Health Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten.Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly to proscribe abortions during the third trimester, in fact abortions are now perfectly legal in New York up to the point of birth of the child.Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. This means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:

• A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
• death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
• death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;

(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(e)A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”What does this Section of New York law mean? It means abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time.Where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York.What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that:  Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse. Consider the following scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, loses the baby. While the attacker can can be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot no longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.We can thus extrapolate from the law the following, where a pregnant woman is attacked an loses a child as a result of the attack:The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. Since abortion is no longer a crime, the loss of the child from the abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. But that misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., the death of the child—caused by the perpetrator’s attack on the mother. He cannot!Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. It is as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.