AMERICA'S BILL OF RIGHTS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF COLLAPSE

ROTHSCHILD GAME PLAN TO OVERTURN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: FIRST CONTROL SPEECH, THEN CONTROL GUNS

PART ONE

THE “OPEN SOCIETY”: CODE FOR TOTAL CONTROL OF MANKIND

Words are traps for the unwary. In the hands of the adept proselytizer, they can kill a person just as assuredly as a bullet through the brain, a knife through the heart, or a potassium cyanide capsule in the stomach. But words are more facile than guns, knives, or potassium cyanide. For words target the mind. They target the thoughts of men. In the hands of the skilled practitioner, words can sway the emotions, or stir the intellect. They can educate or indoctrinate. They can confuse or elucidate. They can inspire a person to act in a beneficial direction or can propel a person to rabid violence. They can motivate or demotivate. They can instill confidence and self-assurance or infuse timidity, passivity, and anxiety. They can generate pride of self and Country; or they can engender self-loathing and repudiation of the nobility of Self and Country.  Malicious, malevolent forces that crush nations know this, of course. In the age of the smartphone, these forces can reach billions of people in nanoseconds, and they have done so; and continue to do so: incessantly, noxiously, ramping up their messaging, and clamping down on dissent. Americans, especially, need to be cognizant of this, as the Nation is rapidly approaching an inflection point: The United States either survives as a true Free Constitutional Republic that the founders of our Republic gave us, or falls into ruin, never again to rise in prominence; never again to exist as a small bright beacon of hope and freedom in a broad, dark, dank strife-ridden world. The Country is at a dichotomous point in its history. The American people can, through a stout heart and a firm grip on their firearms, rekindle a zest in freedom and liberty—the rallying cry against the forces of tyranny. Or they can return to a state of internment, succumbing to defeatism fear, and doubt, constantly projected by the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist instigators and agitators of the Rothschild dynasty. Since the earliest days of the Republic, the Rothschild internationalist banking dynasty expected to obtain and maintain complete control over the North American continent, and that included control over the English colonies in America, as their end-goal was and is world domination. That was always in their sight. The colonists didn’t much care to be a part of the Rothschilds’ game plan. They had other plans: freedom from tyranny and their Declaration of Independence from Tyranny made that singular aim crystal clear to those whose objective was and is the destruction of the Republic and the emergence of a one-world government, grounded on the tenets of Collectivism.Rothschilds’ first attempt at subjugating the American colonies was transparent and overt: the American Revolutionary War.Through its command of King George’s immense military, the banking dynasty sought to bring quickly to heel what it perceived as a mere ragtag band of malcontented colonists. That didn’t go so well. The Rothschild dynasty and their stooge, George III, lost control of the colonies.The physical loss of the colonies was painful enough for the Rothschild dynasty and for its principal toadies, King George III and the English Parliament. But more painful to the Rothschilds and for their stooges was the personal affront to their egos. So, from the nascent days of the American Republic, the Rothschild dynasty plotted, schemed, and machinated to bring the United States to its knees. And, in the ensuing years, they decided on a different tack to destroy the Country. They conjured up, and through the passing years and decades, they refined an entirely new plan to retake the Country. As overt use of the British military to defeat America’s patriots failed, the Rothschilds devised a covert plan. This one would take a goodly amount of time, money, and organizational ability, all of which they had and now their descendants have in marked abundance. They implemented a plan to destroy the Nation from within. The Rothschilds took under their wing a new and massive collection of underlings, situating them throughout the Federal and State Governments. They showered these sociopaths and rank opportunists with money and the trappings of power and let them loose on the Nation. The Rothschilds found it far easier to consolidate their power over and eventually did take control over, great swathes of western Europe. This included control of a few Baltic States as well, resulting in the creation of a new political, social, economic, and juridical structure: the European Union. But even as they controlled the Commonwealth Nations and even as they gained control over the EU, the prize jewel for them was and is the United States. The demoralization and debasement of the American people and the dismantling of the Republic remained, always, their first and primary focus.And, as the U.S. in time grew increasingly more powerful economically, militarily, geopolitically, and technologically, the Rothschild’s appetite for unfettered control over “the colonies” grew exponentially as well.They intend to remake and control all of western civilization, carving out their share of a world empire be controlled by them and Communist China. The Rothschilds' share of the spoils would include the remains of all western nation-states. And, since the turn of the 21^st Century, both they and their minions have instituted a particularly vicious and virulent, all-encompassing campaign to destroy the sovereignty and independence of these nation-states. But they don’t talk of a “new world order.” No! The catchword for world domination is cloaked in a seemingly innocuous phrase: “the Open Society.”The Rothschilds appointed their darling child, George Soros, to oversee this Herculean task to fuse western nation-states into a new world order, referred to euphemistically as the “Open Society,” to hide its sinister plot for world domination. Dig deep and you find the name George Soros plastered all over this Open Society effort. The Open Society isn’t the path to the liberation of mankind but to its total subjugation. It is a blueprint for the systematic subjugation of billions of people, worldwide, under the guise of liberation. It is a bold, elaborate, insidious plan for domination of all people and all countries. It is no less than a plot to install worldwide tyranny on the mass of humanity. And, it is coming faster than many Americans would like to think, even as they do feel it in their bones.The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution has no place in the opprobrious Rothschild/Soros Open Society. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution has no place in a colossal world empire that seeks to control the lives of billions of people; must control such large masses of people if it is not to fall of its own ponderous weight. Such an enterprise requires unity of thought and expression of all people. There is no place in such a world for individual expression; no place for privacy. And there certainly is no place in such a world for armed citizens who prefer to control their own destiny, free from Government interference; free from militarized police harassment; free from the all-seeing eye of a colossal intelligence apparatus. And, the inklings of the positioning and emplacement of this mammoth beast overlaid on our free Constitutional Republic and on all western countries are all around us._________________________________

JUST HOW IMPORTANT ARE AMERICA’S FREEDOM TO DISSENT AND FREEDOM TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? THEY ARE EVERYTHING TO OUR NATION’S SURVIVAL AS A FREE REPUBLIC!

PART TWO

With the advent of advances in information technology, the destructive forces of tyranny have gained proficiency in blanketing the national and international political and social landscapes of western nation-states, especially our own, with massive disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, mass censorship, and information blackout campaigns in a blatant attempt to control all thought and action, with the intent of weakening the resolve of free people to resist tyranny.Fissures have opened up in the EU. Hungary and Poland, in particular, have fought against the Rothschild EU. And, of late America’s closest neighbor to the North, Canada, has begun to rebel against tyranny. The Rothschild Government and legacy Press toadies both here and in Canada don’t like what they see. And as western nations have used the pretext of the CCP Coronavirus to clamp down on basic freedoms in both Countries and in western countries around the world, it is also becoming patently clear that these countries are working in concert. More to the point, it is clear that the Rothschild Biden and Trudeau stooges have been working in concert to destroy basic freedoms of the commonalty in both Countries. But the U.S. does have something that Canada and no other nation on Earth has—a true Bill of Rights. No tyranny can long persist where the commonalty bear firearms, as firearms are the only potent defense against predatory animal, predatory man, or predatory government. Both Nations have a Bill of Rights, but there is no mention explicit or implicit of a right of the people of Canada to keep and bear arms. And, even, as to the rights delineated, those rights do not exist as a thing beyond the power of Parliament to modify, abridge, or abrogate. This is clear in paragraph 2 (“Construction of Laws”) of Canada’s Bill of Rights “Part 1”):“Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, . . . .”  This means that the Parliament of Canada is the source of all laws of which “Rights” are in Canada are one such set of laws. Since all rights, in Canada, are construed as man-made laws of Parliament, those rights may be abrogated, abridged or infringed if “expressly declared by an Act of Parliament” to effectuate the intent to do so. And, even then, it hardly matters whether an express intent of Parliament to destroy a right exists or not. The Head stooge of Parliament, Justin Trudeau, doesn’t answer to the people or, for that matter, even to the ostensible representatives of the people in Parliament. He answers to his superiors.See, e.g., articles in LifeSite, Redvoice Media, and Breitbart.  Of course, here in the United States, the Great Stooge in Chief, Joe Biden, and the other Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Rothschild Government shills and toadies don’t adhere to the dictates Congressional Statute, much less do they feel need to abide by the dictates of the Constitution—especially the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. They have systematically squashed the Freedom of Speech, and the attendant to Right of Free Speech, Freedom of Association. Both are in immediate peril.Exercise of the inalienable right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures no longer exists as it has been de facto repealed. See, e.g., report in Republic world and Fox News report.But, while the U.S. Government stooges routinely and perfunctorily ignore or dismiss fundamental rights and liberties, as well as Congressional Statutes, these stooges are hesitant to confiscate Americans’ firearms in bulk. They don’t dare do so, and that enrages the Government. In the interim Anti-American State and local Governments have taken up the slack to enact or attempt to enact a flurry of anti-Second Amendment stopgap measures to constrain and restrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms.And the Federal Government mulls over the use of Executive Orders, Congressional legislation, and promulgation of ATF Rules in defiance of both the Second Amendment guarantee and U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald precedents.The Government is deliberately shaking a hornets’ nest.______________________________________

IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVOKING AMERICA’S ARMED CITIZENRY INTO OPEN CONFRONTATION?

PART THREE

As long as the majority of Americans cherish their God-given right to keep and bear firearms and as long as they make clear their intention to hold onto their firearms, regardless of Government strongarm tactics to disarm them, the forces that seek to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic must exercise caution and circumspection before commencing wholesale confiscation of the citizenry’s firearms. So, at the moment, they must resort to a war of words to ensnare the mind, and they are good at it. The puppet-masters propagandists are actively, avidly at work to change the public’s perception of firearms. They are attempting to instill fear and abhorrence of firearms in the psyche of the public, and are encouraging millions of Americans to turn on those Americans who intend to hold fast to their firearms. And the Government’s stooges, with the assistance of a sympathetic Press, have instilled an abhorrence of firearms in the mind of many average Americans. As many Americans don't see a purpose to having firearms and/or have a deep-seated personal distaste of them, the Government's psychological-conditioning program had no discernible effect on them other than to reinforce their internal stance against firearms and firearms possession. Still, tens of millions of Americans do possess firearms, and they see a need for them if only a personal need; a need attendant to self-defense and/or hunting and/or target shooting as a sport, unrelated to a check on the tyranny of Government, the salient need for an armed citizenry.The Government's propagandists hope to gradually wean most of these Americans off their desire to possess any firearms, as many of these Americans buy into the imbecilic notion that Americans don't need certain kinds of weapons, i.e., “weapons of war,” “assault weapons,” and component parts of such weapons for such purposes as hunting, target shooting, or self-defense. No mention is made at all of the need for adequate firearms to check, thwart, and repel tyranny and of the simple, basis right of Americans to keep and bear firearms, notwithstanding Government's objection to them.The fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms—be those weapons shotguns, rifles, single-shot pistols, revolvers, semiautomatic firearms, select-fire weapons, submachine guns, and so forth—is not limited to what a government deigns to permit the American citizen to own and possess if any at all. The naiveté of those Americans who think otherwise, along with those Americans who have an inborn deep-seated repugnance of guns or otherwise simply see no need in having them, are attitudes that can very well result in the death of all of us as a free people as most Americans do realize the imminent danger of tyranny that is pressing down on our free Republic.And what, then, is to be made of us—tens of millions of Americans who remain—who recognize the imminent danger of tyranny and its inherent threat to the sovereignty of the American people over Government? Such Americans have resisted psychological conditioning and are immune to the dissembling of the puppet-masters propagandists.The Destroyers of freedom and liberty may feel confident enough to use strong-arm tactics against us. And there are still, a goodly number of us, tens of millions of Americans—who adamantly refuse to submit to Government tyranny. There are, playing out in the United States, two incompatible visions of the world. One might need seriously to consider: what happens when an irresistible force meets an equally immovable object. A bloodbath is likely to result. An irresistible force and an immovable object are both omnipotent. One cannot exist in the same universe as the other. The philosophical conjecture has real-world consequences. A free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people either continue to exist or they cease to exist: The Rothschild/Soros Open Society new world order destroys this Nation and completely supplants the nation-state paradigm and subjugates the mass of mankind or the American people prevail, and the sanctity and inviolability of the human Soul vanquishes the ruthless forces that dare to crush man into submission. It is one or the other. They are polar opposites. They cannot co-exist in the same reality.If Americans prevail in the coming conflict, the Rothschild/Soros Reality will dissipate. Having secreted itself, unbidden, into the world of the Divine Creator, to wreak its havoc, it will ooze back into the nether, hell-universe from which it arose, and this Nation will at long last be done with it.And, so, matters, as they stand, are rapidly coalescing to a breaking point.It is no accident that one thoroughly contemptible member of Congress, Senator Adam Kinzinger, should recently exclaim that ‘civil war’ may be on the horizon. On the left-leaning website, Real Clear Politics, there is this: “Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) said we cannot trivialize the possibility of a civil war in an appearance on ‘The View’ on Thursday. Kinzinger said a modern-day civil war would include assassinations and armed groups moving against other armed groups.‘If you think somehow that this is going away or that you can downplay this, you can’t,’ Kinzinger said. ‘And I've got to tell you, in five or ten years history is going to judge this quite accurately by 99% of Americans that know the truth. I would not want to be on the side of lies and conspiracy right now. And that’s what we're fighting for is to make sure that our kids get the truth, unvarnished, in the history books that they learn from.’ Kinzinger speaks about his fear of a possible civil war based on the belief that the election was stolen by former President Donald Trump and his supporters.‘I think we have to recognize that possibility,’ Kinzinger said. ‘In the past, I’ve said, ‘Oh, we don’t want to talk about it because, you know, I don't want to make it likely.' Well, let’s look at where we are. A civil war isn't what it was in the 19th century. It's not state against state, blue against gray. It's going to be armed groups against armed groups, targeted assassination, violence.’‘That's what a 21st and 20th century civil war is,’ Kinzinger continued. ‘I don’t think we have to say, you know, we’re identifying now by our race, by our ethnic group, we're separating ourselves and we live in different realities. I don't think it’s too far of a bridge to think that’s a possibility, and I think we have to warn and talk about it so that we can recognize that and fight hard against it, and put our country over our parties because our survival actually matters.’”And, another weblog, with the quirky name, “Boing Boing,” says this: “Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill) warned CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday that whitewashing the insurrection is ‘extremely dangerous.’ So dangerous, in fact, that ‘if there was a word even more intense than 'dangerous' I would use that,’ he said.Of course the GOP's strategy of downplaying the attack on the Capitol has snowballed to avalanche proportion, with Trump now promising to pardon the insurrectionists if he becomes president again.Kinzinger told Blitzer that a year ago, he never would have said there was a chance of civil war. But now? ‘It is not a far thought, Wolf, that someday, some militia shows up somewhere to do something, and then some counter-militia shows up, and truly at that point that is how you end up in a civil war.’‘Am I hearing you right, Congressman? You fear, potentially, there could be a civil war here in the United States?’‘I do. . . . We would be naive to think it's not possible here…’ Kinzinger said. ‘Our basic survival is at stake, the basic survival of this democracy.’”See also the article in the British Guardian, and the article in Breitbart. Likely nothing comes out of Kinzinger’s mouth that the Rothschild clan’s puppet masters hadn’t conceived of and precipitated, and filtered down to its minions.With the 2022 November midterms rapidly approaching, and with Pelosi’s ability to milk the January 6 star chamber committee hearing is beginning to weary the public, even as the puppet Kinzinger attempts to jump-start the public’s attention on it, a new pretext to clamp down on the threat posed by tens of millions of armed citizens is needed. If all those “militias” don’t oblige the Destroyers of our Nation to take up arms against the Government on their own initiative, and if the puppet-masters cannot push Americans to commence armed conflict against Government tyranny—well that tyrannical Government may feel it necessary to manufacture a little “civil war” on its own to nudge conflict out into the open and thereby rationalize the confiscation of firearms en masse.  Don’t put it past them to do so! Given all that we have seen to date from this Government, anything is possible. But it must be on their heads, not ours if that should happen. Don’t be egged on by their words but by their actions. The forces that crush are desperate. They need to drive the public to desperation as well, but they need an ostensibly plausible excuse to let loose the police and military on the public.A free Constitutional Republic and a free, sovereign American people cannot falter and fall as long as the citizenry remains armed. But a major program to confiscate firearms in bulk cannot commence without a major pretext to disarm the citizenry. Kinzinger is one flunky who is attempting to infect the citizenry’s psyche with two viral memes: ‘civil war’ and ‘militias.’ Does the Tyrannical Federal Government want this? Perhaps. Does it feel confident it can succeed in it? Only if the majority of the citizenry is behind the Government on this.__________________________

THERE IS NO FREEDOM AND LIBERTY WHERE A COUNTRY’S CITIZENRY IS DISARMED

PART FOUR

It is not by accident that the expressions, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty are coming under fire. After all, Government, whether modeled as an outright dictatorship or as a benign, seemingly benevolent democratic construct, is a constant threat to the sanctity and inviolability of the human Soul. The Founders of our Federal Government knew this, and their meticulous construction of a Government that would function within a free Constitutional Republic, with all the safeguards employed in the Articles of the U.S. Constitution, though absolutely necessary to prevent tyranny, would not of itself be sufficient guard against tyranny.Where there is Government, even Representative Government, such as ours, there tyranny always lingers in the shadows. The Nation’s Bill of Rights alone prevents incursion of tyranny. And the Antifederalists demanded an express delineation of fundamental, immutable, unlimited God-given Rights, beyond the power of Government to modify, abrogate, deny or ignore.These fundamental, natural rights would serve alone as a shield, the ultimate safeguard against inevitable Government encroachment on freedom and liberty. For, the founders knew full well that, even a Government such as ours, with limited, carefully demarcated powers would eventually subvert the will of the people. And we are seeing that occurring and with rapidity now.Evidence of encroaching tyranny on our people is everywhere, and it is glaring.Information disseminated is deceptive. Dissent is heavily controlled or censored. Privacy is nonexistent. Petitions are denied out-of-hand. Average American citizens face unlawful detention. They have been systematically brutalized and ostracized for their political, social, and even religious beliefs. Government has infiltrated Americans’ associations and harassed its members, even attempting to seduce them into committing crimes so that they Government can shut them down.Government no longer even bothers to hide wide-range violations and abuses of fundamental rights and liberties. But a final lockdown on freedom and liberty eludes them. Government cannot so easily confiscate physical objects without escaping the notice of their deed. A citizen’s firearms cannot so easily be taken from him. But Government will try; is trying all the time to do just that—at the moment, through incremental efforts.And this Government, our Government is tiring of utilizing half-measures. The Government wants to seize the massive stockpile of citizenry’s firearms. This is no secret. The toadies have made the aim OF Government clear. But, the paramount question is——Can the U.S. Government really succeed in disarming the American populace?Can the U.S. Government as easily disarm the American populace as the Governments of the two Commonwealth Nations, New Zealand and Australia have been able to disarm their populations? This is not likely, since the two Commonwealth Countries, along with every other Country on Earth, apart from our own, do not recognize the God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms as a potent check on tyranny. The United States is the one holdout Nation.At some point the would-be Destroyers of our Country will try to disarm Americans, as try they must if the Rothschild/Soros “Open Society”  agenda is to succeed. Once push comes to shove, Americans are going to have to take a stand—all Americans, and we are rapidly moving to that fateful point. “Freedom” and “Liberty”  are not mere abstractions, even as tyrannical western Governments, including the Government of the European Union in Brussels, and those of the Commonwealth Nations, and, sadly, the present Government here at home in the U.S., now claim they are but that and nothing more. See the article on the Canadian CBC Radio website: “Freedom is a malleable term — one that's open to interpretation.”Perhaps it would seem so to tyrants that would have little if any use for it. But, had the Founders of our Republic thought “Freedom,” and its sacred kin, “Liberty,” so malleable as to be nothing more than phantasms, mere will-o'-the-wisps, they would hardly have risked their lives and well-being to attain them. Nor can “Freedom” and “Liberty” be perceived as so insubstantial that a towering edifice—the United States, a free Constitutional Republic, the envy of the world—would have existed and persisted for well over two hundred years. As John Adams, a Founding Father, and Second President of the United States said, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.” _______________________________

FREE EXERCISE OF AMERICANS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE DISSIPATING RAPIDLY: SPEECH, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, PRIVACY, FAIR AND EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW . . . WILL LOSS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ONE’S FIREARMS BE NEXT?

PART FIVE

Americans have never been so close to losing “Freedom” and “Liberty” as they are at this very moment in time. And once lost, our “Freedom” and “Liberty” will, indeed, be lost forever. The forces that crush nations and people will see to it. As western “democracies” model themselves on the Collectivist example of Communist China, Americans should stop and think, and ask themselves: Is this what I really want? Am I so fearful of what my own Government has become that I will not take a stand against it when the time comes for action? Are those fundamental, sacred, unalienable, immutable, eternal, God-given Rights that the framers of a free Republic codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, so unimportant to me, so ephemeral, so “malleable,” I am willing to do without them; that I am willing to forsake them, lest I incur the wrath of Government—the wrath of a powerful, and hungry, and jealous Tyrant if I refuse to surrender them; to revoke them once and forevermore? This Government, this Federal Government, my Government, that has turned its back on me, that has taken my right to dissent, my right to associate with like-kind, my right to worship the one true God, my right to petition Government, and even my right to keep private to me my own cherished, secret thoughts from unreasonable search seizure—how much more will this Government, my Government demand of me? And I know the answer to that question before I even ask it. For, as long as I bear a firearm, I pose, in that very act, a visible threat to this Government, my Government. And so I know that, before long, this Government, my Government, will demand of me one final token, one more freedom to relinquish. It is a little thing really, as the Government tells me—a token of loyalty toward it, demonstrating my obeisance to it, that I may obtain absolution from it. I must surrender my firearms to this Government, my Government. And, if I refuse to do so, what then? This token requested of me is, I know, less a request than a demand—an order made to me. Either I capitulate to this creature that was created to serve me or I must face the consequences for my temerity. It is either this or that. The one or the other. There is no other way for me; no other choice to be given me. There is no way to split the difference. There is to be no negotiation in the matter, no time to mull over the matter. And there is to be no truce. The Government has made it all very clear to me: unconditional surrender. And, failure to comply is to risk indefinite detention, or, if recalcitrant, then to dare clash with the tyrant's mighty force. But, then, as to the latter, it has happened before. The Founders of our Republic took up the challenge, threw down the gauntlet and routed a mighty power that had strutted its invincibility.I will soon have to make my choice, as my forefathers once, long ago, had to make theirs. Surrender or fight. There are no half-measures here. To submit willingly to tyranny, or to do so grudgingly and half-heartedly, or to do so openly angrily—raging all the while—is, at the end of the day, all one and the same. Submission, however one does submit, is still to humble oneself before a Tyrant. At the end of the day, it is still submission. It is still self-deprecation. It is still prostration before a monstrous evil. And this Tyrannical Government cares not how I shall humble myself, how it is that I submit before it; only that I do so, and that I do so—completely,  irrevocably.It is singularly odd to contemplate, two hundred and forty years later, that we Americans have, in the first quarter of a new century, come full circle from that day, long ago, on July 2, 1776, when the Delegates to the Continental Congress met to sign the Declaration of Independence——— “By signing the Declaration of Independence, the delegates were putting their lives on the line. If they were to lose the war for independence, then the British government would execute them in a very painful and nasty way. Thus, although we do not know if Benjamin Franklin actually said, ‘we must all hang together, or . . .  we shall all hang separately,’ it is likely that that idea was in the minds of the delegates that day in July.”And now, despite the blatant lies of a seditious Press to the contrary, it is plain for all to see if they will but only look, that our own Government has dared to turn its back on its own people. It has turned its back on those very people to whom it was created for no other purpose than to serve. America's Founding Fathers would no doubt see some caustic irony in this and much more than a little concern, wondering whether their own courage, sacrifice, and perseverance—and that of tens of millions of other valiant American Patriots, who, in the intervening years, fought and died to preserve and strengthen an independent and sovereign Nation, a free Constitutional Republic, and a free and sovereign people—had all been in vain. This page in our Nation's wondrous history has yet to be written. How recorders of history do set this chapter down depends entirely on you and me: a chapter describing a free people that stood courageously, as one, against tyranny, or a chapter reduced to a footnote, little more than an afterthought, quickly jotted down, and just as quickly, forgotten. A small annotation that speaks of the humiliation of a once-great Nation and of a once-great people—of a once-great, and free, and sovereign people who did not take a stand against a Tyrant, but chose, instead, to grovel before it. And if they fail to stand against this Tyrant, they will then no further choices will be made by them, but only by the Tyrant, for them. If Americans fail to stand up against tyranny, they will be compelled to reap the consequences for their cowardice; consequences that affect not only themselves but their offspring, all those generations of Americans to come; for future generations will subsist as mere subservient vessels of tyranny in the gangrenous remains of what was once thought to be an imperishable Nation. These lost generations shall never taste of nor know of freedom and liberty, nor will they even recall the name, ‘American Citizen.’ We, Americans, have ample warning of the fate that awaits us if we choose wrong. A dire outcome can be avoided, today. Tomorrow will be too late. The choice to be made is yours and mine while it can be made, but only in this, the present moment. Be mindful that our Country is being taken from us. Be mindful of that. The noose over our Country and over our citizenry, and over our essential freedoms is tightening, slowly but inexorably. Be prepared to resist Tyranny.“Today may change tomorrow but once today is gone, tomorrow can only look back in sorrow that the warning was ignored.”*______________________________________*Portion of the closing narration from episode 141 of the original Twilight Zone Anthology, “Spur of the Moment.”_____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT VISION FOR AMERICA MARKS NATION’S DEMISE, NOT ITS SALVATION

"The self-deceived person may even think he is able to console others who became victims of perfidious deception, but what insanity when someone who himself has lost the eternal wants to heal the person who is extremely sick unto death!" ~Søren Kierkegaard, from Works of Love (1847)

PART SEVEN

Radical Left politicians, along with a compliant Press, carry the message of the Collectivist vision—a vision that overrides concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the Nation and of the Nation’s citizenry.Like the crass hypocrites they are, radical Leftists love to go on about how they respect the rule of law, but ignore it when they find it convenient to do so to support their radical agenda. Lacking all visible restraint and common decency, they flagrantly, even exuberantly, attack our Constitution, our institutions, our history, our culture, our ethos, our Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethical underpinnings and belief in the Divine Creator.These Dead Souls, these transgressors of the Creator’s sacred Commandments attack all our citizenry holds most dear and these extremists do so with increasing frequency and ferocity. Everything about them bespeaks ill-will, anger, hatred, resentment, intemperance, rage. They don’t seek to preserve our Nation; rather, they seek to destroy it. Both in their words and actions, they intend to rend everything, both tangible and intangible, that represents and constitutes the very soul-memory of our Nation and its people. These radical Leftists, these God-deniers, these Dead Souls, will suffer no one that dares disagree with them.These Dead Souls ignore, out-of-hand, fundamental rights etched in the Bill of Rights, but show no reluctance in creating out of whole cloth other “rights” that cohere with their Collectivist precepts. They claim as fundamental rights: the right to attend college; the right to abortion on demand; the right of non-citizens to reside here under a general prescription of seeking asylum; and the right to be free from so-called “hate speech” and hurtful speech in the public space.But such purported “rights” exist nowhere, tacitly or expressly, in the Bill of Rights or, for that matter, anywhere else in the Nation’s Constitution. Indeed, one presumed fundamental right catalogued by the Radical Left—the claim of a fundamental right to abortion on demand, abjectly unnatural, is transparently contradicted by Federal Statute and Supreme Court precedent, as is the right to be free from such vague notions as “hate speech” and hurtful speech.Yet, as these Dead Souls don’t profess a belief in the concept of natural rights preexistent in the citizenry, such new panoply of “rights,” that are permitted to exist at all, shall consist only of those that Government deigns to grant to the polity, whether to a few members of the polity or to several of its members; whether to most members of the polity or to all its members—but with the understanding that such set of rights and liberties may be amended, ignored, or abrogated as Government needs and goals change, or as Government simply wishes.And Government, as Government is conceived by these Radical Leftists, these Dead Souls, may at will, amend ignore or abrogate any and all such rights and liberties; doing so if for no other reason than to make the point that all lawful power, authority, and control emanates from and proceeds through Government to the Governed, the people, and not to Government through the consent of the Governed, the people. Thus, the Radical Left seeks to turn the very political framework of our Nation on its head.These Leftist extremists in the United States—these proponents of the political and social philosophy of Collectivism—will seek the “consent of the governed” one final time. By turns, they persuade, urge, and cajole the public to relinquish all power and authority to Government, claiming, all the while that this will all be for the best: for the good of society, for the good of the Collective, for the good of the Hive, albeit not good, at all, for the individual, the American citizen.And, this fact explains the Radical left's single-minded obsession with the Second Amendment in particular, and the heavy-handed efforts to defeat it. The Radical Left uses the mantras of "public safety" and "gun violence" to make its goal of de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, deceptively, "disarmingly" plausible and palatable to the citizenry so that it acquiesces, blindly, willingly; surrendering its firearms; ceding its Birthright to the Radical Left. Thus, the total disarming of the American citizenry proceeds, without a whimper; or, so the Radical Left believes and hopes. And, for these Americans who are not so easily duped, who do not wish to acquiesce, the Radical Left is not reluctant to use threats. Recall the remarks of the “illustrious” Congressional Representative from the “Sanctuary” State of California, Eric Swalwell, who, in November 2018, brazenly, spouted that he would be ready “to nuke” gun owners who do not willingly surrender their “assault weapons.” Many Americans took offense at the remark and rightfully so. Yet, the liberal “fact-checker” website, Snopes, counters that Swalwell had never really meant what he said. Trying to cast a positive light on Swalwell’s remark, Snopes reports:What's True [about Swalwell’s remark]In a tweet on 16 November, Swalwell responded to a gun rights enthusiast who said the Democrats' proposal to confiscate or buy semi-automatic rifles would result in "war" due to resistance from the gun owners, stating "it would be a short war" because "the government has nukes."What's False [about Swalwell’s remark]Swalwell quickly insisted that his reference to the government's possession of nuclear weapons was intended as no more than a joke and emphasized that he was not warning gun owners about such a response to their (hypothetical) resistance to gun confiscation.But, who is the joke really on? Obviously, the remark was hyperbole. That much is true. But Swalwell’s sentiment wasn’t, and isn’t hyperbole. Swalwell is deadly serious. Eric Swalwell is one of a large bevy of Democratic Party candidates campaigning for his Party’s nomination for U.S. President in the upcoming 2020 election, and, while all of these Candidates are virulently antigun, Eric Swalwell, in particular, is running prominently on an antigun platform.Lauding the Australian Government’s gun confiscation policy, Swalwell is openly critical of our own Nation’s Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, and he has made clear that he intends to confiscate all firearms Government defines as 'assault weapons.'What isn’t humorous about Swalwell’s remarks—not the least bit humorous—and isn’t meant to be a joke, is a point that Swalwell has stated and reiterated often, and it is a cornerstone of his antigun plank. Swalwell has made it abundantly clear and is deadly serious when he asserts his intention to confiscate all firearms that Government—his Administration—defines as ‘assault weapons.’ And, he has also made it crystal clear that any American citizen who fails to surrender those weapons will be arrested and prosecuted.Consistent with the pronouncements of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Swalwell waxes poetic about Australia’s extraordinarily restrictive gun measures. But, keep in mind that Australia’s heavy-handed antigun stance and actions that Swalwell and that Obama and Clinton applaud, isn’t a Constitutional Republic in the vein of our own Nation. Australia is a Commonwealth Nation, presided over by a Governor General, who answers to the Queen of England. Moreover, Australia, unlike our Nation, never did recognize a right of the people of Australia to own and possess firearms, independent of Government say-so. Hell, Australia doesn’t even have a Bill of Rights and its overseers have vigorously fought against inclusion of one. Not surprisingly, then, the Australian Government can by,  fiat, restrict gun ownership and possession, and Australians--less citizens than subjects of the realm--have no legal recourse. And, this is the Country that Swalwell, and Obama, and Clinton, and all of the other Leftist extremists emulate?To say these Leftist extremists hold a vision of America different from that of the founders’ vision, indeed a vision diametrically opposed to that of our founders’, is a crass understatement. For the assertion fails to capture the sheer scale and scope of the Radical Left's horrific agenda--what it is the Radical Left wants to accomplish and what it intends to force upon Americans, all of us--in the event it gains control of all three Branches of Government.What these extremists, these Dead Souls, seek to accomplish is the creation of an entirely different kind of America; an America no longer conceived as a free Republic, no longer existing as an independent, Sovereign Nation State. What these Dead Souls have in mind for Americans and for the Nation is the Nation's dissolution and the subjugation of its citizens. They perceive the remains of what once existed as a free Republic and independent Sovereign Nation State subsumed into a new Governmental and societal construct entirely—indeed, completely consumed by a new international world order that, like a giant serpent, swallows Nation’s whole.Thus, these Radical Leftists, these Dead Souls, seek to demolish the very existence of our Country as a Sovereign Nation State and free Republic; and, in so doing, they seek to undercut the very notion of a Bill of Rights that embraces fundamental, natural rights, preexistent in the Nation’s citizenry—rights, then, that, in the founders' vision, precede and transcend Government and rest well beyond the lawful power of Government to constrain. The Radical Left’s objectives  for this Nation are ruthlessly, remorselessly and frightfully diabolical; its rhetoric, transparently duplicitous; its lack of concern for the Nation's citizenry, abjectly shameful; its methods, rapaciously mercenary. Americans would do well to keep all this uppermost in mind when they go to the polls in 2020.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CLINTON CLAMORS, ALL GUNS MUST GO!

The current leading Democratic Party contender for the U.S. Presidency in 2016, Hillary Clinton, who equivocates on most issues, has no qualms about letting the American public know precisely where she stands on the matter of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country. On that issue she speaks with self-assurance, even arrogance, expecting the public to accept her false, illogical pronouncements about guns and gun violence as self-evident truths, requiring neither legal analysis or logical validity, nor accurate statistical evidentiary support.Case in point: during a town hall meeting, held on a College Campus in Keene, New Hampshire, in October of this year, Clinton responded to a question posed by an elderly man from the audience who, apparently referring to the 1996 Australian Government gun confiscation program of which he was aware, asked, beseechingly, whether we could do that here and if not why not. Clinton clearly relished the question. In response she remarked that Canada, the UK, and Australia have all implemented national “gun buyback” programs. Remarking further on Australia’s 1996 massive gun buyback program, Clinton asserted, in her typical preachy, irritating way, that the Australian Government offered to purchase hundreds of thousands of “automatic weapons” at “a good price” and that the Government then “clamped down [on gun purchases] going forward.”The Government’s “gun buyback” program to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the Australian populace was hardly voluntary. It was a carefully orchestrated compulsory, gun confiscation scheme, concocted by the Government, ostensibly in response to a lunatic’s April 28, 1996 shooting of 35 tourists in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Yet, Clinton deviously intimates that this clearly coercive 1996 Government “gun buyback” program was, in some sense, truly voluntary, since, according to Clinton, the Government offered to give to Australian gun owners a “good price” for their weapons. But, it stretches credulity to believe that hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens would voluntarily surrender to their Government for wasteful destruction, well over 600,000 perfectly functional firearms, even if one accepts at face value Clinton’s disingenuous remark that the Australian populace was actually getting a “good price” for them.Of note, Clinton didn’t bother to elaborate on what specific “automatic” weapons were surrendered to the Government authorities; nor did she bother to elaborate on the specific “good price” each Australian happened to receive for his or her weapon or weapons. Indeed, how would Clinton know the price any Australian received for a particular weapon? And, if the price were unknown, then it would be patently ridiculous to assert that Australians received a “good price” for those weapons.Indeed, Australians, who were compelled to surrender their weapons, may not feel that the Australian Government gave them a “good price” for their weapons. More to the point, one might stop to consider that, to the typical Australian gun owner, who thought it important enough to purchase and possess a firearm in the first place, no price is a good price for a weapon that had to be forfeited to the Government. For, once forfeited, Australians knew that they would never again be able, lawfully, to obtain suitable replacement firearms.Of course, no one at the New Hampshire Town Hall meeting bothered to weigh-in on these matters. And Clinton, for her part, did not trouble herself to offer argument in support of her statements, relying only on bald assertions, lest she defeat the poignancy of her rhetoric. And, this is the most aggravating thing about Clinton, even if one is drawn to her at all. She treats her adult, target audience as if she were speaking to grade school children. In her remarks to the public she routinely tends toward gross exaggeration, conflation, pontification, embellishment, evasion, falsehoods, over-generalizations, over-simplifications and outright lies. If one tries to pin her down, she refuses to respond, flamboyantly throwing her hands up in disgust.Clinton’s goal is securing the Oval Office, whatever the cost. Doing so would be the culmination of her quest for self-aggrandizement. In pursuit of that goal she forever engages in shameless self-promotion. Everything she says is carefully orchestrated for emotional effect, not for intellectual clarity. A Town Hall meeting is not, apparently, the place where the American public is expected to pose hard, well composed questions to this Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States; nor should the public expect detailed, cogent, intelligent answers. Clinton doesn’t relish a lively, frank, intelligent debate before the public – ever!Continuing to address the matter of “gun buyback” programs, at the Town Hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton said that communities in this Country have implemented such programs. She added that she would like to see a gun buyback program instituted on a national level, asserting, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. . . . I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your [the audience member’s point] is worth looking at.” And, in those candid declarations rest a critical slip-up to Clinton’s otherwise carefully framed, calibrated remarks concerning her policy position on gun ownership and possession in the U.S. For, as an attorney, Clinton must know that a coercive “gun buyback” program, on a national level, is patently illegal. Congress would never oblige. And, even if she, as U.S. President, would dare, through an illegal executive order, to implement such a vast gun forfeiture scheme, she must know that the result could invite insurrection. Perhaps that is why Clinton added, somewhat obliquely and lamely – although the damage had already been done – that she didn’t know how such a massive undertaking could be instituted here in the U.S., for the mechanism of a gun buyback is surely simple enough. Just ask the Australian Government. But, in the U.S., it is the public’s response to such a program that would be particularly problematic to Clinton and to other antigun proponents, both in this Country and abroad, who wish to dispossess Americans of their firearms. Clinton is evidently suggesting that she doesn’t know how she could get the majority of law-abiding American gun-owners to acquiesce to a quiet coup d’état by the Federal Government; for a massive gun confiscation scheme is exactly that: a takeover of the Federal Government from the People.The mainstream news media – apparently, and rightfully, concerned that members of the public who do not share Clinton’s views on gun ownership and possession – namely, the vast majority of us – might object to the idea of a massive gun forfeiture scheme carried out on the national stage – created a news blackout of her remarks, lest the American public find a Hillary Clinton Presidency too repugnant to even contemplate. The mainstream news media obviously realized -- even if Clinton, herself, did not immediately realize the serious ramifications of her blunder -- that a federal government seizure of millions of firearms from the hands of the American public means nothing less than the seizure of government from the People! Such an undertaking is unforgivable. It is legally and ethically indefensible even if seemingly tenable to an irrational antigun crowd, unable to truly appreciate what it would presage for Americans’ rights and liberties, and even if desirable to a predacious, calculating and scheming cabal of international socialists who would like very much to see the United States Constitution discarded and a Free Republic dismantled.Under our Constitution a national, coercive gun confiscation program is patently illegal, and rightly so. Such coercive confiscation programs that have taken place in Australia and in other commonwealth nations are only possible given those Countries' history. If one can appreciate the critical differences between Australia and the U.S., one can truly appreciate how outrageous – even insulting to the American public – Hillary Clinton’s emulation of the Australian Government’s coercive 1996 gun buyback program truly is.So, let us for a moment consider Australia’s history and compare it to our own. For, one must consider the context in which a massive gun confiscation program might occur that would make it feasible and legal in one Western Country, but not in another. It is legally defensible and feasible in Australia. It is not legally defensible here in the U.S., even if it were feasible, and it isn’t. Australia’s history as a Nation is wholly unlike that of our own. And the Constitutions of Australia and the U.S. are notably quite different.Before the American Revolutionary War, the United States was not a sovereign Nation. The “United States,” as such, did not exist. The Country was simply a loose collection of colonies – thirteen of them – dependent upon Great Britain. And it was Great Britain that exerted its sovereignty over these thirteen colonies. It took a war against Great Britain to completely sever that dependency. Unlike the United States, Australia, like Canada, never fought a war of independence from Great Britain. As an ex-commonwealth Nation, Australia, unlike the U.S., is still, in a real sense, a subject State of Great Britain. In fact Australia is described as an “autonomous” Constitutional Monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning Monarch of Great Britain, is also Queen of Australia. She is not Queen of the United States. Moreover, Great Britain has a deeply entrenched class structure – consisting of the royalty and nobility at one end, and the commonalty on the other. A rigid class structure that is a mainstay of Great Britain’s history sees expression in Australia’s Constitution. The royalty and nobility do not trust the commonalty – the “ordinary people” – to keep and bear arms. This mindset exists in the Government of Australia. It is a carry-over of a time when Australia was a commonwealth of Great Britain.Consider, too, the framework of Australia’s Government in comparison to our own. Our Legislative Branch consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The Legislative Branch of Australia’s Government – the Parliament – consists of, one, the House of Representatives, two, the Senate, and, three, and most extraordinarily, the Queen, who is represented in Australia by a Governor-General.Certain members of Australia’s Parliament – its ministers – also function as members of the Executive. Thus, the British Queen not only has influence over Australia’s national government, she has both a law-making function in Australia and an executive function, the latter of which sees that her laws are carried out. In the U.S., which our founders created as a Free Republic, the Queen of England has no place in the Legislature Branch or in the Executive Branch of our Government. Just imagine if she did!So it is that Australia’s Constitution is framed as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, not in its People, who are treated more like subjects of “the Crown,” and less like citizens in their own right. Our Constitution, unlike that of Australia, is framed as one of rights and liberties preexistent in the People. And “We the People” are not subjects of the State, much less of a monarchy. The powers of our federal government are expressly limited and such powers that the federal government does have exist only by grace of the People, in whose hands true and ultimate power alone rests. But, since Australia’s Constitution is framed, in the first instance, as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, rather than as rights and liberties preexistent in the People, such rights and liberties that Australians might have are not preeminent. In fact, Australia’s Constitution does not speak of rights and liberties of the People at all. Try as you may you will find Australia’s Constitution devoid of a Bill of Rights, which means that, in Australia, there are no rights preexistent in the People and, therefore, no rights existent in the People, independently of a Government maxim that extends particular rights and liberties to the People. Properly speaking, Australians are not “citizens” at all. They are subjects of "the Crown." Thus, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a gun confiscation program, on an order of magnitude that took place in Australia in 1996 – and others that have taken place in that Country in the past and more that may take place in the future – are an anathema here. Clinton’s off-the-cuff remark, if effectuated, would be tantamount to an illegal usurpation of power by the federal government from the American People.What, specifically, precludes a national gun confiscation program from occurring in this Country that took place in Australia is established in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution: “We the People.” The primacy of “We the People” over the federal government is particularly efficacious precisely because of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Secondarily, the primacy of “We the People” is protected through a system of checks and balances within the federal government itself, as established in the Articles. But, it is the very existence of the Second Amendment, as a codification of a natural and inalienable right of the American People to keep and bear arms – "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" – that precludes confiscation of guns from the hands of the People.The assertion of that right, etched in stone, serves two purposes. It serves, one, as an emphatic reminder to those who serve the People – the Congress, the Executive and its bureaucrats, and the Judiciary – that together comprise the federal government – that the sovereignty of this Nation rests in, with, and upon “We the People.” The American People will suffer no rule under any other nation or under any trans-national or international ruling body; nor will they be subordinate to the federal government. And, the assertion of that right in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution serves, two, as a constant reminder to those elected to serve the American People and to those appointed or hired as functionaries to serve the American People that ultimate power rests in, with, and upon the People and that those limited powers the People have granted to the federal government are for no purpose other than to serve the People. The American People reserve to and for themselves alone, the absolute power to revoke any and all federal government powers if or when that government ever subverts the Will of the American People.In light of these facts it is exceedingly odd, even perverse, that the leading Democratic Party candidate for President in 2016, Hillary Clinton – who graduated from an elite law school in the United States – would dare emulate Australia’s gun buyback, confiscation program and that she would assert how much she would like to see a national gun “buyback” program played out in this Country since such an undertaking is patently illegal under our Constitution. In the assertion Clinton dares to express her blatant contempt for the American People.But there is more. Apart from the legal constraints, precluding a massive, coercive national gun confiscation program, there is another matter to consider. It is one that is rarely if ever discussed. It is the ethical theory upon which massive, coercive gun confiscation programs are grounded. The Australian Government argues, at least tacitly, that gun confiscation programs maximize “the good” for society, for “the Collective.” But, “the good” referred to here has nothing to do with crime reduction. It has everything to do with maximizing control over the citizenry, over the commonalty. This ethical theory is called utilitarianism. It is based on the notion that “the good” equals what is best for society, that is to say, what has “maximum utility” for society as a whole. But who decides what “the good” for society is? In Australia, it is the Government that decides. Moreover, whatever “the good” for society – for “the Collective” – is or is presumed to be, will, most likely, not be good for the individual in that society. And, therein lies the root problem with utilitarianism. The drafters of our Constitution did not subscribe to utilitarianism. Our Constitution, framed on the idea of limited government and on a Bill of Rights, incorporating the right of the People to keep and bear arms – a right that shall not be infringed – clearly expresses the sanctity and autonomy of the individual over the collective “good” of society. Ethics in this Country, as manifested in our Bill of Rights, is grounded on what is “morally right,” not on what maximizes utility (“the good”) for the collective. Ethical theories that are based on the notion of what is morally right are known as deontological theories, in philosophy. The two ethical theories, utilitarianism and deontology, are mutually exclusive; for, what is morally right and in the best interests of the individual in society is antithetical to what may happen to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, for “the Collective.” No better example of the conflict of the two ethical theories exists than that illustrated by massive, coercive gun confiscation programs, such as those created and implemented by Australia’s Government, on the national stage.Taking away the guns of the citizenry will enhance a government’s control over its citizenry. Enhancing government control, as perceived by the antigun crowd and by international socialists, equates with maximizing “the good,” maximizing “utility” for society, under the utilitarian ethical model. But, taking away guns from the law-abiding citizen does not enhance safety for that citizen, as an individual, in his or her own right. Rather, the individual is less safe as the individual is essentially defenseless against an armed psychopathic criminal or a lunatic. Moreover, the individual is harmed by that individual’s own government since an unarmed citizenry cannot adequately defend itself against the suppression of the citizenry’s rights and liberties. So, gun coercive confiscations programs are unethical under a deontological theory of ethics, grounded on what is “morally right,” even if such programs may, to some, appear to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, that is to say, for “the Collective.” And, in light of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and given the primacy of “We the People” as set forth in the Preamble to our Constitution, such coercive gun confiscation programs – whether or not cloaked as seemingly benign gun buyback programs – are facially illegal.Hillary Clinton, as well as President Barack Obama, clearly holds to utilitarianism – an ethical theory that is repugnant to the sensibilities of our founders as reflected in the Constitution the Founders drafted for future generations of Americans. On both legal and ethical grounds the position of President Obama and Hillary Clinton on gun ownership and gun possession in this Country is unsound. It is little wonder, then, that, although voicing constant rancorous, vociferous objection to gun ownership and gun possession in this Country, they offer no sound argument in support of their position – only empty emotional rhetoric and platitudes – because sound argument in support of their dubious position on gun ownership and gun possession in America simply does not exist.The existence of our Bill of Rights is a testament to the fact that our founders did not hold to utilitarianism. Our Constitution is predicated on a moral code, not a utilitarian one. The criterion of moral conduct is based on what is right; not one that is based on a Quixotic quest to maximize utility for society, for the Collective. The Second Amendment is an assertion of the importance of individual responsibility; and morality is predicated on the right of the individual to take responsibility for his or her actions. Thus, the founders of our Republic believed all the more in emphasizing, exemplifying, and extolling the sanctity of and the moral worth of the individual, and significantly less on maximizing utility for an amorphous society – for “the Collective,” which effectively denigrates the individual. Gun confiscation/forfeiture programs illustrate distrust of government in its own citizens. The citizen is told that, for his or her own good, the citizen must be dispossessed of firearms. The philosophy of President Obama and Hillary Clinton exemplify the predominance of government might over individual rights and liberty; government control over the citizen, rather than citizen control over government; inculcating obedience to authority and subservience to the State, rather than enhancing freedom of expression, individuality, and personal autonomy.Americans, of late, suffer endless exhortations that they ought sacrifice their rights and liberties for the Societal Collective “good.” Strident remarks against gun ownership and gun possession should serve, especially, as a warning to Americans that if they do not take steps to preserve their Constitution, they will lose it. A Free Republic cannot long endure under a Constitution whose precepts are ignored and denigrated. And, a free People cannot long remain free if the rights and liberties of the individual are systematically trampled upon. It has become abundantly clear that neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton really care.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.