UNDER THE PRETEXT OF KEEPING THE RESIDENTS OF HER STATE SAFE, NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT BRUEN RULINGS

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

PART TWENTY-FIVE

THE TYRANT EVER DISTRUSTS THE ARMED CITIZEN

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany designed amendments to the State Handgun Law to avoid compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Bruen and thus avoid the categorical dictates of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There is no question about this, no tenable away around this. To believe otherwise is a delusion.Hochul makes the case herself. There are numerous accounts detailing this: Press accounts and Press Releases abound. Consider one example: In August 2023, Hochul said this, as presented on the Governor's website:“‘In response to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down New York's century-old concealed carry law, we took swift and thoughtful action to keep New Yorkers safe,’ . . . . ‘I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation.’”In other words, Governor Kathy Hochul, in her role as Tyrant Nanny of New York, keeping her wayward children, residents of New York, and citizens of the United States, safe and sound from all those dangerous, nasty firearms, will ignore the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, etched in stone in the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and will defy the Article III authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.Hochul had unconscionably harsh words for the High Court, calling the Bruen decision “reckless and reprehensible.” See the article in NCPR.One thing motivates Governor Hochul’s actions and others like her who have, through the passing years, decades, and centuries, enacted laws to cut the Bill of Rights to ribbons:INCOMPARABLE LUST FOR POWER, INORDINATE WEALTH, AND SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT—ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMON MAN. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO.The history of civilization illustrates an unfathomable and unquenchable desire of sociopathic/psychopathic individuals to wield control over their respective tribe, nation, or empire, or other political, social, economic, and juridical structure.These ill-begotten men desire to thrust their will, their reality, onto everyone else.The Articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of this Nation—of this Nation alone—were drafted with the aim to at least forestall, if not, prevent the perpetuation of this theme from happening here: the urge to dominate and rule.Of course, the presence of power-hungry misfits in the world is nothing new.Some who have succeeded in wielding control over the life, well-being, and happiness of the populace create the illusion they exercise power by virtue of Divine Right. Through time that odd idea becomes embedded in the public psyche. The public comes to accept this and accepts, too, that the rule over others by Divine Right is in the natural order of things, that it has always been thus.Rule by Divine Right—the wielding of near absolute power over others—is sometimes disguised.In our Nation, a free Constitutional Republic, the sociopaths, and psychopaths who lust for power, wealth, for personal aggrandizement and who have the wherewithal, knack, and tenacity to bend the mechanisms of power to their will, to their liking, must resort to deceptive messaging to woo the public, to lull them into dull complacency to accept the messaging conveyed to them by the deceivers and fabricators to mislead them into thinking that curtailment of their God-Given Rights is for their own good. But the truth is other than what is conveyed to the public.The Nation’s Bill of Rights is a check on the power of Tyrants. These Rights, especially the first two Rights are the final fail-safe to keep would-be Tyrants in check.The First Amendment codifies, inter alia, the right of Free Speech, i.e., the Right to Dissent; the Right to Personal Autonomy; the Right of the Individual TO BE and to Remain Individual, against public pressure, at the behest of the Tyrant to compel compliance to his edicts. Those edicts demand uniformity of thought, of conduct, of action. The idea is to force submission of one’s will to the will of the State, the Greater Society, the “Hive,” the Tyrant.The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is the vehicle through which the Individual prevents the Tyrant from forcing submission. This was meant to be so. Americans, millions of individuals, discrete souls, retain sovereignty over the Tyrant by force of arms and thus prevent usurpation of their will to that of the Tyrant.The Tyrant knows this. Many in our Country do not. They are denied THE TRUTH. Each American should know the TRUTH:The preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right to be exercised by the common man, serves as a counterweight to the usurpation of the sovereign power of the people over the power of the Tyrant. The Tyrant seeks to restrict and constrict this right as the Tyrant cannot continue to wield power and cannot accrue more power at the expense of the people so long as they are armed. Thus——The common man cannot be controlled, corralled, nor subjugated so long as he bears arms. That he does so constitutes a threat to the Tyrant. The Tyrant knows this even if the polity does not, and the Tyrant utilizes the organs of a corrupt Press to prevent the people from recognizing the slow disintegration of their basic, core Rights, bestowed on them by the Divine Creator, and not by Government.Corruption of  Government proceeds from corruption existent in the Tyrant himself. Corruption of Government and concomitant corruption of every facet of society and of our institutions are recognized in decay, in the destabilization of society, and in the demoralization and degradation of the common man who resides within it. The physical manifestation of destruction is mirrored in the corrupt soul of the Tyrant. On a macro level, one sees this in the immolation of a once great Nation, and of its institutions, culture, ethos, and people.On the micro level one sees this corruption in the immolation of major cities and in the degradation of the lives of the people who reside in them, run by a host of petty tyrants.The salient purpose of armed Self-Defense is to prevent the onset of Tyranny of Government. If you, the reader, don’t see this, take a look at the Second Treatise of Government by the English Philosopher, John Locke. Our Constitution is constructed from the well-reasoned political philosophical remarks of John Locke.Do you need further proof: Take a look, once again, at the U.S. Supreme Court cases District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago.The Tyrant knows that the exercise of the right to armed self-defense must be constrained else he cannot wield and maintain power and control over the commonalty, but he doesn’t say this. The Tyrant makes a different argument, directed to denizens of a free Republic.The argument against the exercise of the right to armed self-defense in this Country is that the Second Amendment is archaic and that the proliferation of guns in this Country causes “Gun Violence.”More recently, consistent with absurd political dogma, the Tyrant claims that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist. And a seditious Press echoes those sentiments.But then, ask yourself: Where is this disorder, this violence manifested? Is it in the actions of tens of millions of average, rational, responsible, American citizens—the commonalty that happens to possess firearms?When was the last time you heard that the common rational, responsible gun owner committed a crime through the use of a firearm or through the use of any other implement? When was the last you heard of an average gun owner who went on a shooting spree? How many of those occur in our Country anyway? How might they be prevented? Has not an armed citizen, in the midst of a “mass shooting, often prevented many deaths because he was able to stop the killer? If more people were armed, would they not be able to secure their life and that of others?Where does this so-called “Gun Violence” emanate and predominate?Is not the escalation of  “Criminal Violence” in the Country and especially in the major urban areas, the deliberate result of Government policy that allows the criminal element and the occasional lunatic to run amok?Why should curtailment of the basic natural law right to armed self-defense proceed from Government’s failure, oft deliberate, TO CONSTRAIN THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR of society: the foul, drug-addled lunatic; the monstrous, murderous gang member; and the opportunistic criminal—all of whom are devoid of empathy for the innocent person.Why should curtailment of a basic natural law right to armed self-defense proceed from instituting strict control over the natural law right of THE HIGHEST COMMON DENOMINATOR: tens of millions of average Americans?And, if those tens of millions of average Americans were to surrender their firearms to the Tyrant, how might that prevent the criminal and lunatic from engaging in less mayhem? Might not that encourage more illicit behavior and leave the common man absolutely defenseless, dependent completely on the goodwill of the Tyrant to dispel threat?But isn’t that really the point of disarming the citizenry: to leave the common man, the sole sovereign over Government, defenseless, powerless against the Tyrant, lest the common man rises up against the usurper?The New York Handgun Law and related laws as codified in the Consolidated Laws of New York, illustrate the Tyrant’s irrationality, arrogance, and lust for power over the citizens of the Country, residents of New York. But in the Gun Law and in other laws peppered throughout the breadth and depth of the Laws of New York, one sees, if one but reflects on those laws, a raw fear exposed. The Tyrant fears the common man.New York’s Handgun Law, the Sullivan Act, was enacted in 1911. It was predicated on fear of the common man—at the time, those were construed as new Italian immigrants to New York.The Sullivan Act was grounded on a lie at the outset: based on the idea that Italians were by nature, criminals, and their conduct in public had to be forcibly restrained lest they commit untold crimes throughout the State. This meant keeping firearms out of the hands of Italians. The form of the argument may have seemed valid to many. The premises were false, laughably so.The idea of converting a fundamental, unalienable right into a privilege is mystifying and disconcerting.Did the New York Government issue handgun licenses to Italians, recent naturalized citizens, residing in New York? One must wonder. If the idea behind the Sullivan Act, seemingly content neutral on its face, was to keep Italians from exercising their right, as citizens, to keep and bear arms, the law makes perfect sense.Yet the Sullivan Act came to be, and it survived, and thrived.The Sullivan Act requires all individuals who seek to carry a handgun in public to first obtain a handgun license from the Government to lawfully exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.So then, the New York Government insists on inserting itself between the natural law right to armed self-defense, as codified in the Second Amendment, and one's exercise of that right, free of Government interference.The Handgun Law expanded exponentially to include further restraints, to encompass many more groups of people—the common man en masse—and to make the acquisition of a handgun carry license more expensive, time-consuming, and frustrating. That was the point.Many New Yorkers conceded defeat. They threw in the towel. They gave up the effort to obtain a license. The Handgun Law worked THAT well.Through time, the Handgun Licensing Statute became more elaborate. It developed into a cumbersome Handgun Licensing Regime. The challenges were many. But none succeeded in toppling the unconstitutional construct. And, then came the Heller case.The U.S. Supreme Court had for years stood idly by while State Government Tyrants and the Tyrant Federal Government road roughshod over the absolute right of the people to armed self-defense.In the 21^st Century, some Justices on the High Court had had enough. It was clear that Two Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and the Legislative, and many State Governments, including the District of Columbia, were not going to adhere to the strictures of the Bill of Rights, especially the dictates of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito set matters aright.With the indomitability of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and assisted by two able Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, and, having convinced or perhaps cajoled the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to climb on board, the Court agree to review a case where the District of Columbia had enacted a law banning, outright, civilian citizen possession of handguns for self-defense, in the District.Since the District of Columbia law was predicated on the notion that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right, not adhering to the individual, an erroneous notion, the Court Majority held clearly, concisely, and categorically that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right—one unconnected with association with a militia. And, having enunciated the clear, plain meaning of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment, the High Court struck down the D.C. law.The anti-Second Amendment States were appalled and argued that Heller applied only to the Federal Government. That led to another challenge, this time from Plaintiff gun owners in Illinois, who argued that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies with equal force to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Majority Opinion said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies with equal efficacy to the States through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.Further challenges to States that refused to adhere to the rulings of Heller and McDonald went unreviewed by the Court, until a good ten years after McDonald.The High Court agreed to hear r a challenge to New York’s Handgun Law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. vs. The City Of New York, 140 U.S. S. Ct. 1525 (2020)—the first major assault on the Sullivan Act to be heard by the High Court. In that case, Petitioner holders of valid restrictive handgun premise licenses sought to be able to transport their handguns to target ranges outside the City. The Rules of the City of New York forbade that.the narrow issue in the City of New York case dealt with the Second Amendment rights of holders of highly restrictive New York premise licenses. Yet, the case implicated broad Second Amendment questions impacting Heller and McDonald.Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, feared a decision on the merits of that case would open up a serious challenge to the core and mainstay of the State’s Sullivan Act, pertaining to the carrying of handguns in public.He could not, must not, allow a decision on the merits that would render the Sullivan Act vulnerable to further challenges that might eventually lead to the decimation of Handgun Licensing in New York.The Cuomo Administration weathered the storm by amending the State’s Gun Law. Those amendments required the City of New York to amend its own Gun Rules, pertaining to the transportation of handguns outside the home, by holders of New York City handgun premise licenses.The amendments satisfied Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice  Brett Kavanaugh. Those two votes, together with the votes of the liberal wing of the Court, sufficed to avoid the substantive merits of the case from review.With changes made to both the State Handgun Law and to New York City’s Handgun Licensing Regulations, the High Court dismissed the case, ruling the Plaintiffs’ claims moot.Associate Justice Alito thought otherwise. In his dissent, he argued there was no legal justification for a finding of mootness. Justice Alito laid out his arguments comprehensively and convincingly.Justice Kavanaugh without addressing the mootness matter, mentioned, in a separate Concurring Opinion,“I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”Kavanaugh’s point came to fruition with Bruen, two years later, and in a major way, vexatious to the liberal wing of the Court, and likely so to the Chief Justice as well, and, no less so, the gravest fear of Governor Cuomo.But the conservative wing—now with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Bench—would no longer be constrained by foes of the Second Amendment who would erase the exercise of the right altogether if they had their way. Vindication of the Heller and McDonald rulings was at hand.The Hochul Government and Kathy Hochul, especially, weren’t pleased.If the City of New York case gave her predecessor, Governor Andrew Cuomo, a trifling headache, the Bruen case gave Hochul and Albany a full-on migraine.Bruen involved a challenge to the core of the State’s Handgun Law: the Constitutionality of predicating issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses on demonstration of “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need.”Bruen struck down “Proper Cause.” And that required Hochul and the State Legislature in Albany to strike the phrase from the Handgun Law. There was no way around that.But Hochul and Albany had no intention of complying with a ruling that would tear the guts out of a handgun Law that existed for well over a century and that, through time, grew increasingly elaborate and more oppressive.So Governor Hochul and Albany brushed the rulings aside, concocting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) of 2022 that gives lip service to Bruen and is, at once, consistent with the State’s end goal to transform the State, eventually, into one massive “Gun Free Zone.” Likely Hochul and Albany were working on the CCIA once the oral argument had concluded on November 3, 2021, having anticipated the High Court intended to shred the core of the Sullivan Act.The Hochul Government was prepared. The High Court issued its decision on June 23, 2022. Ten days later the State Senate enacted the “CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT” (CCIA). Hochul signed it into law on the same day, July 3, 2022.That word, ‘Improvement,’ as it appears in the title of the Act is incongruous, even incoherent. For what is it the Act improves? Certainly not the right of the American citizen, residing and/or working in New York, and the Act did not comply with the Bruen rulings.The CCIA was a cleverly, cunningly drawn evasion tactic that strengthened the Handgun Law, consistent with an age-old plan.This plan, this agenda, involved the methodical, evisceration of gun rights—a plan going back over a century ago. The Hochul Government did not design the CCIA to comply with the rulings, except on a superficial level. The Court did not like the words, “PROPER CAUSE,” so the Government would strike those words from the Sullivan Act.Since the Hochul Government still had to contend with the salient ruling that the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense is not confined to one’s home but extends to the public arena, the State would slither around the ruling. That was the intent of the Hochul Government, and the CCIA well reflected that intention. They did that through the creation of a new construct: “SENSITIVE PLACE” restrictions, and through a bold reconfiguration of an old one, “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”Through the CCIA Hochul and her cohorts in Albany laid bare their objective: Erosion of the civilian citizen’s right to armed self-defense outside the home, notwithstanding the import of the Bruen decision: recognition of the right to armed self-defense outside the home, no less than inside it.The CCIA was to take effect on September 1, 2022. The Act's challengers wouldn’t wait for that to happen.The ink had not yet dried on the CCIA document Kathy Hochul signed when the Plaintiffs came forward to challenge the amendments to the Gun Law. There would be others—most of them in New York, but several across the Country as well, challenging similar Gun Laws, the language of which is contrary to the Bruen rulings.Several New York cases, including the main one, i.e., Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, presently sit on review at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.Fully briefed, the Court conducted oral hearings for each of them, on March 20, 2023. Expect final orders during the summer months.

“SENSITIVE PLACE” AND “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”

As we stated supra, two provisions of the CCIA stand out as they serve as the basis of the State’s defiance of the Second Amendment and the Bruen rulings: “SENSITIVE PLACE” and “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”The “Sensitive Place” provision is new. There is no correlation with it in the prior version of the Law or in any previous version, hearkening back to the commencement of handgun licensing in 1911 with the enactment of the Sullivan Act. Much has been said about the “Sensitive Place” provision and challenges to the CCIA invariably point to it.The “Good Moral Character” requirement, on the other hand, is not new.Little is said about it in the prior version of the Handgun Law. And, apart from mentioning it in Bruen, the High Court had nothing to say about it.As applied to applications for restrictive handgun premise licenses—and a multi-tiered Handgun structure remains in the New York Gun Law—there is no change from the prior Law.However, as applied to applications for concealed handgun carry licenses, the State Legislature added substantial and significant provisions—a massive transformation from what had existed before.A major distinction between the two provisions, “Sensitive Place” and “Good Moral Character,” needs to be mentioned and discussed before we proceed to a comprehensive analysis of the latter provision.

THE NUANCES OF “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTIONS

“Sensitive Place” restrictions affect holders of State concealed handgun carry licenses only, not those holders of highly restrictive premise handgun licenses —a point seemingly trivial. It isn’t.A holder of a premise license cannot lawfully utilize a handgun for self-defense outside the home or place of business, notwithstanding instances of dire threats to life presenting themselves outside the home or one’s place of business.The lawful use of a handgun for self-defense begins and ends within the confines of the walls of the structure.As if to emphasize the point, the holder of a home or business license, who wishes to transport his handgun outside the home, lawfully, must keep the handgun in a handgun case, not in a holster on his person. Ammunition must be kept in the case as well and separate from the handgun itself.This means that, if the holder of a restricted premise license were confronted by a deadly threat while out in public, the handgun won’t be readily accessible. And that is the point. And that is concerning for two reasons.First, a handgun case is easily identifiable as such.If the licensee is in a subway, say, on the way to a New York City target range, a determined and highly aggressive thief can strongarm the case away from the owner.In that event, the owner must immediately notify the NYPD of the fact of the theft, and he will likely be required to surrender his premise handgun license during the investigation. If the police fail to recover the handgun, the owner will likely be denied issuance of a replacement license, which is a condition precedent to lawful receipt of a new handgun. And to add insult to injury, the owner will likely be blamed for the theft having occurred. The police report will indicate that the owner had lost possession of the case, suggesting that, if the owner had been deficient in protecting the property, and, perhaps, should haven’t taken the handgun outside the home or place of business in the first instance.Second, if the licensee were threatened with violence to self and were able to access the handgun and successfully avert a tragedy to self by incapacitating the aggressor by shooting him, the licensee would lose his license. There is no question about that.Worse, the licensee would be prosecuted for misuse of the handgun.Worst of all, the aggressor would likely be charged with criminal assault and wrongful possession of a handgun, for the premise license doesn’t lawfully allow the licensee to wield a handgun in public. As if to emphasize this point, Governor Hochul made patently clear that Bruen doesn’t authorize a person to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. In other words, New York remains a Handgun Licensing State Par Excellence among Anti-Second Amendment fanatics.Further, if the aggressor died of his wounds, the licensee would be indicted for manslaughter or murder. That outcome isn’t merely likely. It is certain and inevitable.Under New York Law self-defense may be a perfect defense to a charge of manslaughter or murder if one didn’t initiate the aggressive act, but “armed” self-defense isn’t if the person appealing to it happens to use a handgun in the absence of a valid State issued concealed handgun carry license.This is true even if the perpetrator himself is armed and threatens to kill the innocent person.The idea that an innocent person cannot defend him or herself but for use of a handgun and would suffer indictment for unlawful homicide notwithstanding, is ludicrous. But that is the nature of New York law.Isn’t that the tacit point of a fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? And isn’t that the central point of the Bruen rulings?Raw abhorrence of firearms precludes rational debate over the right to armed self-defense in the face of imminent violent assault against self.In fact, even if the licensee does hold a valid concealed handgun carry license, that may not protect him from a charge of manslaughter or murder. The best that can be said about this is that at least the licensee is alive when he would otherwise be dead. But the ramifications of armed self-defense reflect the sad truth about living and working in New York.The Hochul Government’s aversion toward firearms and civilian citizen gun ownership is so strong that the New York Government begrudges the issuance of handgun licenses at all.And it gets worse. Of late, even where a handgun isn’t employed in self-defense, any use of self-defense that results in harm or death to an assailant may still result in a felony indictment. Recall the recent incident involving a retired Marine whom Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, brought a charge of manslaughter against. See, e.g., the article in Reuters. Even as violent crime escalates around the Country, especially in the major cities run by Democrat-Party administrations, the right to self-defense, armed or not, is under assault.The irony of an increasingly dangerous society, a wary, tentative police force post-Floyd George, and the incessant Government attack on Americans who would logically wish to carry a handgun for self-defense—since it is the most effective means available to defend one’s life—is both a disheartening and disorienting fact of life for those living or working in New York and in similar jurisdictions across the Country. That is what they must contend with.As if reading the minds of New Yorkers, the Hochul Government issued a reminder (actually a warning) to all New York residents, on June 24, 2022, one day after the Bruen decision came out, that New Yorkers should take care not to carry a handgun in public without a valid concealed handgun carry license, that Bruen hasn’t changed anything.“Governor Kathy Hochul today issued a reminder to gun owners that the U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday decision to strike down New York's concealed carry law does not mean New York State's licensure processes and rules do not need to be followed. It does not automatically give current residential permit owners the ability to carry guns outside the home. Gun owners are required by law to follow current restrictions.” Hochul made these remarks on June 24, 2023, one day after the publication of the Bruen decision.Hochul would have known that most of the amendments to the Handgun Law were already drafted and coming down the pike, momentarily. That meant the nuances and peculiarities of multi-tier Gun licensing Statutes would remain.And that raises the question, post-Bruen: Why would a person seek to acquire a restricted New York handgun premise license in lieu of a concealed handgun carry license? After all, didn’t the elimination of the “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” requirement make the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license easier? Not really.Sure, the Hochul Government struck “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” from the Sullivan Act. But she remains stubborn and undeterred.Hochul continues to place roadblocks in the path of those individuals who wish to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense. A plethora of sensitive place restrictions on lawful carry and use of a handgun for self-defense now plague holders of concealed handgun carry licenses: both new applications and renewals.The inclusion of the “Sensitive Place” provision and the “Good Moral Character” requirement in the CCIA operate essentially as stand-ins for “Proper Cause.”If the Hochul Government must acknowledge the right to armed self-defense outside the home no less than inside it, then the New York Government will place a plethora of obstacles in the path of those whom the State issues licenses to carry.The holder of such a license now finds himself constrained in the act of lawful carrying of a handgun and, therefore, constrained from lawfully using a handgun for self-defense in places that heretofore had no such restrictions.New York State, and New York City, especially, has become a patchwork quilt of places where the carrying of a handgun for self-defense—and therefore the use of it for self-defense—is illegal, notwithstanding the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Pre-Bruen, the only place restrictions pertained to were school zones and Federal and State Government buildings. The licensee knew that and avoided carrying a handgun in those areas and buildings. Now, the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license must play a child’s game of  “Hopscotch”—kept mentally off-balance not precisely aware whether he and his handgun and the concealed handgun license he carries, are situated in a prohibited “Sensitive Place.” Did he miss a marker? What if he has to walk through or drive through a designated “Sensitive Place” to arrive at his destination? Must he detour around the area?The concealed handgun carry licensee must also keep in mind that “Sensitive Locations” are subject to revision. New restricted areas may be listed, and he must keep assiduously abreast of all amendments to those“Sensitive Place” restrictions.So then, “full carry” UNRESTRICTED handgun licenses no longer exist in New York. Under the CCIA, such “full carry” licenses, are constrained by numerous rigidly enforced place restrictions—which the Government may add to at any time.New York UNRESTRICTED “FULL CARRY” CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES are for all intents and purposes now reduced to RESTRICTED “LIMITED CARRY” CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES, most notably, on Manhattan Island.

NUANCES OF THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” REQUIREMENT

The “Good Moral Character” requirement operates differently from the State’s “Sensitive Place” provision.The idea behind amendments to “Good Moral Character” as applied to applications for New York concealed handgun carry licenses is to dissuade an applicant from going through the hurdles of obtaining one.That is a strong inducement for the applicant to forego attempting to acquire such a license, opting instead for a restrictive premise license. That is why the Hochul Government has maintained the confounding multi-tiered handgun licensing structure post-Bruen.While there would appear, at first glance, no rational reason for a person to opt for a HIGHLY RESTRICTED New York premise handgun license Post-Bruen, the Hochul Government there are more than enough hurdles in place, making the acquisition of a RESTRICTED concealed handgun carry license no assured proposition, and the detailed information the CCIA mandates might cause a conscientious person to wish to refrain from divulging substantial details of his private life to the Government. In that case, a person might wish to forego the intricate, confusing, and intrusive process to obtain a concealed carry license and accept, instead, a New York premise handgun license.

INDIVIDUALS PURSUING A NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE MUST BE WILLING TO WAIVE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND PRIVACY, ALLOWING THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT TO INTRUDE MERCILESSLY INTO EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIFE

For the individual undeterred in his quest to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, he must willingly accept Government interference with his fundamental right to privacy and autonomy.Application of this bolstered “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” provision has a chilling effect on the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause and on tacit Freedom of Association, and on the Fourth Amendment right of a person to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. An Applicant must now waive those rights if he wishes to pursue the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license.“GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” also butts up against one’s right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment—the very reason the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the“PROPER CAUSE” requirement.As applied to applicants for either highly restricted or restrictive premise handgun licenses only, the 2023 version of New York’s Handgun Law does not change anything. The CCIA reads as the prior version of the Gun Law read:NY CLS Penal §400.00(1):“Eligibility. No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true. No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant (a) twenty-one years of age or older, provided, however, that where such applicant has been honorably discharged from the United States army, navy, marine corps, air force or coast guard, or the national guard of the state of New York, no such age restriction shall apply; (b) of good moral character, which, for the purposes of this article, shall mean having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others (c) who has not been convicted anywhere of a felony or a serious offense or who is not the subject of an outstanding warrant of arrest issued upon the alleged commission of a felony or serious offense; (d) who is not a fugitive from justice; (e) who is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance as defined in section 21 U.S.C. 802; (f) who being an a noncitizen (i) is not illegally or unlawfully in the United States or (ii) has not been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa subject to the exception in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2); (g) who has not been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (h) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has not renounced his or her citizenship; (i) who has stated whether he or she has ever suffered any mental illness; (j) who has not been involuntarily committed to a facility under the jurisdiction of an office of the department of mental hygiene pursuant to article nine or fifteen of the mental hygiene law, article seven hundred thirty or section 330.20 of the criminal procedure law or substantially similar laws of any other state, section four hundred two or five hundred eight of the correction law, section 322.2 or 353.4 of the family court act, has not been civilly confined in a secure treatment facility pursuant to article ten of the mental hygiene law, or has not been the subject of a report made pursuant to section 9.46 of the mental hygiene law; (k) who has not had a license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of section 530.14 of the criminal procedure law or section eight hundred forty-two-a of the family court act.”The above requirements apply to the issuance of all New York handgun licenses: the highly restrictive premise home or business license and the concealed handgun “full carry” license.Note that the requirements set forth in the aforesaid section of the Handgun Law mirror the requirements of Federal Law, 18 USCS § 922, but also, in some instances, as illustrated in the State law, go well beyond what counts as a disability under Federal law. But understand——

FEDERAL LAW DISQUALIFIERS FOR POSSESSING A FIREARM DO NOT INCLUDE A GOOD MORAL CHARACTER REQUIREMENT. NEW YORK LAW DOES.

The requirement is both inherently vague and markedly, nakedly subjective.How does a licensing officer determine an applicant has “the essential character, temperament, and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others”? If the individual falls into a Federal disability—for example, the individual has been involuntarily committed to a mental asylum, has a felony conviction, or having served in the military, has received a dishonorable discharge—the licensing officer will point to the disability and likely add the applicant lacks the necessary character to be trusted with possession of a handgun or with the possession of any firearm. But then, a claim of lack of proper character and temperament adds nothing to a notice of denial to issue a handgun license. THE REQUIREMENT IS REDUNDANT.But, if the licensing officer does not specify a disability in the notice of denial apart from the assertion that, in the licensing officer’s opinion, the applicant lacks proper character and temperament, then, in the absence of a factual basis for such a finding, other than mere recitation of subjective, personal opinion, a Court of competent jurisdiction would likely find the decision to be arbitrary and capricious.But an applicant would have to go through the lengthy, arduous, and costly process of filing a New York “ARTICLE 78” action, challenging the licensing officer’s decision, to obtain relief from a Notice of Denial to Issue a License.That has always been a problem with the use of a Character requirement in the Handgun Law. But, prior to the enactment of the CCIA, the requirement never posed a viable problem.The licensing officer wouldn’t point to the absence of proper character and temperament EXCEPT if the denial were grounded on an objective disability. Recitation of the disability would suffice to deny the issuance of a handgun license. But, of itself, recitation of lack of proper character would not suffice to support a notice of denial to issue a handgun license. Lack of Good Moral Character was, heretofore, in New York, neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to obtaining a license.The Licensing Officer might append his Notice of Denial with a finding that the applicant lacks proper temperament and character, but its inclusion would not add anything portentous to the Notice of Denial.An Article 78 judicial action challenging the Notice of Denial would address the license officer’s litany of disabilities—discrete and specific matters. For, it would be on the basis of the disabilities that character objectively comes into play. Still, one might make the case that severe mental illness, severe enough to require institutionalization is not of itself demonstrative of “BAD MORAL CHARACTER,” any more than a person having a serious heart condition, or cancer, should be considered to have “BAD MORAL CHARACTER” due to illness.Where a person has committed a serious crime due to mental illness (for example, a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity), a case may or not be made out that such a person has “BAD MORAL CHARACTER.” It is a gray area. But, in any event, the New York licensing officer would refuse to issue a handgun license to that person. The issue of “GOOD” or “BAD” MORAL CHARACTER is really irrelevant in that case.Moreover, by itself, the issue of “CHARACTER” counts for nothing. And yet, for those individuals now applying for a concealed handgun carry license, this elusive and illusive provision becomes a new highly ramped-up basis to deny issuance of a handgun license. It is even more subjective, and just as arbitrary, as New York’s old “Proper Cause” requirement.Like the multi-tier structure of handgun licensing, the inclusion of a character requirement in the Handgun Law has itself developed into a complex multi-tier structure.The requirement for those applying for a concealed handgun carry license, the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement established for application for a highly restricted handgun carry license is now merely the first step in a two-step process to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, that the applicant has the proper character to be issued a concealed handgun carry license.Post-CCIA, NY CLS Penal §400.00(1)(o):“for a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section the applicant shall meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview and shall, in addition to any other information or forms required by the license application submit to the licensing officer the following information: (i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home; (ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others; (iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section; (iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and (v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.”It isn’t clear whether only one, or two, or all five requirements listed above all fall into the sphere of “Good Moral Character” and we must wend our way through the thicket to get a handle on this.To begin, it is odd to require more than one standard of proper character in the State’s Handgun Law.Logically, if a person cannot be deemed to have sufficient good character to possess a handgun at all, what does it mean and why should it matter to require more of one’s character to carry a handgun in public?Surely, if a “Character” requirement is going to be posited at all, then it follows that a person either has the proper character and temperament to possess a handgun or does not. This is not to suggest that a person should be required to demonstrate special Character traits. Indeed a person can have bad character, but, unless he is a blatant threat to others, a licensing authority should not wield one’s Character as a sword against him.The problem here rests with the Government licensing of handguns. The multi-tier handgun scheme that New York has constructed around which the Government creates ridiculous requirements to justify, or rationalize, the need for such a tiered structure, only makes the entire notion of “CHARACTER” more ridiculous. But, to employ a “CHARACTER” provision in a licensing scheme at all is just “nuts.”Government creates handgun licensing schemes and then interjects requirements that beg the question of whether Government should be in the game of licensing exercise of a fundamental right at all.Sure, a person requires a license to practice law or to practice medicine, but, while a person does enjoy a basic (we would argue an unenumerated Ninth Amendment) right to make a living, and, in fact, has a duty to provide for himself and for his family, so as not to be a burden on himself and on society, a person does not have a Constitutional right to practice law or medicine.And the professions, not the Government, regulate whether one has the proper character to practice law or medicine, anyway. If a professional Board sitting on review of a person’s character does not believe a candidate has the proper character, the Board will not allow a person to sit for the Bar Exam or, in the case of the medical profession, to sit for the Medical Licensing Examinations. These exams are necessary conditions precedent to acquire a State License to practice law or medicine.But the inclusion of a “Good Moral Character” requirement as a condition precedent to obtaining a license to exercise the fundamental right to armed self-defense is bizarre, and, in practice, application of the requirement adds nothing substantive, definitive, or even rational to the process. Application of the requirement merely reflects the personal bias of the licensing authority.And there never was anything substantive about it. It is just a makeweight, and wholly subjective.The Federal grounds for disqualification are sufficient,* as they are, for the most part, objective and tend to preclude the insinuation of personal bias, conscious or not, into the process of adducing whether one can or cannot possess a firearm. The instant background check undertaken at a firearms dealer is enough.The mindset of the Hochul Government is crucial in analyzing and evaluating these new requirements in the CCIA.We will delve into this in the next article, beginning with whether New York makes use of this thing, in other State Statutes. It does. And we will take a look at how other States that have such a provision, utilize it, and lay out our arguments in support of the remarks made herein that there is no justification for employment of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” in New York’s Handgun Law.____________________________________*We must stress, consistent with prior statements made in previous articles, that our position is that, despite the seeming contradiction, the natural law right to armed self-defense is absolute.

But does this mean that all individuals should possess a firearm if they wish? The term ‘absolute,’ means ‘unqualified,’ and ‘without restriction.’ This logically entails the proposition that the natural law right to armed self-defense is an unqualified right of man, hence a right, without restriction.

But refer back to the word, ‘should,’ in the afore-referenced question, “Should all individuals possess a firearm if they wish? Further to the point, should there be some limitation on who possesses a firearm?

The word ‘should’ changes a proposition into a normative, moral statement that does not readily fall into the basic “true”/“false” paradigm. Our position is that pragmatic considerations require tough choices when it comes to who “should” “be allowed” to possess a firearm. That ultimately means some people, for pragmatic reasons, “should not” be permitted to possess guns.

Murderous psychopaths and psychotic maniacs fall into categories of individuals who should not possess firearms because their use of firearms is not limited to self-defense or for such benign purposes as hunting, target practice, or sport, such as skeet or trap-shooting, or Olympic events. And, recall the codification of the natural law right to armed self-defense (subsumed into “self-defense”/“self-preservation”) as the core predicate of the right, eliminating, then, use of firearms to commit murder or to threaten murder or other violence.

Federal Law also prohibits “illegal aliens” from possessing firearms. And that is right and proper. The United States is a Nation State, with physical geographical borders, comprised of citizens, whose allegiance, whether they accept it or not, is to the Nation—its Constitution, history, heritage, culture, ethos, and core ethical values.

By definition, an ‘illegal alien,’ is a person who intentionally defies our National geographical Integrity, our Constitutional integrity, and our Laws. His allegiance is not to our Country, nor to our Constitution. Therefore he, like a murderer, is a threat to our natural law right to self-defense, and therefore is prohibited from possessing a firearm, and, from a normative perspective, “ought” rightfully to be prohibited from possessing a firearm.

“Mental Defectives” are another category of individuals that are not in a position to be trusted with a gun as a very young child, as they pose a threat to others if they have access to a firearm. And as for those members of the armed forces who have been dishonorably discharged, they have brought dishonor on their Nation and on themselves and have demonstrated an inability to be trusted with a firearm, as, by definition, they pose a danger to the Nation, People, and Constitution.

But how far should these pragmatic bases to deny possession of firearms extend? The Government itself exists to preserve and protect the Constitution and provide for the common welfare of the citizens.

But Government is naturally inclined—given the power it wields—to subvert those ends, usurping the sovereignty of the American people.

The Biden Administration has disdainfully, unabashedly usurped the sovereignty of the American people and has deliberately, and maliciously failed to faithfully serve and protect the Nation, and has intentionally, malevolently, and spitefully, ignored enforcement of the Laws of the Land. And the Administration has gone further yet: coldly, callously, designing and implementing policy for the purpose of subverting and sabotaging the Laws of the Land.

It is not by accident this Administration has deliberately thwarted the citizenry's exercise of their Bill of Rights. The Administration has designed and implemented policy systematically designed to weaken the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Biden Administration is hell-bent determined to dismantle the institutions of our Country, to destroy our history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethical values, fully embracing a Tyranny to thrust upon the Nation. And Democrat Party-controlled State Governments across the Country have taken the policy positions and messaging of the Biden Administration to heart: zealously following in the Administration’s footsteps, designing and implementing similar policies, all with the aim of destabilizing society, destroying the economy, demoralizing the people, and promoting all matter of vices against God, Country, and People.

It is but an understatement to assert that neither the Federal Government nor many State Governments are the best arbiter to decide how or whether the natural law right to armed self-defense is to be exercised.

As we see most clearly today, Government tends, through time, to institute more and more restrictions on who may “lawfully” possess firearms, and places ever more draconian restrictions on the types, kinds, and quantity of firearms and ammunition one may possess, and on the component parts and paraphernalia a person may “lawfully” keep.

The Arbalest Quarrel has discussed this notion of ‘Tyranny’ in some depth, in previous articles and we will have much more to say about it and will do so in future articles. We will also deal at length with the notion of ‘absoluteness’ of our natural law rights and lay out further how that concept can be seen to cohere with a seeming logical inconsistency of ‘limitation’ placed on absoluteness in the exercise of natural law rights, utilizing “pragmatic realism” and “normative principles” to secure the Bill of Rights for all time, notwithstanding the strong desire and goal of the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalist Empire Builders that insist the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights is archaic, unworkable, and, therefore, must eventually be eliminated, as part of their major overhaul of this Nation’s  Constitution.

___________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK TIMES UNLEASHES ATTACK DOGS IN OP-ED ON EVE OF ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN BRUEN

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument today on the  Second Amendment case NYSRPA vs. Bruen (previously captioned NYSRPA vs. Corlett).This is the first major case to come before the High Court after Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joining the Liberal wing of the Court, punted on last year’s New York City Gun Transport case. Let’s hope the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kavanaugh don’t get cold feet this time.But there are enough Anti-Second Amendment fanatics, including, unfortunately, jurists and attorneys, waiting in the wings, to castigate the Justices if they should—horror of horrors—actually strike down unconstitutional laws.One can perhaps understand the “walking dead” among the living who pay too much attention to the nonsense spouted by jackasses in the Government, in the Press, in social media, and in Hollywood—allowing others to do their thinking for them. And the message is always the same:“Surrender your firearms and peace will rain down upon you from the heavens.” And “the walking dead” nod their heads in mindless, senseless bovine agreement.At one time the fiction might have been somewhat believable, even though patently untrue. That was in the day when communities actually had well-funded police departments to provide at least a modicum of security. Now, however, police departments in major cities are underfunded, defunded, and emasculated, or are on the verge of extinction.One is left to ask, plaintively: “who will protect me if there are no police around and I’m not permitted a handgun to protect myself?” And, one is left befuddled at the reply given him from the vacant-eyed cultists: “That’s your white privilege talking.”But, when some jurists and attorneys claim a person’s right to defend him or herself with a firearm must stop at the doorstep of one’s house, such an assertion is untenable and unconscionable.Yet, that is what the public gets.In an Op-Ed titled, “Prominent Conservatives Back Letting States Limit Guns in Public,” published in The New York Times, on November 2, 2021, one day before the oral hearing in Bruen, J. Michael Luttig, a former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, and Richard D. Bernstein, an appellate lawyer, make clear their disdain for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”They demonstrate their abhorrence of the unfettered Constitutional Right of Americans “to carry loaded concealed weapons in public and in public places, wherever and whenever they believe they might need their guns for self-defense.”They assert, “The announcement of such an absolute and unfettered right would be shocking and disquieting to most Americans. . . .” The appropriate, if curt, reply to this ridiculous remark is, “so what!”Since when is a decision on a fundamental, natural law Right to be treated like a Beauty Pageant—as a matter for popular acclaim?These two ostensible legal experts, continue:“The Supreme Court is not constitutionally empowered to make these decisions, and it is ill-suited to make them. For the justices to begin deciding for the people exactly where and when a person has a right to carry a handgun in public would be to establish the court as essentially a National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations, precisely the kind of constitutional commandeering of the democratic process that conservatives and conservative jurists have long lamented in other areas of the law, such as abortion. It would be hypocritical for this conservative court to assume what essentially would be a legislative oversight role over public-carry rights, when conservatives on and off the court have for almost 50 years roundly criticized the court for assuming that same role over abortion rights.”Former Judge Luttig and Attorney Bernstein simply construct a strawman to unceremoniously knockdown.The U.S. Supreme Court isn’t operating as a “National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations,” when deciding matters of Constitutional law. That IS precisely their Article 3 duty.Apparently, these learned gentlemen have forgotten what they came across during their first-year Constitutional law class: Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”This function and the sacred obligation of the Judiciary do not fall to Congress. It doesn’t fall to the U.S. President. It doesn’t fall to State and Local Governments. And it sure as hell doesn’t fall to an uninformed, angry mob.It is the duty solely of the U.S. Supreme Court, to interpret the law—to say what the law is.Yet, Luttig and Bernstein would dare deny the Court its Constitutional function. They don’t just suggest this. They blurt it out,“Conservatives, textualists and originalists believe — or should — that the Second Amendment ought not be interpreted to take from the people and their legislatures the historical and traditional authority they have had for centuries to decide where handguns may be carried in public and in public places.”They continue,“Historically and traditionally, legislatures have restricted the public carry of guns, from medieval England to colonial times, through the founding and to the present day. In fact, many of those early laws were more draconian than our own, banning the carry of guns in public places generally, without offering any exceptions like those New York provides for people who can demonstrate an actual need to defend themselves. Those restrictions extended far beyond public locations with a large and continuous armed police presence, such as government buildings and courthouses, to almost any public place — fairs, markets and indeed wherever a person would ‘go armed.’”Reliance on historical anecdote—and Luttig and Bernstein do not offer support for any of this—has limited prudential value at best. That is why originalists do not place much stock in it, and should not.In the first instance and in the final analysis, one should go to the written language of the law:The Second Amendment says,“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”Where in the language of the Second Amendment is there any statement of limitation on the exercise of the Right?The danger of overbearing Government action is most acute where fundamental rights are involved. Governments must act circumspectly. They rarely do. Government justification for infringing a fundamental right on the pretext of pragmatic expediency must be scrutinized by the Courts.New York gun legislation is a case study of heavy-handed action by the Government. The Second Amendment Right is converted into mere privilege and one that the Government rarely grants to the American citizen.Luttig and Bernstein apparently aren’t even aware that, in blindly defending the New York City handgun licensing scheme—requiring the applicant to show actual need before obtaining a concealed handgun license—they fail to see the inherent absurdity of it.Why should a person be forced to proffer a reason to a Government official that one’s life is worth defending with the best means available for doing so—a handgun? It presupposes one’s life isn’t really important. And, the entire exercise comes down to an arbitrary, perfunctory, and often futile and expensive ordeal for the citizen; one inviting corruption and unfair dealing of which the NYPD Licensing Division is notorious.Lastly, Luttig and Bernstein have the audacity to give advice to Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, attempting to thrust her own words back upon her. They assert,“Two years ago, then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett called English and founding era statutes ‘the best historical support for a legislative power’ to restrict firearms.”The case Luttig and Bernstein refer to is Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019).But, what Justice Barrett said, in her dissenting opinion, apropos of that passage, in full, is that:“The best historical support for a legislative power to permanently dispossess all felons would be founding-era laws explicitly imposing—or explicitly authorizing the legislature to impose—such a ban. But at least thus far, scholars have not been able to identify any such laws. The only evidence coming remotely close lies in proposals made in the New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania ratifying conventions.”Justice Barrett wasn’t advocating for use of historical support for legislative power to curb the exercise of one’s Second Amendment right. On the contrary, she was claiming the jurist should be wary of relying on it.In the case before the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett argued for the reinstatement of Plaintiff Kanter’s right to own and possess a firearm; not to dispossess him of it. She concluded her dissent, saying,“Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,’ and he is ‘employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond  with lower rates of recidivism.’ Absent evidence that Kanter would pose a risk to the public safety if he possessed a gun, the governments cannot permanently deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms.”Luttig and Bernstein should have given proper context to Justice Barrett’s dissenting opinion in Kanter, or have shown her the courtesy to refrain from quoting her at all.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.            

ANTI-GUN FORCES WON’T REST UNTIL SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT IS ERASED FROM MEMORY

PART TWO

SUPREME COURT MAJORITY JOINS FORCES WITH SECOND AMENDMENT FOES TO CHIP AWAY AT  NATURAL GOD-GIVEN RIGHT.

As reported in the leftist periodical Newsweek, on March 27, 2018———“Young activists calling for more gun control legislation should be more ambitious in their nationwide effort and focus on repealing the Second Amendment, according to retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.“In an op-ed published Tuesday in The New York Times, Stevens praised the students and young people who rallied in Washington and around the country over the weekend as part of the March for Our Lives. The demonstration was sparked by the shooting last month at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people, including 14 students, dead.Stevens wrote that he had ‘rarely’ seen such a wide scope of ‘civic engagement’ from young people in his lifetime and encouraged their efforts to go even further.‘That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms,’ Stevens wrote. ‘But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.’”March 27, 2018 article appearing in Newsweek, citing and extolling retired Justice John Paul Stevens, whose Op-Ed appeared in the NY Times on the same date: March 27, 2018. In that Op-Ed Stevens explicitly calls for repeal of the Second Amendment, an extraordinarily extreme position he alluded to but would dare not expressly assert in his dissent in the 2008 Heller case.

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT MAINSTREAM MEDIA REJOICES OVER MAJORITY DECISION IN NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE.

The seditious Anti-Second Amendment Press breathed a collective sigh of relief when the U.S. Supreme Court Majority voted for Respondent, New York City, against the Petitioner, NYSRPA, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020).* The New York City gun transport case was the first major Second Amendment case to be decided by the High Court since the McDonald case decision ten years earlier.Although the legal issue, a very narrow one, only implicated the bizarre, abhorrent, draconian, multifaceted, bloated, fascistic, and constantly refined and engineered handgun licensing requirements of New York City, apropos of Section 5-01(a) of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York, pertaining to a “premise handgun license,”, the antigun, anti-Second Amendment mob exhibited marked hysteria that the high Court had dared to hear the case at all; concerned that a decision for the NYSRPA against the City would open the floodgates to renewed attacks against restrictive gun regulations across the Country.The weblog “Bearing Arms,” said, at the time, just before oral argument: “Now, the Court is hearing arguments on the case. That’s more than enough to trigger anti-gunners to completely lose their crap.” In its article, Bearing Arms cited an unconscionable, reprehensible story that appeared in the Radical Left weblog news one in which the weblog denounced and denigrated Associate Justice Clarence Thomas for having the audacity to exalt the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Unabashedly mocking the esteemed Associate Justice, as if the writer for news one had any comprehension of U.S. Constitutional Law and of the critical importance of the natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms to the proper functioning of a free Constitutional Republic, the writer blurted out:“Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been one of the most destructive justices on the court. However, his foolishness is about to hit a new level with the Second Amendment being revisited for the first time on the court in over a decade.In case you missed it, the Supreme Court is hearing a case to expand gun rights. Yep, you read that right. The majority conservative court might make it easier to have [sic] gun in a time when the majority of Americans are asking for more gun control.It all has to do with New York City, which has strict rules to protect people from gun violence. In July of 2019, New York City put in a strict rule that limited where New Yorkers could bring their guns, which included transporting legally owned guns outside city limits. No other city or state has this restriction, which was put into place after the horrific shooting of school children in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012.  Twenty-six people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, were killed.Well, Clarence Thomas isn’t happy and wants more people to have guns. The Washington Post reports, ‘Justice Clarence Thomas has complained that the lower courts have been too willing to uphold gun restrictions, accusing the courts of treating the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right.’The Washington Post also asserts, ‘These justices apparently want to adopt a stricter test for courts to apply in Second Amendment cases, making it harder for gun laws to survive a legal challenge. If the court follows suit in the New York case, recent reforms such as red flag laws and universal background checks could be imperiled.’Many states have made their own changes to their gun laws, which the federal government has failed to do. However, if the Supreme Court finds that New York City went too far with the latest restriction, this could be a serious blow to gun advocacy groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, March for Our Lives, Moms Demand Action, and for the thousands of people.Leave it up to Clarence Thomas to be on the wrong side of history.”“Protect people from gun violence”— by removing the most effective means, i.e., a gun,’ with which the average, rational, law-abiding person might capably protect him or herself from a vicious predator? “Wrong side of history”— (i.e., revisionist history) because Justice Thomas defends our Nation’s cherished Bill of Rights?And Fox19 now, noted, after the New York City gun transport case decision came down:“The anti-climactic end to the Supreme Court case is a disappointment to gun rights advocates and relief to gun control groups who thought a conservative Supreme Court majority fortified by two appointees of President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, might use the case to expand on landmark decisions from a decade ago that established a right under the Second Amendment to keep a gun at home for self-defense.Lower courts upheld the regulation, but the Supreme Court’s decision early in 2019 to step into the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights from a court with two new justices. Officials at both the city and state level scrambled to find a way to remove the case from the justices’ grasp. Not only did the city change its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside New York’s five boroughs, but the state enacted a law barring cities from imposing the challenged restrictions.Those moves failed to get the court to dismiss the case before arguments in December, and gun control advocates worried that the court might adopt the reasoning Kavanaugh used in a 2011 opinion in his former job as a Court of Appeals judge. There, he wrote, gun laws “that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right.” Anti-Second Amendment foes need not have worried. But most Americans do need to worry about the future of Americans’ natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable God-given right to keep and bear arms.The New York City gun transport case provides Americans with a blueprint for assessing the predilections of U.S. Supreme Court Justices on matters pertaining to the Second Amendment.First, the liberal wing of the High Court—comprising, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—abhors the Second Amendment. The liberal wing will routinely, if not invariably, rule in favor of Government actions that, on their face, infringe the core of the right. The liberal wing will contort the law to find Government actions constitutional that are clearly unconstitutional and that tend to weaken our fundamental, natural rights and liberties. The liberal wing will continue to demonstrate little reluctance in subordinating the U.S. Constitution and U.S. case law precedent to the dictates of international norms and standards that stand in marked conflict to our system of laws and jurisprudence.Second, the conservative wing of the High Court—comprising, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—in the mold of the late, brilliant and esteemed Justice, Antonin Scalia, will continue to demonstrate great deference to our Constitution, and will, consistent with their Oath, always strive to preserve and strengthen our natural rights and liberties.Third, Chief Justice Roberts cannot and should not be considered a Judicial conservative. He does not exemplify those Justices of the conservative wing of the Court. Even the expression, Judicial ‘moderate’ may not be an accurate descriptor for him. He does not exhibit the appropriate deference to the Second Amendment as now exemplified in having sided, sans a qualified concurring opinion, with the decision of the liberal—dare we say, increasingly, ‘radical’—wing of the High Court. Justice Roberts will continue to see-saw between the two wings of the Court. But do not expect the Chief Justice to treat our Bill of Rights with deep, abiding respect and reverence.Fourth, prior to the decision in the New York gun transport case, one would have reasonably thought that Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the newest member of the Court—as of the posting of this article—would exhibit the same deference to the Bill of Rights as those Justices comprising the conservative wing of the Court. Certainly, given Justice Kavanaugh’s comprehensive, well-reasoned, and well-written dissent in Heller II, one would have expected Justice Kavanaugh to express the same desire for consistency and detail in his written opinions as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice that he had exhibited as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case. Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring in the New York City gun transport case appears oddly dull, imprecise, even apologetic in tone. And the decision is not consistent with his dissent in Heller II.Of course, Justice Kavanaugh’s decision would not have changed the outcome of the case, but it does give one pause. For, if that concurring opinion serves as an indication of what we might expect in the future from this Associate Justice, our sacred Second Amendment—along with our other fundamental rights and liberties—may well be in jeopardy; all the more so if the presumptive Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, actually defeats Donald Trump in November. That happenstance would be the manifestation of our Nation’s worst nightmare.Justice Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential philosophy remains at this point inscrutable and that is not a good thing. In the next several segments, we attempt to unpack Kavanaugh’s concurring, along with a review of past Second Amendment cases that the High Court denied cert, and a close look at the issue of mootness, as the majority decision in the New York City case wasn’t consistent with Supreme Court precedence; not even close.____________________________________*SCOTUSblog Holding and Judgment:Holding: Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule on transporting firearms is moot, and any claim for damages with respect to that rule may be addressed in the first instance by the court of appeals and the district court on remand.Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on April 27, 2020. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined in full and Justice Thomas joined except for Part IV-B.____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE MODERN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR: A CLASH OF IDEOLOGIES

PART THREE*

“A closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. These different premises—often implicit—are what provide the consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and groups on numerous, unrelated issues. They have different visions of how the world works.” ~ from A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell, Economist and Social Theorist; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.“You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve YOUR freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it.” ~John Adams“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.” ~Benjamin Franklin

A CLASH OF IDEOLOGIES; A NATION AT A CROSSROADS**

No one can reasonably doubt that the United States is in the throes of a major cataclysmic event. Two factions face off against each other in mortal combat for the soul and psyche of this Country. We see, in the desperation of one faction, the lengths at which it will go in its bid to regain control of its agenda. That faction through its proxies in Washington, comprising Congressional Democrats and Centrist “Bush” and “McCain” Republicans, has maintained control for the last three decades. That faction has exerted a stranglehold on the Country, slowly squeezing the lifeblood out of the Nation and its citizenry through control, inter alia, of Congress; the Federal bureaucracy; the federal courts; the mass media; and, of course, through the Federal Reserve, part of the Central Banking system--the brainchild of Mayer Amschel Rothschild--that has extended its tentacles around the world, up to the present day.The Leftist faction was well on its way toward completing the items on its agenda, as Barack Obama was ticking off the items during his two terms in Office. Hillary Clinton was poised to be elected U.S. President. Leftists of all stripes were smugly confident. After all, hadn't virtually all the exit polls predict a win--a landslide. They were certain that Hillary Clinton would secure the U.S. Presidency.Even if many on the Left would have preferred the Socialist, Bernie Sanders, as President, they knew, full well, that Hillary Clinton, would faithfully proceed, in the footsteps of her predecessor, Barack Obama, toward accomplishment of the Leftist agenda.Had Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, she likely would have re-nominated Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to the high Court; or, if not him, then she certainly would have nominated someone like him, someone who shares Judge Garland's jurisprudential philosophy and jurisprudential approach to case analysis--a man who had no fear of legislating from the Bench; a man who would contort and distort the dictates of the U.S. Constitution beyond anything the framers of that historic and sacred Document had intended or would have wished for. And, with control of two critical Federal Branches, the Executive and Judiciary, along with control of the mass media apparatus and the massive federal bureaucracy, the actual composition of Congress would, likely, have been, at least, in the short term of less critical importance. But, Clinton did not make it into the White House. Leftists, in our Country, including the internationalist billionaire benefactors of Leftist groups and causes, were thunderstruck, and they were already plotting their revenge, even before Donald Trump took the Oath of Office, as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

SEATING JURISTS ON THE SUPREME COURT WHOSE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACH TO CASE ANALYSIS COMMENCES WITH AN ABIDING LOVE FOR, DUE RESPECT FOR, AND DUE REGARD GIVEN FOR THE IMPORT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN, AND WHO INTERPRET FEDERAL STATUTE ACCORDING TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE TEXT, WAS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT GOALS IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT GOAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS IT MOST CERTAINLY WAS FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR HIM.

With the surprising election of Donald Trump as our Nation’s 45^th President, and with Republican control of Congress—especially, the U.S. Senate—and too, with Trump’s nomination of one strict Constitutional constructionist and originalist, Neil Gorsuch, presently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, and a second strict Constitutional constructionist and originalist, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, just confirmed as Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court now securely has a conservative-wing majority, albeit with one important caveat. Chief Justice Roberts is considered the new swing vote moderate. Chief Justice Roberts is, though, a more reliable conservative than retired Justice, Anthony Kennedy. So, where does this leave Leftists, and their agenda?Leftists and Leftist mobs are left scurrying about hither and yon; ranting and raving. The Leftist agenda seems to be on the verge of collapse or, if not, then, for the moment at least, the work of effectuating the Leftist agenda has certainly appreciably slowed. And, with the Left's failure to derail Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the high Court, that critical item of the Leftist agenda--preventing a conservative-wing majority, is a failed item. And the Leftist faction knows it. Leftists know that federal and State legislation that fails to cohere with the United States Constitution will not be allowed to go unchallenged. They know that, with Brett Kavanaugh on the high Court, those challenges will be taken up for high Court review. An "assault weapons" case, like the Kolbe and Friedman, would henceforth be heard. Leftists know that, if lower Courts continue to ignore the precedents of Heller and McDonald with impunity, there will now be a day of reckoning, and those lower Courts that so act with impunity will be called on the carpet for it.Democratic Party control of the Judiciary, is, then, critical to completion of the Leftist agenda and that can only be accomplished through election of a Democrat as U.S. President, along with Democratic Party control of the Senate. Failure to win the White House in 2016, and failure to control the Senate explains why Democrats have, themselves, gone off the rails in their attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court.And Americans have seen just how far Democrats are willing to go. After Judge Kavanaugh acquitted himself well in defending the vicious personal assault against him, they would not, could not admit even that much. Democrats speciously, even ridiculously, claimed that Judge Brett Kavanaugh has shown that he is unfit, temperamentally, to sit on the high Court, ostensibly because he happened to have the seeming audacity of displaying emotion and in having displayed righteous indignation in defending his character, his reputation, and his honor against a scurrilous, flimsy, rambling, barefaced, unsupported, uncorroborated public attack; an attack engineered by the Democratic Party leadership and by those Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as they desperately sought to prevent, by any means they could drum up, the Senate confirmation of a highly qualified Judge--however outrageous, patently unethical, and, perhaps, even illegal those means may be.These "Leftists" cared not one whit that they would be damaging, possibly, irreparably, the character and reputation of an honorable man. And they cared not at all that doing so would also endanger the life, safety, and well-being of Judge Kavanaugh and that of his family. They operated callously, maliciously, and reprehensibly, completely beyond the bounds of reason, and ethics, and human decency. Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee are utterly shameless. Their machinations and subterfuge rest well beyond the pale of human decency, let alone beyond the pale of what would count as proper U.S. Senate etiquette, decorum, and propriety. Americans have not, for decades, seen anything like the public spectacle they bore witness to that took place over several days of Confirmation Hearing. Democrats appeared, by turns, as circus clowns, sanctimonious inquisitors, and, as members of a cabaret burlesque troupe--many things, indeed, but not solemn, dignified members of the United States Senate, that a few Americans might have mistaken them to be.The disgusting displays of Democrats during the course of the Hearing, and the actions orchestrated by Democrats and by their allies behind the scenes is just a foretaste of what the American public may come to see, and would have every reason to expect if a liberal-wing Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps, or Stephen Breyer, retires or resigns from the high Court before President Trump’s first term in Office ends, and President Trump thereupon nominates a third Judge to sit on the high Court. Keep in mind that, according to USA Today, Justice Ginsburg is 85 years of age, and Justice Breyer is 79.If one more conservative-wing Trump nominee can be confirmed--assuming one of the liberal-wing Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer, retires--the conservative-wing majority, barring any unforeseen event, will be stronger yet, virtually impervious to Leftist attempts to complete the hijacking of the Nation and the Nation's  Constitution. The Leftist faction knows that it has suffered a profound defeat having failed to derail the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh or at least to delay a vote on the confirmation until after the 2018 Midterm elections, when it hopes to gain Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

LEFTISTS KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THE COMING MIDTERM ELECTIONS. CONSERVATIVES SHOULD KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE, TOO.

So, with the 2018 Midterm elections around the corner, Leftists are frantically, frenetically engaged in  sketching out new strategies in a bid to regain traction so that they can continue jumpstart the Leftist agenda. Republicans must not sit back and relax.The Leftist leadership, Congressional Democrats, and their billionaire internationalist benefactors know this; they know that they have been hamstrung, and they are literally exploding with rage. They have no cogent argument to make in their defense. Mobs of activists are enlisted to shout down conservative voices and anyone else who disagrees with the Leftist agenda. Mass demonstrations, violent outbursts, visible threats to those they target all point to the singular desperation of this faction. They can do nothing now, but flail about. So, the first order of business for Leftists is for Democrats to regain control of the U.S. Senate. But, even with a substantial number of reliable Democrats in the Senate, along with several swing votes in the U.S. Senate, that would not mean that more Democratic nominees for Federal Court seats, at all levels, would be confirmed. For, only the President of the United States can nominate federal judges, although Democrats can and in fact have blocked confirmation of many of Trump's nominees to sit on the lower federal Courts. So, then, the second order of business for Leftists is to make sure that Democrats can regain and hold control of the U.S. Senate through 2020 with the goal then of retaking the U.S. Presidency with a reliable Leftist. Once that step is accomplished, Democrats will be able once again to nominate reliably Leftist judges to sit on the federal Judiciary and will be able to confirm those Leftist Judges. Then Leftists will find themselves in a stronger position to reset the political and social direction of the Country, albeit with a little more difficulty now that the highest Court in the Land sits a reliable four Justice Conservative wing + one moderate/conservative Chief Justice majority.

CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME AMERICANS MAY THINK, THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THIS NATION IS DIRE. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A CIVIL WAR.

We see two distinctive political/social factions fighting for control of the Country's direction. Two visions for our Country are coming into sharp focus, into sharp relief. Whichever side ultimately prevails will see its world view realized. But, what are those two world views? How would each vision, if realized, affect this Country, and affect the lives of the Country's citizenry and affect the Constitution upon which the foundation of our Nation rests? We begin with this assertion: the two visions--the two world views--for this Country and for its people, rest on two mutually exclusive frameworks. Only one of the two can be realized. Democrats are a proxy for one vision. Republicans are a proxy for the second. It is not, then, a simple matter of a Republicans versus Democrats conflict that we are seeing. That is too simplistic. To frame the issue in terms of Republicans versus Democrats trivializes the matter before us.We are engaged in a Civil War. The central question before the Nation, then, can be stated thusly:Shall the Country continue to exist as an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic as the founders conceived and intended, with the Nation’s Constitution, laws, and judiciary intact and supreme, subordinated to no external system of laws and external tribunals; or, will the Country, as an independent Sovereign Nation and Free Republic, see its status as a singular, unique, independent, sovereign Nation State, at once diminished, impaired, or severely truncated?If the independence and sovereignty of the United States is impaired, we must consider a corollary question, namely, whether the supremacy of the Nation’s Constitution, its laws, and jurisprudence will similarly be impaired. And, if the United States finds its sovereignty and independence curtailed by pacts and treaties it happens to enter into with foreign entities through which such foreign elements insinuate their power and authority over this Country’s Government and institutions, will we then see the United States, as an independent sovereign political entity, subsumed into a new transnational political, economic, financial, and social framework, requiring that the Nation’s system of laws be subordinated to or otherwise replaced by foreign law and foreign jurisprudence? If such events were to occur, then this Nation and its Constitution will, de facto, cease to exist.If such were to occur we would see the United States and the American people effectively subordinated to the governance and will of a new transnational political, economic, financial, and social system to which the Nation would henceforth belong. This is not conspiracy. This is not alternative history. This is fact. The events that have played out before us in recent months dispel perfunctory dismissal of the seriousness of the situation facing the Nation and its people. We have seen clear and categorical attacks on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We have seen lower U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal flaunting the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and flaunting the President's Article 2 powers. We have seen indisputable, irrefutable evidence of high level federal bureaucrats having conspired against and continuing to conspire against the United State President; and we have seen indisputable, irrefutable evidence of high level bureaucrats actively attempting to sabotage the Administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. We have seen indisputable, irrefutable evidence of  the leadership of a few States openly defying Federal law; and in open revolt against Federal Officers tasked with enforcing Federal law. We see a Press, misusing its sacred right under the First Amendment. It has undertaken a campaign of disinformation and misinformation. It routinely smears the President, in a reprehensible attempt to discredit him, to isolate him, to prevent him from doing his job on behalf of the American people; and, in that reprehensible attack on the President, the Press has also attacked the very institution of Office of the U.S. Presidency, and, in so doing, has attacked our institutions, our Nation, and our people. We have seen an insidious attempt to question the sanctity of the very notions of, 'Nation State,' and of  'Citizen of the United States.' We see raging mobs in the Streets, on university campuses, and in the Halls of Congress. We have seen lunatics harassing both Government officials and members of Congress. We see sacred statues toppled; history rewritten; our Nation's Flag disrespected; our system of laws defied. None of this is accident. It is all by design.Ever since Donald Trump assumed the mantle of President of the United States, the ruthless, secretive, seditious, extraordinarily powerful, and inordinately wealthy forces that have worked to disassemble this Nation, have had to come out of the shadows, albeit reluctantly. What they could not accomplish quietly, within the interstices of the Nation's laws and institutions, they have come to realize they must use brute force. These forces are fomenting violence, anarchy, in a crude but, as they see it, necessary attempt, to force the Country back on the path they had established for the Country, a path that the Clintons, and Bush, and Obama--the willing accomplices of the Leftist agenda--had quietly, inexorably directed this Nation and its people to.As we continue to explore the two visions of the Country--one ascribed to the Leftist agenda, and the second ascribed to the Conservative cause--we need to take a closer look at the two factions--one of whom we have referred to here as "Leftist" and the other that we have alluded to as "Conservative." We must take a closer look at these two factions, and we begin with a consideration of the labels heretofore used as descriptors for them, even as we find all those descriptors  to be inapt. We explain why. We then consider better descriptors that better encapsulate the beliefs, precepts, assumptions, aims, and ultimate goals of each faction, each side, in this conflict. We will then take a close look at several of those beliefs, precepts, assumptions, and aims, and show the logical end point realizations of each.

WHAT EXPRESSIONS BEST DESCRIBE THE TWO FACTIONS?

In describing the two factions, the two combatants, we have considered various terminology and rejected that terminology because we considered the verbiage are either vague and ambiguous, and therefore likely to create confusion, or too narrow in scope or range, and therefore deficient as descriptors. We have heretofore employed the expressions, ‘Democrat,’ ‘Leftist’, ‘Progressive,’ ‘Liberal,’ and ‘Radical’ loosely and often interchangeably to denote one faction. And, we have employed the expressions, ‘Republican,’ ‘Conservative,’ and ‘Populist’, loosely, often interchangeably to denote the other faction. But, these expressions, as well, are too vague or ambiguous and too limited in range to be effective for our purpose here. Furthermore, they have been so overused that they are tantamount to clichés. A couple of the expressions may be considered to be, simply, pejoratives. Lastly, a few of the expressions,  may readily, or, at least, arguably suggest ideas, beliefs, and precepts of  both factions, as there exists significant overlap. Or, the expressions are simply and essentially empty and vacuous vessels, and so serve no useful, functional purpose.We have also considered using the expressions, ‘Globalist’ or ‘Internationalist’ or ‘Transnationalist’ to describe one faction and the expression, ‘Nationalist’ to describe the other faction. But these expressions as delineated come up short as apt descriptors, as they, too, have been overused; are, in fact, inaccurate descriptors; and, in reference to the term, ‘Nationalist,’ have been used as a term of  disparagement, as the mainstream media, when writing or talking about President Trump or anyone who supports him, equates the President’s nationalist fervor with fascism, even though President Trump is clearly not a fascist and the term ‘nationalism’ does not denote ‘fascism’ and should not be construed as synonymous with ‘fascism.’ But, the allusions are there, operating as a meme.A well-learned attorney, and legal scholar with whom we have discussed the matter, suggested that the expressions, ‘Collectivist,’ and ‘Individualist’ are the best terminology to be used to describe the belief system of a member of one faction or the other.’ And we concur. These two expressions are precise, carry no connotation of disparagement, have not heretofore been used by anyone, to our knowledge, to describe the two factions; and broadly embrace all beliefs, precepts, presuppositions and aims of the two groups facing off in this modern civil war taking place in America, but without any overlap. Therefore, mutual exclusivity in both the connotation and denotation of the expressions, as applied to each of the respective groups, is faithfully maintained. The expressions, ‘Collectivist’ and ‘Individualist,’ then, are the two expressions we will use as referrers and descriptors for each of the two factions at war with each other.Now, let us consider several of the basic belief systems, precepts, and ultimate goal and logical outcome of the Collectivist and Individualist philosophies. We will see in this delineated list two competing visions for our Country, one of which, taken to its logical conclusion, results in the ultimate dissolution of the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, together with the dissolution of the Nation’s Constitution and system of laws, and the other which preserves the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, with its Constitution and laws intact.We thus have two distinct, mutually exclusive visions of the Country and of the world; two distinct notions of law and government, and of the relationship of man to government and to each other—two distinct visions, only one which can be realized; and two ever diverging paths, only one, of which, our Nation can take! Our Nation is at a crossroads.

COLLECTIVISTS VERSUS INDIVIDUALISTS

COLLECTIVISTS’ BELIEFS, PRECEPTS, PRESUPPOSITIONS AND AIMS APROPOS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY

1) The ‘nation state’ is an archaic concept. The United States must eventually be subsumed into a new transnational political, economic, cultural, and social framework. This new framework will consist of the relics of the old western nation states, to be overseen by a world financial and technocratic conglomerate that will prescribe uniform rules of operation, behavior, and conduct of the various units and populations within it.2) Since the concept of ‘citizen’ is tied to rights and liberties, privileges and immunities of a select group of people within the nation state, called “The United States Of America,” and, as this nation state, as a political construct, is, eventually, to be dismantled, a concept of ‘citizen of The United States’ will no longer be meaningful. Individuals who were once perceived as citizens of The United States will henceforth be considered “subjects” within a greater, transnational political, economic, financial, cultural, system of governance, comprising people of diverse cultures.3) Diverse populations of people who inhabit vast regions throughout the world are henceforth to be integrated into a new global political and social and economic and financial and cultural world community.4) Since there nation states will no longer exist, there will no longer exist national borders to be protected. Hence, the subjects of this new transnational political, social, economic and cultural paradigm are free to travel to and reside in any geographical unit within the span or global reach of the new system of governance that the subject wishes to travel to and reside in. Such entry and exit points that had once demarcated geographical borders of nation states dismantled are henceforth erased.5) The U.S. Constitution which includes the rights and liberties of the citizens, codified in the Bill Of Rights, is meaningful only within the context of The United States, as an independent sovereign nation state. Once the United States ceases to exist, it follows that the U.S. constitution will be rendered ineffective and obsolete. Hence the political entity that existed as “The United States” is dissolved, along with the various states within the Union. The Nation will be subsumed within the new broad transnational system of global governance. 6) The U.S. Constitution need not be formally repealed. It simply will, upon the formal dismantling of The United States, have no legal force or effect. the governing board—the rulers—of this new system of global governance will prepare and implement a new legal and administrative framework for the system’s governance. This new legal and administrative framework—consisting of a new system of laws, rules, regulations, along with a new jurisprudential philosophy and methodology for handling civil disputes that happen to arise and criminal conduct that must be adjudicated—will be established, handled through civil and criminal tribunals, dispersed throughout the global system of governance. A constitution for the vast populations residing in this new world order may or may not be drafted. It may be useful, but is not required. The global system of governance will control the populace with a vast network of intelligence and police apparatuses. a standing army, with barracks throughout the global system of governance will also be established and maintained. 7) All populations that reside in the new global political and social, and economic framework are subject to the jurisdiction of this new transnational system of governance. This transnational system of governance will be created and enforced by overseers, appointed by the new global governing board, to mete out justice and to set forth those privileges the subjects may have and enjoy. such privileges that the subjects of this global system of governance enjoy may be refined, modified, or eliminated, as the global governing board sees fit. 8) Substantive and procedural rights are perceived as all man-made constructs. since it is decreed that, for political purposes, no creator exists, it follows, there are no natural fundamental rights intrinsic to man, endowed by a creator upon man. such rights and liberties that subjects have are deemed mere platitudes as subjects have no inherent rights or liberties as such, but, rather, privileges bestowed upon them, denoted by licenses, that are presented to subjects by the overseers of the new transnational system of global governance. licenses shall be surrendered to the overseers on demand or as prescribed by such laws and regulations, seen as edicts, that the governing board happens to create. and, since rights and liberties are no more than or other than licenses bestowed on subjects, they can easily be ceded to the overseers upon demand. It shall be declared, then, that no subject within the new transnational system of governance can claim any right or liberty as a matter of personal right, as no such personal rights exist inherently in man.9) Thus, all rights, privileges, and liberties are considered man-made constructs and artifices. The governing board may, at its pleasure, modify or eliminate outright such rights, liberties, and privileges as it deems necessary, as the members of the governing board hold exclusive power and authority throughout the reach of the global system of governance.10) The ethical system utilized by the governing board of this transnational system of governance, as applied to the subjects therein, is based on the notion of utilitarian consequentialism. This is a system of ethics in which “the good” is defined in terms of ‘utility’ maximization. What constitutes ‘the good’ is anything the rulers of this transnational system of governance, through their overseers, define ‘the good’ as applied to and as maximized for the greatest number of people.11) Morality: the concept of ‘moral good’ is determined by the consequences of one’s actions alone—not by one’s intention to do a good or evil act. What constitutes “moral goodness” in the broadest sense is, then, that which benefits the collective—the majority of people. What benefits the collective, does not necessarily also benefit the individual. In fact, what benefits the collective may be deleterious and detrimental to the individual. Thus, for example, if the ownership of firearms for self-defense is considered beneficial to the individual but detrimental to the masses, then firearms’ ownership must be curtailed. Similarly, if free speech, and free association among particular groups are deemed to harm collective cohesion, then freedom of speech and freedom of association are inferred to be contrary to maintenance of the ‘moral good,’ the moral fiber of the populations and must be constrained. Acts that neither benefit the collective nor are deemed harmful to the collective are considered to be morally neutral. Morally neutral acts are acts that can be tolerated.12) Results desired outweigh adherence to any constitution created or to any laws established. If the results to be achieved conflicts with the law as applied, then, the law must give way to the result to be achieved. Thus, the political or social end to be achieved or desired shall always override the constitution, if there is one, or such laws, rules, and regulations that are made. If, then, a desired political or social end to be achieved or desired can be achieved in no way other than by ignoring, suspending, or abrogating such laws, rules, and regulations, then such laws, rules and laws shall be suspended, abrogated, or simply ignored. Thus, the means to be achieved always justifies the end sought. thus, all laws, rules, regulations, or codes of conduct are merely ad hoc and, therefore, ultimately illusory.13) Thus, “law” is whatever the governing board essentially says law is. The governing board may create or suspend law by simple proclamation or government edict. Law is adjusted by demand or need to obtain a particular result. Order is maintained by force. the governing Board may, periodically, create disorder, too, as a political device to achieve their goals. 14) Individual ambition and motivation and desire is contained and constrained. It is collective will—the will of the masses—shaped, molded and periodically contorted, distorted, and then reshaped, remolded and reconfigured by the rulers as to garner, essentially a condition of neutral political stasis. It is this state of neutral stasis that is ultimately desired. So, it is that neutral stasis that is considered the “ultimate good” and it is thus that utility is maximized, and “the will” of the masses—“the will” of the collective is achieved. 15)The vast populations of the world that fall under the domain of this new transnational system of global governance will be reduced to penury and servitude.16) “Popular opinion” overrides the effect and impact of the constitution, if there is one, and overrides such laws that are created. But, ‘popular opinion’ as understood by collectivists is less a spontaneous public response to perceived grievances, emanating from the public, and more a political and social device, used by those who wield power to create the illusion that the masses, the collective ‘will,” wields power to affect political and social change and that the desire to do so emanates from the masses. It does not.  Popular opinion is driven by the demand of those in power to achieve a desired end, as power—its creation and use—falls within the purview of government, not the people. This illustrates, once again, that all law is ad hoc for the collectivist. Law, as such, is an artifice, another tool of government to be used as a mechanism of control. The transnational system of governance is a system of governance ruled by men—the rulers of this transnational system of governance; it is not a system ruled by law.17) Individuals, or groups of individuals, that, from time to time, happen to rise up against the global system of governance will be quashed by the police and army, if necessary. but, generally, the governing board will use the subjects, themselves, to constrain dissent. use of the populace itself, as a self-righteous horde, is preferred, to maintain order, as police and army standby at the ready. the illusion is maintained that the populace—the collective, the masses, themselves—are the rulers, as this fosters the false notion that it is the collective will that operates to create cohesion, order, and perpetual harmony in society. But that notion is the supreme, ultimate myth since governmental power and authority does not rest in the people, but in government itself and government is not answerable to the people, but only to itself, as it is the ruling “elite”—ever shadowy and secretive, who wield actual power and authority.18) Eventually, the unique history, culture, traditions, and values that identify the peoples of the various independent nation states will be forgotten, dissolved in the mists of the past. A new history will be drafted; a new culture, set of traditions, and set of core values will be created for this new amorphous mass of people that inhabit the vast lands overseen by the rulers of this global system of governance. A single currency will be used throughout the system of governance, and a single language adopted throughout the realm. the ministers of propaganda will periodically monitor and revise language to maintain homogeneity in thought and action among the subjects of this vast global system of governance.The vision of the proponents of Collectivism is inconsistent with the vision the founders of our Nation had for our Country. In fact, it is anathema to the vision of our founders.In the next segment we look at the founder’s vision. It is the vision of Individualism, and, up to this point in time, it has prevailed, albeit Collectivists have been slowly, quietly replacing it with their own vision.With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, Collectivists have had to come out of the shadows. Their vision for the Country is on full display through the antics of Democrats and through raging mobs of agitators, and, through the creation of and utilization of “false flag” operations. Collectivists are testing the limits of the American public’s patience for and tolerance to the changes they seek to impose on the Nation. They are doing this to soften the resolve of the American people; to disassemble the legal, social, financial, economic, and political framework and fabric of this Nation in order to pave the way for the ultimate dismantling of the Country as an independent Sovereign Nation State, thereby paving the way for the Country’s inclusion into a new transnational, global system of governance. If anyone should doubt what Collectivists are planning, keep in mind the steps they have taken to date that, even a few short years ago would have been so ludicrous as to be dismissed out-of-hand. Many of these Collectivists have, in fact, called for massive revision of the Constitution, and an end to the very concepts of ‘nation’ and ‘citizen’ as commonly understood and defined.Collectivists have lost power to effectuate the changes they seek, the changes to society that had been quietly unfolding through the the administrations of two Bushes; Bill Clinton; and Barack Obama; and which would have continued through the administration of a second Clinton, Hillary, or that of a third Bush, Jeb.  INDIVIDUALISTS' BELIEFS, PRECEPTS, PRESUPPOSITIONS AND AIMS1) the concept of the ‘nation state’ is not archaic. it is not to be perceived as applicable only to past eras. it is as basic and fundamental, and pertinent, and useful a construct today as in any past century. And, The United States as a Nation State is to be understood as an independent sovereign entity, neither beholding to nor subordinated to any other nation, commonwealth of nations federation of nations, or governmental entity of any kind; nor beholding to or subordinated to any one individual or group of individuals or to any corporate or financial entity of any shape or kind.2) The United States is a political construct, created by the people of The United States, through the nation's Constitution. Since the Nation and its Government were created by the people, the Nation and its government can only be dismantled by the people of The United States, if they so wish, in accordance with the Constitution they conceived, ratified, and implemented, or where the existence of tyranny in, of, or by government so demands it. 3) The federal government created by the people of The United States has only such power and authority as codified in the Constitution of The United States. The powers and authority of the federal government are limited, created by the people, through the Constitution. Ultimate power and authority rests with and vests in the people themselves, not in government.4) The concept of ‘citizen’ is tied inextricably to the concept of a ‘nation state.’ Certain rights and liberties, privileges and immunities exist for those people who are deemed citizens. 5) Rights and liberties, privileges and immunities cannot be and must not be summarily curtailed, contained, restrained, or erased, except as prescribed by and in full accord with and compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States. And, those rights and liberties deemed fundamental, natural, unalienable, as set forth in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, can never be eliminated by law or even by the Constitution, as those rights exist independent of the Constitution—are simply codifications of rights existent in the American citizen, him or herself. As codifications of preexistent rights and liberties they serve merely as reminders to those servants of the people, in government, that such fundamental, natural rights are bequeathed to man by the Creator. They are not privileges bestowed to man by government. If the servants of the people forget that fact, there is one right in particular—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—shall forever remain as a potent reminder to those who serve the people that true power and authority rightfully exists, has always existed, and shall always exist in the people themselves, and not in their servants. Thus, among the unenumerated rights and liberties of the citizenry, such specific fundamental, unalienable, natural rights and liberties exist are so indelibly linked to the Nation as a free Republic, that the containment or abrogation of those rights and liberties is equivalent to the destruction of the Nation as a free Republic.6) As the United States is an independent, sovereign nation, its Constitution and laws can never lawfully be abrogated or subordinated to the laws of any other nation or international or transnational body, federation, or commonwealth of nations. Thus, no person, group of people, nation, federation of nations, or entity of any kind outside the U.S. has authority over, nor shall such person or entity lawfully exert authority or power over the United States or its citizenry.7) As no person, group of people, nation, federation of nations, or entity of any kind external to the U.S. has authority over, or can lawfully exert authority or power over the United States or over its citizenry, similarly, no person, group of people or influences internal to the U.S. shall operate to relinquish authority of the Nation to an external power or force of any kind; nor shall any person or group of people or influences within this Nation denigrate or subvert the ultimate and absolute authority of the citizenry of this Nation; nor shall any person, or group of people or influences within the Country restrain or subvert the sanctity of the autonomy of the individual citizen 8) As a legitimate, independent, sovereign ‘nation state,’ the geographical borders of The United States are physically demarcated. the government of the United States has the right and the duty to protect the integrity of its borders from any intrusion by aliens who dare to cross the nation’s borders illegally and who dare remain in this country illegally.9) Thus, no one, not a citizen of the United States, can claim entry into this country as a matter of right, but may only enter and remain in the United States as the laws of this Nation and the Nation’s Constitution so prescribe.10) Those individuals who presume to enter this country as a matter of right, and do so, in a manner inconsistent with the nation’s laws and Constitution, have illegally transgressed the nation’s laws and Constitution. Such individuals are deemed, ‘illegal aliens,’ not ‘undocumented aliens’ nor ‘undocumented immigrants,’ nor ‘nondocumented citizens.’ When individuals have transgressed our Nation’s laws, they are not privileged to remain within our nation’s boundaries; nor are they entitled to the full panoply of rights and liberties, privileges and immunities that exist for the American citizen. Thus, those individuals, who enter this country illegally, are subject to prosecution and either confinement or deportation, as dictated by law and by the U.S. Constitution, and, further, such individuals rightfully merit public condemnation, not public approbation.11) The sanctity of the individual American citizen is not to be denied. Morality proceeds from the idea that whatever is in the best interests of the individual generally overrides the interests of the multitude, the Collective. the ‘morally good’ is defined in terms of those actions that serve the best interests of the individual American citizen, so long as the interest obtained does not negatively impact the life, liberty, and property, of another individual. A person’s intention to do good or evil, as well as all consequences stemming from that intention, determine that which is morally good as opposed to that which is deemed morally evil.12) the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, and the strictures of law must always be adhered to if this Nation is to be deemed truthfully to be a Nation that is governed by laws and not by men.13) No person, regardless of station in life, or personal monetary wealth, is considered to be above the law, on the basis of that station in life, or on the basis of ones’ personal financial means.14) Our Nation’s Constitution and its laws—statutes and body of case law—dictate a person’s rights, duties, and responsibilities in our nation.15) No person or political body shall contrive/conspire to ignore our nation’s Constitution or system of laws, or the rights and liberties existent therein; nor shall any person or political body establish its own set of ad hoc rules to be applied whenever that person or that political body so wishes in order to accomplish either a personal or political end; nor shall any person or political body contrive or conspire to apply laws unlawfully to denigrate, or disparage another person, or to deny to a person such rights, liberties, and procedural due process to which that person is entitled; nor shall any person or political body create ad hoc laws or rules to do same.16) The Nation’s history, traditions, and core values are sacred and sacrosanct. The Nation’s history, traditions, and core values are not to be abrogated, as they define our Nation. The Nation’s history, traditions, and core values create, together, this Nation’s identity, and the identity of its people.17) Popular opinion does not, never did, and never will control or supersede the Nation’s Constitution or laws or the supremacy of the fundamental rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.18) Results are never more important than adherence to the Constitution and laws of the Land. If the goal to be achieved conflicts with the law as applied, then law must never give way to the goal desired. No political or social end to be achieved shall ever dictate when or if, or how the Constitution or the laws of the Land ought to be or might be suspended, constrained, or abrogated.19) If the desired political or social end to be achieved conflicts with the Constitution or the Nation’s laws, it is the political or social end that must be forsaken, never the Constitution nor the Nation’s laws.20) Thus, suspension or repudiation of the Nation’s Constitutional precepts and laws must never be and can never be justifiably or rightfully suspended in favor of achieving the political or social end. For, it is understood that the danger of suspension, containment or abrogation of the Constitution or laws to achieve a political or social end is detrimental to the preservation of a free Republic and a free people.21) Thus, preservation of the Constitution and of the laws of the Land and of the Nation’s system of jurisprudence always outweighs the achievement of a particular political or social goal or end. The attainment or realization of any political or social goal, however seemingly critical to the well-being of this Nation or its people at a particular moment in time or necessitated by seemingly perceived changed circumstances, can never and must never be deemed more critical than strict application of the Nation’s Constitution and laws, that attainment or realization of a particular goal shall suffer cause to ignore, contain, constrain, or abrogate, whether for the particular moment or henceforth, forever. 22) Thus, the desire to achieve any political or social end can never justify the suspension or abrogation of the sacred precepts of the constitution and laws of United States.WHERE DO AMERICANS FIND THEMSELVES AT THIS JUNCTURE, NOW THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?With Brett Kavanaugh now on the high Court, the Individualists' vision for this Country now has a better chance to prevail in the decades ahead than the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the high Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a "Living Document," susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country's independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this Nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But, there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant. Be mindful of this fact: if, after the 2016 Midterm Elections, the Democrats—as a vehicle of the forces of Collectivism—gain majority control of the House, they can create serious obstacles to President Trump’s goals to bring this Nation back on track toward preserving the vision of this Nation as understood by this Nation’s founders.Collectivists want their power back; they want to place their agenda back on track. After the 2016 midterm elections we will see whether Collectivists regain some of their lost power by retaking the House of Representatives. Those who espouse Individualism can prevent that. Americans will have to choose the kind of Country they want or whether they still want a Country at all.The forces of Collectivism, as we have seen, are capable of planning and implementing the most obscene, insidious stratagems to frustrate the efforts of the Trump Administration and thereby frustrate the will of the American people. These Collectivists are ruthless, relentless, and seemingly impervious to defeat. They have unlimited stores of cash, along with extremely effective organizational skills. They are masters of propaganda. They control legions of agitators. They know how to whip the ill-informed among us into a frenetic, raging mob, urging them to coerce and intimidate law-abiding citizens, including Government officials and members of Congress. They are absolutely bent on getting their way. We must see to it that they don't.____________________________________________________________*Note: to readers: This is a substantial revision of Part Three.**After the fact, the Arbalest Quarrel came across a website, “Freedom Keys,” that does a good job in setting forth critical differences between the two mutually distinct and incompatible groups: Collectivists and Individualists. What the Arbalest Quarrel does, distinct from the creators of that website, is to take the key predicates of each group and draw the necessary inferences as to what the precepts and beliefs of each group mean and the end toward which the particular belief systems and basic axioms of these two distinct, divergent groups, point.

WHERE DO AMERICANS FIND THEMSELVES AT THIS JUNCTURE, NOW THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

With Brett Kavanaugh now on the high Court, the Individualists' vision for this Country is now more likely to prevail in the decades ahead than is the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the high Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a "Living Document," susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country's independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this Nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But, there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant.The forces of Collectivism, as we have seen, are capable of planning and implementing most obscene, insidious stratagems to frustrate the efforts of the Trump Administration and thereby frustrate the will of the American people. These Collectivists are ruthless, relentless, and seemingly impervious to defeat. They have unlimited stores of cash, along with extremely effective organizational skills. They are masters of propaganda. They control legions of agitators. They know how to whip the ill-informed among us into a frenetic, raging mob, urging them to coerce and intimidate law-abiding citizens, including Government officials and members of Congress. They are absolutely bent on getting their way. We must see to it that they don't. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE UNITED STATES ON THE CUSP OF A MODERN-DAY CIVIL WAR

PART ONE

A WAKE-UP CALL FOR AMERICANS

“Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.” ~ from A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell, Economist and Social Theorist; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.Make no mistake about it: The United States is on the cusp of a civil war. It is a war fought not with swords, firearms, and artillery—at least not yet—but through throngs of people chanting and screaming in the streets; in buildings; on university campuses; and in the public square; even outside private residences. These throngs are threatening, ridiculing, harassing, and assaulting Americans who do not share their views, their sensibilities. And physical altercations and clashes have occurred. More of those are on the horizon; that is certain. No one should doubt it. The outcome of this modern conflict will have as deep and lasting effect on this Nation and on its citizenry as did the American Civil War.In the present conflict, there can be no negotiation with or compromise between the two factions, for the gulf dividing them is too vast, the chasm too deep. The outcome of the present civil war will be profound. This conflict’s outcome will determine the Nation’s social, political, economic, and legal contours for generations to come.Americans see the clash between the two factions playing out most aggressively, of late, through the Senate confirmation process of the President’s second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Brett Kavanaugh presently sits as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He is, by any estimate, a brilliant jurist with many years of judicial experience. No one should doubt that. No one can reasonably refute or rebut that. No matter. One faction intends to strike his nomination down.Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, pose, essentially, as proxies for the two factions in conflict. One faction supports confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court and is working to see it happen. The other intends to prevent it. Few Americans remain on the sidelines. Both factions in this modern civil conflict know that the Judiciary—more so than Congress, or the Chief Executive—has power, predicated on the jurisprudential and philosophical predispositions of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, either to strengthen or weaken the bedrock of the Nation: its Constitution. In their individual approaches to case analysis, through the methodologies employed, one vision of the Country sees actualization.Democratic Party proxies, frantic and frenetic, fearing imminent confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court, have lost all sense of decorum, all reason, all self-restraint. They have been unable to shoot holes in Brett Kavanaugh’s legal methodology; in his understanding of the law. That much is clear.Democrats, and the public at large that tuned to the Confirmation Hearing, know that Bret Kavanaugh has a keen analytical mind; that he is legally astute; that his years of experience as a lawyer and as a jurist make him eminently qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats and the public at large know that Judge Kavanaugh has a deep, abiding respect for the Nation’s system of laws; for its Constitution; and for the Nation’s massive body of jurisprudence, accumulated over two centuries.Democrats, and the lay public also know that Kavanaugh’s methodology for analyzing cases reflects respect for case law precedent; and for the plain meaning of statutes; and for adherence to “original intent,” when applying the U.S. Constitution to the facts of a case. And, as for the latter two points, there’s the rub. For, one faction seeks a jurist to sit on the high Court who has no qualms about legislating from the Bench: someone like Judge Merrick Garland,* a Judge, whose jurisprudential methodology and jurisprudential philosophy just happen to coincide with the political and social agenda championed by the previous U.S. President, Barack Obama, who nominated him to sit on the high Court—a jurist who would also be championed by the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton who failed to get elected. Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to case analysis and jurisprudential and ethical philosophies are antithetical to those of Judge Merrick Garland.Knowing what is at stake, Democrats have become frantic, desperate. At the last minute, in a last ditch effort to delay, with the aim of ultimately derailing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats have sought the last refuge of the hopeless: character assassination. As they could not successfully attack the man’s principles, his ability, his experience, they launched a vicious, audacious, reprehensible, despicable attack on the man himself.Each side, in this conflict, knows full well that the very soul and psyche of this Nation and its people is at stake. The outcome of the present conflict will, then, from that perspective, be far-reaching—conceivably more so than that of the previous conflict, devastating as that conflict was and as far-reaching in its consequences that it was for the Confederacy; and for the Nation; and for all Americans.Before we explain how the very soul and psyche of the Nation is at stake and what, precisely, we mean by that and why we say that the outcome of the present conflict may very well have consequences that are, potentially, more far-reaching than the consequences of the American Civil War, let us, for the moment, consider what resulted from the South’s defeat in that conflict. We see that:

• The secession of the Confederate States from the Union was withdrawn, and the Nation reunited.
• The Confederacy was placed under military rule.
• The Federal Government gained supremacy over the States (all States) and State Governments (all State Governments), clearly and unequivocally. In that regard, the diminution of the power of the States has negatively impacted the “Union” States as much as it has the States of the Confederacy. This “Federalism” pervades to the present day.
• Slavery was de facto eliminated. This led to de jure elimination of slavery with the passage of the 13^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The loss of State power to the Federal Government is, arguably, the most significant outcome of the American Civil War; and the Federal Government’s accumulation of power at the expense of the States has grown exponentially in the years and decades since the American Civil War ended.Now, suppose for a moment, that the Confederacy prevailed; this Nation would likely have formed a  confederation of two sovereign independent Nation States, comprising States of their own. But, the concept of 'Sovereign Nation States'—the USA and CSA—not beholding to or subordinated to foreign Nations or to political entities of one sort or another, unlike those Nations comprising the EU, was never at stake. Secondly, preservation of the fundamental, unalienable, natural rights and liberties of the people, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, was never questioned during the American Civil War, either. With the conclusion of the American Civil War, the United States remained a Sovereign, independent Nation State, albeit as one Sovereign Nation State, rather than two.We, American citizens, must keep these two points uppermost in mind, because the notion of ‘Nation State’ and the notion of natural rights preexistent in the individual—will either be preserved and strengthened, or they will not, depending on which faction prevails in this modern civil war.While the stakes in the present conflict are emphatic, the lines between the two factions in the present conflict are not. With the American Civil War, a clear physical demarcation existed for the most part between the two sides: North and South, and the Civil War combatants, “Yankee” or “Rebel,” aligned with one side or the other, although among the border States—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia—the demarcation was not clear-cut, static, but more tenuous, more fluid. Close family members took one side or the other. Brother fought against brother; father against son; cousin against cousin; and uncle against nephew.As with the border States during the American Civil War, we see today, too, that physical demarcations do not predominately mark the boundaries between the two sides, between the two factions, although a preponderance of one faction lives in the Coastal States, and a preponderance of the other resides in the interior States. But, ultimately, for most people, it is the precepts and tenets that one holds to that determines which side one fights on, rather than where one lives.The precepts and tenets one holds to determines whom one considers his friend or his foe. And, as the precepts and tenets held by one faction are inconsistent with the precepts and tenets held by the other, any compromise between the two factions is sterile, impossible. The Country is, then, very clearly in the midst of an existential crisis. It is a crisis taking hold of people on a primordial level. Americans are lining up; taking sides in a major clash of competing visions for this Country. Each faction’s vision for this Country rests on distinct, incompatible social, political, economic, and ethical philosophies. Only one side, one faction will prevail in the unfolding conflict.We will see either massive upheaval, a cataclysmic sea change in the political, social, economic, and legal structure of our Nation, or we will see preserved those principles, those core values and mores upon which the political, social, economic, and legal structure and fabric of our Nation has stood and endured for over two centuries—principles and core values that so many Americans had fought, and for which so many had died, to preserve: principles and core values—unchanging and eternal.[We continue with this article in the next installment]._________________________________________________*Under Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution the President nominates a person to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. But, the President shall do so only with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The "advice and consent" of the Senate operates as a condition precedent to actual appointment. But, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to give its advice and consent. And the Senate has not done so, here, with Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to sit on the high Court. Those Democrats and Leftists, of all stripes, who wanted and had expected the Senate to provide a Hearing and Roll-Call vote on Merrick Garland were apoplectic. Merrick Garland, who would, have been Barack Obama's third appointment to the high Court, would have given the liberal-wing of the Court a clear majority, sufficient to move the left-wing agenda along. Leftists conclude that Republicans have stolen a seat on the high Court that belongs to them. That helps, in part, to explain, but certainly does not justify the outrageous, reprehensible smear campaign Senate Democrats launched against President Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, in their late hour effort to defeat Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the high Court._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

DEMOCRATS ASSERT: “FOR THE SAKE OF OUR AGENDA, LET’S PUT TRUTH ASIDE; WE MUST DESTROY THE REPUTATION AND CHARACTER OF BRETT KAVANAUGH.”

SENATE DEMOCRATS, ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BLATANTLY ATTEMPT TO DESTROY A MAN’S NAME; TO DO SO WITHOUT CONCERN FOR THE TRUTH.

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”  ~ Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” May 4, 1979 through November 28, 1990“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls:Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he that filches from me my good nameRobs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ~ William Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3On Thursday, September 27, in a U.S. Senate Hearing Room, Christine Blasey Ford, testified before Senate Democratic Party and Republican Party Judiciary Committee members; and before the American public. This 11^th Hour Senate Hearing, an “addendum,” need not have transpired; and should not have occurred; for the Senate Hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications, character, and integrity that had taken place for several days, had concluded weeks before. Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated beyond any doubt that he is eminently qualified to serve as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, though, did not like that turn of events. What could they do? They decided to play a “trump card,” against President Trump, in a last ditch effort to undercut the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court.Senate Democrats sought to demonstrate that Judge Kavanaugh had a serious flaw in his character—a flaw that made him unsuited to sit on the high Court, regardless of his many qualifications and years of judicial experience. Senate Democrats sought, ostensibly, to portray Christine Ford as a victim—the only victim. But, contrary to Democrats attempt to portray Christine Ford as the sole victim, there was a second victim: Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Senate Democrats intended to use Christine Ford’s testimony against Judge Brett Kavanaugh as a cudgel—another planned assault, along with the Mueller probe—to frustrate the policy objectives of  U.S. President, Donald Trump. To derail the President’s nominee to the high Court, Congressional Democrats brazenly used Christine Ford for their own ends, not hers. The result was to turn a seemingly solemn endeavor into a Grand Inquisition, produced and directed by Senate Democrats.

SENATE DEMOCRATS DISPENSE WITH THE NATION’S BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AS SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND UNDER OUR PROCEDURAL LAWS.

Turning due process on its head, the accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, was presumed guilty, not innocent, of sexual assault. Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford, simply had to disclose in public matters that she had thought and hoped would remain private—allegations of sexual assault committed by Brett Kavanaugh, when they both were in their teens. The testimony of Christine Ford would be used, so it was anticipated by Senate Democrats, to support the inference that Brett Kavanaugh did in fact sexually assault Christine Ford, thirty-six years ago. Senate Democrats made clear that it wasn’t necessary for Christine Ford’s testimony to actually cohere with or correspond to the facts of the matter. It would be enough, so Senate Democrats assumed and argued that she merely appear to be honest, credible. But, due process requires more from an accuser than an accuser’s mere conviction; due process requires more than the accuser’s honest belief in the truth of her own allegations. And due process requires more than the mere perception, of the observer, that the accuser is, after all, really telling the truth. From both a logical and legal perspective belief does not ipso facto equate with truth.Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the testimony of an accuser is not sufficient to convict or condemn a man. Evidence to support a naked accusation is required, such as independent forensic evidence and corroboration of witnesses to the event—none of which Christine Ford had produced. So, regardless of Christine Ford’s personal conviction as to her certainty that the events she speaks of—that took place, thirty-six years ago—and however adamant her remarks, fact remains that, bare allegations, ostensibly based on recollections, in the absence of more, do not substantiate truth for the trier of fact. Under our system of laws and justice—a system built on over two centuries of jurisprudence—an accuser’s barefaced accusation of wrongdoing is constitutionally insufficient to convict one of a crime or, as in this case, simply constitutionally insufficient to condemn.Here, the accuser’s testimony came up short on critical details, painfully short. No matter. Senate Democrats had, before the fact, accepted the accuser’s testimony, on its face, as factually true. They accepted on faith alone the veracity of the allegations because, as they have said, in public, even before the hearing, they had found Christine Ford’s barefaced allegations of a crime to be credible and compelling; and, for them, that was enough, and they insisted that Christine Ford’s barefaced allegations of a crime should be considered credible and compelling for everyone else, too. That is patently ridiculous!Imagine if you will that an accusation were sufficient, of itself, to sustain punishment or public condemnation, irrespective of even a scintilla of independent corroborating evidence. What would that mean for someone; what would that mean for you if someone came forth with a damning accusation against you? What it means is that, you, the accused do not  have the right to face your accuser. You don’t have the right to test the sufficiency of the accusation through direct examination of the accuser. The presumption of innocence does not attach. Thus, the barefaced allegations of an accuser are presumed sufficient to convict or to condemn you and off to prison you go or otherwise, if not to prison, then, perhaps, you, the accused lose a benefit to which you ought otherwise be entitled; or you lose an opportunity you sought to obtain. Moreover, you will find your reputation, your honor, your integrity, your character are all irrevocably besmirched and stained, forever. This inversion of our basic principles of due process can happen to you. Don’t think it can’t! This inversion of our basic principles of justice is precisely what we see happening here in the case of Brett Kavanaugh. We see a planned coordinated, systematic, reprehensible attack to destroy a man’s character and reputation. Senate Democrats, who sit on the Judiciary Committee, along with the Congressional Democratic Party leadership, have connived, conspired and implemented a last minute plan in an unconscionable attempt to discredit the honor, character, and reputation of a man. They could not and cannot destroy the man’s judicial record, his jurisprudential philosophy, and his keen, analytical mind. So, they attempt to debase him. They resort to the last tactic available—a tactic of those in the throes of desperation. They resort to an attack on the man himself.Their plan is nothing more than a well-orchestrated, coordinated contrivance, utilizing their echo chamber, the mainstream media, to cherry pick details of the man’s history. They do this with the aim to come up with something, anything that might be used to cast aspersions on the man’s character. They take whatever they find, and then exaggerate the claim, blowing it up out of all proportion to reason and sensibility. Did the man ever drink alcohol in high school or college? If so, then the public must conclude that the man is a drunkard. A few women come forward with the most outrageous claims of moral turpitude. So, then, the public must believe their damning allegations and must conclude that the man is guilty of moral turpitude because of course these women are telling the truth; and because of course these women wouldn’t lie; and, because of course their memories of the events, if such events occurred at all, didn’t fade with time; and because of course a personal animus toward this man—toward all “white men”—doesn’t motivate them to attack the man. Democrats provide their echo chamber, the mainstream media, with tantalizing bits of garbage to rouse to rally and to rouse their base, the #MeToo movement, and the results are as expected: the lizard brain takes over; all reason goes out-the-door. The  #MeToo sorority becomes ever more indignant; and, then they lose all control. They shout, scream, rant, foam at the mouth, convulse with rage. The lizard brain completely takes over; eats away at them; consumes them. They know what they want. It is as clear as a bell. “Down with White Men! Down with Trump! Down with America!” The entire performance, the entire charade, the entire farce, has nothing, really to do with Brett Kavanaugh; nothing at all. It is, rather what, Kavanaugh represents to these people, who, one can reasonably infer, has not read the man’s legal opinions. They know nothing of his love and devotion and of his years of service to his Country. They know nothing of his love and of his devotion to his wife, to his children, and to his Church. They don’t want to know. They don’t need to know. For what it is they think they know is enough for them. It is what they hear from Democrats, and from the newspapers and from MSNBC and CNN and NPR and PBS. They know everything they have to know about him, which is what they think they know, and what they think they know is wrong. What they think they know has been planted in their lizard brain, and what has been planted there is enough: Brett Kavanaugh is President Trump’s nominee; Brett Kavanaugh is just a privileged “white man.” Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t respect women. Brett Kavanaugh is just plain “evil.” So, Down with Kavanaugh! Down with Trump! Down with white men! Okay—Let us now get back to some semblance of reality, as we consider the Confirmation process.Where, then, does that leave the accused, Brett Kavanaugh? Senate Democrats placed the accused in the legally dubious position of having to bear the burden of proving his innocence. They patently surrendered a presumption of innocence afforded an accused—a presumption that is not mere platitude, but the very cornerstone of our system of justice. Application of the presumption requires that accuser, in the first instance, sustain the burden of proof. But Senate Democrats insist on a presumption of guilt. They insist that Brett Kavanaugh rebut Christine Ford’s testimony even though Christine Ford’s evidence, consisting of her testimony alone, had met no recognized legal standard—not even the lowest standard—preponderance of the evidence that might otherwise, if satisfied, shift the burden of proof onto the accused. Be that as it may, Brett Kavanaugh did proffer his testimony willingly; insisting, in fact, that he be permitted to do so; and Judge Kavanaugh did so, professing his innocence through his own equally compelling, credible testimony. Judge Kavanaugh denied—clearly, succinctly, emphatically, categorically, and unequivocally—ever sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford, or anyone. By placing the initial burden of proof on the accused, as Senate Democrats did, though, it became clear even to a lay observer, that the entire hearing was nothing more than a shameless charade, a sham, a circus, complete with clowns; and the clowns in that circus turn out to be Senate Democrats. But, there was nothing for Americans to be amused about.Senate Democrats, looked on dispassionately as the man spoke eloquently, honestly, from the heart. Even so, the attack against him continued. Senate Democrats castigated Brett Kavanaugh and derided him, for they had cast judgment on him even before they heard him speak. And, what do these Democrats, these seemingly honorable people, themselves, really find Brett Kavanaugh guilty of? Just this: the hubris of daring to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court; for doing so wrecks the Democratic Party’s political, social, and economic agenda. The man must be taken down!

WHY DID CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AGREE TO TESTIFY IN PUBLIC?

As to the matter of Christine Ford’s public testimony, she didn’t really have a choice in the matter. Senate Democrats, dispensing with due process, had urged Christine Ford to testify. This was necessary if they were to delay or derail the Confirmation process. They knew this. They had to attach a face, an identity to a bare accusation against a man. They knew that much. So, even though the accuser sought to remain anonymous, clearly her identity had to be brought out. Only a few Democrats were aware of the accuser’s identity, and her identity was leaked to the Press. A reasonable person would conclude that the accuser did leak the matter since she made clear her wish to remain unknown. Congressional Republicans could not have leaked her name to the Press, for Congressional Republicans had no knowledge of the accusation. Democrats didn’t inform Congressional Republicans of the identity of the accused until the 11^th Hour, when they sprung the accusation on Republicans and on the public. So, a reasonable person would conclude that someone within the Democratic leadership or within the Senate Judiciary Committee had leaked the information. So, much, then for respecting Christine Ford’s wish to remain anonymous.But, whoever it was in the Democratic Party who leaked Christine Ford’s identity, this is what the public learned: The accuser is a middle-aged woman, Christine Ford, a year younger than Brett Kavanaugh; she is a College Professor and holds a Ph.D degree in psychology. Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford, made a conscious decision to attack the character of the man, even though she could not remember critical details, sufficient to support a criminal charge against Judge Kavanaugh; and, who, for whatever reason, never reported the matter she claims occurred, to the police, or to her friends, or even to her family, but who deemed the matter important enough to bring up now, thirty-six years after the alleged event occurred. She says she is 100% certain that it was Judge Kavanaugh who had attacked her, who had sexually assaulted her. Despite the many gaps as to when and where the matter in question occurred, and as to exactly what had occurred—if the matter had indeed occurred at all—she accuses Judge Kavanaugh, explicitly, of sexual assault.Christine Ford’s representative thereupon passed the information to Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking Democratic Party member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now Senator Feinstein, for her part, was ethically bound to share that information immediately with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley. If she had done so, the Senate Judiciary Committee could then have undertaken a discrete inquiry into Christine Ford’s allegations. But Senator Feinstein didn’t share the contents of the letter with Chairman Grassley. Senator Feinstein held onto the letter, for several weeks, albeit conceivably sharing the contents of the letter with her Democratic Party colleagues on the Committee and with Democratic Party leadership. Congressional Democrats apparently made a decision to spring the information onto Senate Republicans and the American public, days before the Judiciary Committee was set to vote on submitting the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the floor of the Senate, for a full Roll-Call vote. Possibly fearing that Judge Kavanaugh would be confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate, they sprung their trap on Senate Republicans and brought Christine Ford’s bare accusation of sexual misconduct to the attention of Chairman Grassley and other Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Clearly, they did this with the intention to derail, altogether, or, at least, to delay the Confirmation process.The failure to share critical information immediately with Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee—holding onto the information secretly, surreptitiously, to be used as a weapon to delay or to derail the Senate Confirmation process—is unethical, even reprehensible behavior. And everything that followed, from the point in time that Christine Ford’s damning and unsupported allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh became public up to and including the sham hearing that followed, illustrates the extent to which Democrats will go to get their way.Ranking Democratic Party Senate Judiciary member Dianne Feinstein and the other Senate Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, were, though, taking a gamble. Senator Feinstein and Senate Democrats knows that a barefaced accusation of sexual misconduct, especially an accusation going back decades, is, in the absence of supporting forensic evidence or, at least, corroborating witnesses, patently insufficient to convict or to condemn, under our system of justice. And there was none. That constitutes the crack, a chink in the Democrats’ armor, and Democrats, some of whom are attorneys at law, certainly know this. But, they played the game out, victim (the accuser) versus attacker (the accused), anyway.

ACCUSER AND ACCUSED ARE BOTH VICTIMS HERE.

Christine Blasey Ford had presented Democrats with a gift, a dangerous weapon, a barefaced allegation of wrongdoing. The Party, bereft of common decency, would be only too tempted, too willing to use the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, against Senate Republicans, against the President of the United States, and against the Nation to achieve their ends. Senator Feinstein knew that a barefaced allegation of sexual misconduct against another individual was patently unfair. But, Democrats didn’t hold back. They didn’t care. They gambled that this gambit would serve to derail the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court or, at least, delay a Senate Confirmation vote until after the 2018 Midterm elections. It is the hope of Democrats that they can gain control of the U.S. Senate after the Midterms. A cascading sequence of events thus unfolded, as deeply sensitive allegations came to the public’s attention—embarrassing and humiliating to both accuser and accused. These barefaced allegations would forever sully the reputation and character of an honorable man, a man with a distinguished record of judicial service, and would, at once, leave the accuser all alone, with her own reputation and honor tainted. Thus, along with the victim that Democrats played to the public—their “ace in the hole,” Christine Ford—there was another victim. This was a victim whom they failed to consider, whom they had no wish of considering as it was a victim whom they are responsible for creating, the victim whom in fact they made: Judge Brett Kavanaugh.Both Congressional Republicans, and conceivably even some Congressional Democrats, along with the American public, have learned that Democrats and Leftist groups will do anything to frustrate President Trump’s policy objectives. No scheme is too outrageous for them; no scheme too outlandish; no scheme too reprehensible if they can accomplish their agenda; their end goals. They intend to secure power for themselves and to proceed once again with accomplishing their own policy objectives—objectives at odds with the core values of most Americans people. With Judge Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, their plans to hijack this Country from the American people will be all that more difficult, if not impossible. They therefore had no pangs of conscience, no reservation as to what they would do; what they felt they must do to protect their plans, their agenda. They would be willing to destroy a man’s character and reputation, along with his very life, well-being, and personal safety, and that of his family. They would know and be willing to accept, at one and the same time, that their actions might very well endanger, too, the life, well-being, and personal safety of the human being they claimed to be concerned about, Christine Blasey Ford. This would be the price they would be willing to pay in order to regain power and to be able to proceed with the items on their agenda.The accuser, Christine Ford should be perceived as much a tool, here, as victim—a tool to be used and eventually to be discarded, when no longer useful. And Democrats used their tool, Christine Ford, to play her as victim in need of justice, albeit justice coming decades late. Christine Ford’s accusation became the highlight of the #MeToo movement; trumpeted by the mainstream media in the newspapers; hailed by Leftist pundits on the airwaves; a rallying point for Hillary Clinton supporters, thunderstruck and enraged at the Presidential hopeful’s seemingly implausible defeat in the 2016 general election; and the predicate for mass demonstrations.

THE AGENDA OF DEMOCRATS AND LEFTIST GROUPS

The Democratic Party has been, in great part, coopted by Progressive elements. But, progressives lack basic common-sense. Still, the aims of Progressive elements have gained support from the mainstream media—an institution also responsible for undermining our Constitution and for undermining the foundation of a free Republic. These elements promote an agenda that most Americans do not agree with and which can, if implemented, deleteriously impact our Constitution and the preservation of a Free Republic. The items on the Progressives’ agenda include, among other things, placing specific impediments on a citizen’s exercise of sacred rights and liberties: the right of free speech, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, for turning our system of laws and justice on its head; and for placing considerable limits on, and eventually eliminating altogether, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They know that it is only by curtailing the citizenry’s basic, fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties that the citizenry be effectively controlled. Most Americans, though, do not agree with these objectives. And, most Americans do not take kindly at attempts to manipulate them, urging them, cajoling them, to take action against their own best interests, which they well see. Most Americans abhor pretense; false preening; glib, self-assured proselytizing; and they particularly loathe hypocrisy which is abundantly in evidence.Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee did not realize the extent to which the most Americans would be appalled at Democrats’ attempt to reduce an honorable man, a distinguished jurist, to the point of tears. Americans’ felt the man’s pain; and they realized that this man could be themselves—a man accused of commission of a heinous act and condemned through mere accusation. The result: a man’s reputation is in tatters; his honor forever tarnished; his sincerity forever doubted.Brett Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, and honor were being directly and systematically attacked. Is it any wonder, then, that he would turn his righteous anger and indignation back on those Senate Democrats, who, curiously, showed surprise that an even-tempered man could exhibit anger. They must have felt: "How can this person, this nominee who sits before us, have the audacity to dare speak so rudely to us? Who does he think he is?" Who Brett Kavanaugh is, if these Senators would only stop to consider the matter, is a man with a sense of honor, pride, character, and integrity, well-deserved, who has served his Country well, in a distinguished career, spanning decades, having worked in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and subsequently working as a distinguished judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A man who graduated at the top of his Class at one of the premier Universities in our Country, Yale University, and then went on to distinguish himself at Yale Law School. That is who Judge Kavanaugh is. So, then, let us turn the question around on these Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Who do these Senators think they are to toy with a good man's reputation, honor, and character? Who are these Senators who would dare do those things that place the life, safety and well-being of my own family at risk?Apparently, these people, these Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have so little character, honor, and integrity themselves and so full of their own bravado, they could not understand how it was that a man, sitting before them, would dare remonstrate against them; perhaps Democrats thought, in part, that the personal attack on Brett Kavanaugh’s character should not be taken personally; for, after all, they simply don’t want to see him on the U.S. Supreme Court. And, didn’t they say as much? Didn’t minority leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and other Democrats say as much? Didn’t they ask him, plead with him, to withdraw the nomination, to step aside? If so, they had no idea of the fortitude of the man, for they, themselves have none. Could they truly believe Brett Kavanaugh would not take the attack on his reputation, on his character, on his integrity, and on his personal sense of simple human dignity, personally? Really? Of course he would “dig in his heels” and defend his honor, and his reputation, and his character, and his integrity, and his dignity, too, as a human being--all of which Senate Democrats dared to besmirch.Thus, they concocted an outrageous and outlandish plan to take down an honorable man. And, this all plays out oddly in the Press, as agitators in the #MeToo movement, and their allies, claim that the nominee’s anger, indignation, and, at times, loss of composure, somehow, oddly, bespeak guilt, and lack of proper respect for the Senate? Are they kidding? After what Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have done to this man? And, still, this outrageous, despicable attack against Brett Kavanaugh continues, unabated. Leftists, along with many Democrats, have lost touch with reality and have lost, as well, any sense of human decency.It is strange, indeed, that Progressive elements in society, along with many Democrats, tend to perceive the average American as wrongly attached to the past: wrongly attached to nationalism, patriotism, American history, pride in self and Country, morality as conceived through a Christian ethos; and wrongly attached to the plain meaning of the Constitution as conceived by the founders of the Republic. Progressive elements, many Democrats, the mainstream Press, and Leftists of all stripes, intend to eradicate this, all of it. They intend to destroy all that defines us; all that has defined us since the creation of a free Republic and since the ratification of our Constitution. And they intend to destroy the very conception of fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties, as codified in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.Those elements in our society—and what is becoming increasingly clear, Globalist interests abroad—intend to bring Americans, “kicking and screaming” if need be, into a new world as they conceive it, a new international world order. The world that Progressives, in particular, seek, is one wholly disconnected from our Nation’s past. It is one marked by multiculturalism; subordination of our Nation’s interests to those of a world community; subordination of the Nation’s Constitution and laws to international laws and norms; and the application of a conception of liberal democracy as played out in the EU. It is a view that, as we have seen, mandates the subjugation of whole nations and people; suppression of basic rights and liberties; submission of the populace of independent nations to solitary autocratic rule, emanating from one place: Brussels.Democrats realize that President Trump’s nominee to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, will, given the Judge's high regard for the plain meaning of Statutes, and for the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, neutralize the goals of Democrats and their allies both here and abroad. They tried to defeat Judge Kavanaugh through several days of Confirmation Hearing, attacking the jurist’s legal reasoning, his jurisprudential philosophy. But, they could not defeat the cogency and brilliance and intensity of Judge Kavanaugh’s legal mind, and of his singular regard to uphold the sacred precepts of the U.S. Constitution, consistent with the understanding and intentions of the framers of it. So, when the initial attempt to tear down his jurisprudential philosophy and methodology failed, and they could see confirmation as imminent, they resorted to more extreme and drastic measures. They attacked Judge Kavanaugh on a deeply personal level. They played their “ace card in the hole”—they brought up a matter that they should have brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, weeks ago, and that they should have done so discretely; a matter that they deviously, deceptively, secretly kept to themselves, to be used as a tactical device to defeat the Confirmation of a man who well merits a seat on our Nation’s highest Court of law. And, when they brought the matter up to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, they did so, at the 11th Hour, just before the Committee was set to vote on recommending confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the full Senate for a Roll-Call vote. They brought up a sensitive matter at the last minute and with great fanfare, so the public would become aware of a damning accusation before neither they, the Democrats, nor Republicans, had an opportunity, to investigate the matter privately, quietly, and thus protect the identities of both accuser and accused. But they didn't. They unleashed, at the last possible minute, a barefaced, unproven accusation to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the public before Republicans on the Committee had a chance to privately look at the accusation and to discretely investigate the matter. And, even after the fact, Democrats on the Committee refused to work with Republicans on the investigation. But, it is clear that Democrats don't really care to verify the truth of the accusation--especially if there exists no one to corroborate the accusation. Indeed, to date no one, whom the accuser named as witness to her damning accusation, sexual assault, has corroborated it--either asserting that they had not witnessed the event or, if at the scene, refuting that any such assault took place. But, that didn't stop Senate Democrats from attacking Brett Kavanaugh's character anyway. Democrats don't care. All they do care about is the fact of the accusation, not the truth of it. Thus, it is sensible to conclude that Democrats' attack on Brett Kavanaugh’s character is logically fallacious, legally faulty, and morally reprehensible. They directed a massive frontal assault on Judge Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, integrity and bearing, anyway. What took place in a Senate Hearing Room, on September 28, 2018, will go down in American history as one the most sordid, outrageous, abjectly shameless, and disgusting episodes in U.S. Senate history.Americans bear witness to nothing less than wholesale character assassination: the attempted murder of a person’s very self by Congressional Democrats. They have engaged in character assassination for what it is that Brett Kavanaugh represents to them--defeat of their Agenda for this Nation--rather than for who Brett Kavanaugh is. But, did these Democrats honestly think that this last minute gambit would actually work? Apparently so, since they made sure it would play out if Judge Kavanaugh would not step aside, as Senate Minority Leader, Schumer, pugnaciously, sanctimoniously insisted he do. One may well ask: would Chuck Schumer and other Democrats have stepped aside had the same attempt at character assassination been directed at them? Do they have the fortitude, the stamina to withstand such an attack. some of them, surely, do have serious character flaws—beyond any reasonable doubt. That, the public knows full well.Consider the flawed character of Senator Richard Blumenthal, for example. As one of the most vehemently, outspoken of Senate Democrats, he is, perhaps not surprisingly, also one of the most sanctimonious. It seems that Senator Blumenthal tends to project onto Judge Kavanaugh the Senator’s own moral failings, his own character flaws.Recall that Senator Blumenthal claimed to have served in Vietnam during the War. He didn’t. When called on the carpet for his blatant lie, Senator Blumenthal didn’t apologize. He didn’t show remorse. That isn’t in his nature. That isn’t in his character. Instead, Richard Blumenthal deflected the matter. He did so in order to salvage the lie. He sought to “clarify” his false remarks, rather than owning up to them. By failing to own up to his lie, Blumenthal merely compounded the lie; demonstrated to the public that here was a man who has a flawed character and is blind to his own flaws; and that he so contemptuously views the public, that he arrogantly assumes the public will be blind to those character flaws. What the public sees in this man, and in other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, though, are diehard hypocrites. The American public sees, in these Senate Democrats who sit on the Judiciary Committee, and the American public sees in the Democratic Party leadership, people so obsessed with their own sense of self-worth and so enamored with their own smug self-importance, and so dazzled by pretensions of personal grandeur that they truly believe Americans believe in the lies and delusions these Congressional Democrats created for themselves. But they are wrong. Americans, most Americans, at least, are not taken in by the air of pompous self-regard these Democrats have for themselves; nor do most Americans wish for the kind of America that these Democrats seek to create--the kind of America that President Obama had pushed the Country toward; and a kind of America that Hillary Clinton would have continued to work toward had she won the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.Could Senator Blumenthal and could other Democrats, who have a flawed character such as that of Blumenthal, withstand Senate inquiry and serious scrutiny into his character and reputation were he to have been nominated by a President—perhaps by Barack Obama—to sit as an Associate Justice on the high Court? One wonders.

BRETT KAVANAUGH DOES NOT OWE AN APOLOGY TO CHRISTINE FORD; NOR TO SENATE DEMOCRATS, NOR TO ANYONE. IF ANYTHING, CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS OWE AN APOLOGY TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH.

Senate Republican, Lindsay Graham, appropriately and rightfully excoriated Senate Democrats. And then speaking directly to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in an attempt to assist a man whose pain Senator Graham felt, as the man’s character was being improperly impugned before the entire Nation. Senator Graham told Judge Kavanaugh that he, Judge Kavanaugh, has done nothing wrong and does not need to apologize to anyone.Congressional Democrats obviously did not count on the courage and fortitude of Brett Kavanaugh—his tenacity to defend his honor, reputation, character, and good name; nor did they count on the American public’s own sense of fair play and human decency, as Americans have stood by Judge Kavanaugh.Democrats are so blinded by their own misguided sense of moral superiority that they have come to believe the deception they, and their allies, Progressives and Leftist agitators, dared play out on the American citizenry. But, “means do not justify the ends”—certainly not in this Age of Reason, and certainly not here, in the United States. Americans were justifiably appalled at Democrats’ chicanery; even more so once it became apparent that Senate Democrats had urged Judge Kavanaugh—plaintively, as a last ignominious and clearly futile attempt to delay a Senate Roll-Call vote on Confirmation—to ask President Trump to authorize the FBI to investigate Christine Ford’s allegations against the Judge. This was absurd.Senate Democrats, on the Judiciary Committee, know full well that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the nominee, cannot authorize FBI investigations into himself or anyone else; nor should he. The claim put forward by Senate Democrats that, if Judge Kavanaugh were truly innocent, he would authorize an investigation into the allegations was merely a red herring. How was Judge Kavanaugh expected to respond to that. Was he expected to capitulate? That would only serve to delay a Confirmation vote, which, of course, was what Senate Democrats hoped to accomplish. Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh would appear weak, having capitulated to the will of Senate Democrats. That would serve their own end; not his; nor ours, the American people.For all that, the FBI, as with any police agency, undertakes investigations on its own initiative when deemed necessary and has done so, many times, in the course of Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive work for the Nation. Nothing remotely came up, during seven thorough FBI investigations into Judge Kavanaugh’s background. That, in itself is telling. Also, the Senate itself can authorize an investigation; and the Senate itself can conduct its own investigation. In fact, Senate Republicans did undertake their own investigation into the barefaced allegations of Christine Ford, contacting individuals whom Christine Ford mentions as supporting her allegations. None of them did support Christine Ford’s allegations. Moreover, and oddly too, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, refrained from taking part in the Senate investigation, conducted by Republicans.Why is that? Could it be that the Democrats did not wish to know whether Christine Ford’s allegations could not be corroborated? For, if Senate Democrats learned that the accuser’s allegations could not be corroborated that would undercut the claim that Christine Ford’s allegations were true and that would have effectively ended the matter, as the accuser’s allegations would appear to the Nation to be less credible and Senate Democrats would have been compelled to acknowledge as much. But Senate Democrats would have none of that. Lastly, as Judge Kavanaugh pointed out, this latest hearing was itself an investigation. What more would actually be accomplished through an FBI investigation as the investigators would be doing no more than what Senate Republicans had already done: namely talk to those individuals whom Christine Ford had mentioned as people who could corroborate her story. They did not corroborate her story when interviewed by Senate Republicans, under pain of criminal penalty if they were caught in a lie. These individuals would not have corroborated the accuser’s story to FBI investigators as well. So, then what would be gained from an FBI investigation into the accuser’s allegations? Nothing. A call for a seventh FBI investigation at this time would serve nothing but make clear to the American public that Senate Democrats sought merely to delay a Roll-Call vote.*When one feels compelled to resort to chicanery, that chicanery comes back to bite them. And it has done so, here. The chicanery has come to bite Senate Democrats.

AMERICANS HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF DEMOCRATS’ DECEITFUL AND REPREHENSIBLE TACTICS.

Many members of the Democratic Party—certainly those members who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee—thought they could win over the public and, too, those few holdout Senators on the Republican Party. They apparently didn’t realize that, far from persuading Senate Republicans to turn against President’s Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, they have likely persuaded those Senate Republican holdouts to vote in favor of Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, and, perhaps, may have persuaded a few Senate Democrats to do so as well.Americans have now become increasingly aware that those Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Democratic Party Leadership and, many other Congressional Democrats, are “little people.” They have little empathy for human beings even as they claim empathy and concern for people. Their only concern is accumulation of power for themselves and to enable them to continue working toward completing the items on their agenda. They are people who have no integrity, no sense of human decency or character themselves, and therefore assume, wrongly, that no one else does either. Since they are flawed people, they are blind to their own flaws; and that will doom them and will doom the ignoble causes they seek to force upon our Nation and upon the American people. What they seek is massive social change and political upheaval, in order to remake this Country in a way far removed from a conception of a free Republic and a free people, propounded by the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution.A quotation from the 1951 Cary Grant film, “People Will Talk,” aptly describes what befalls those people who are so consumed with hate and vindictiveness and so convinced of their own moral superiority that they fail to see the flaws in their own character. Cary Grant, star in the film. He plays the protagonist, an idealistic medical professional, named Dr. Noah Praetorius. The antagonist in the film, Dr. Rodney Elwell, is played by the actor, Hume Cronyn. Dr. Elwell unfairly, spitefully, and ruthlessly attempts to destroy the character and reputation of Dr. Praetorius. Toward the end of the film, when Dr. Elwell’s attempt to destroy the character and reputation of  the man fails, he finds himself literally and figuratively, alone. As Dr. Elwell and Mr. Shunderson, Dr. Praetorius’ mysterious friend and personal servant, remain alone in a conference room at a college where Dr. Praetorius teaches, Mr. Shunderson privately scolds Dr. Elwell. Mr. Shunderson does so, not loudly and proudly like a victor might who had fought and won a brutal contest, but quietly, thoughtfully—and, curiously, in a way, that may be described as soothing, even melancholy—as he contemplates now a broken man, a disgraced man, a shallow man, sitting at the conference table. Here was a man who had been smugly self-assured, seemingly pious, but no longer.Dr. Elwell is now truly alone, a ruined man, and wholly irrelevant, as he has failed utterly to bring over others to his side in what was clearly found to be an unfair attack on Dr. Praetorius, a man for whom, it became clear, Dr. Elwell was deeply envious, and whose character and reputation he had, therefore, sought to ruin. But, those whom he had hoped to convince had heard more than enough. No one wished to listen to Dr. Elwell anymore. Dr. Praetorius character and reputation was vindicated and it was Dr. Elwell whose character and reputation now lay in tatters.Mr. Shunderson tells Mr. Elwell, this: “Professor Elwell, you're a little man. It's not that you're short. You're. . . little, in the mind and in the heart. Tonight, you tried to make a man little whose boots you couldn't touch if you stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. And as it turned out . . . you're even littler than you were before.”Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are, together, “Dr. Elwell,” and we would add the Democratic Party leadership, too, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Representative, Nancy Pelosi. They are attempting to take down Brett Kavanaugh, whose boots these Democrats couldn’t touch if they stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. These Democrats are, themselves, little people, and always have been even if that fact had been lost on many Americans; but no longer. And, after the disgusting sham hearing they put on to cut down an honorable man, a sham hearing they put on for the entire Nation to see—after behind the scenes machinating, conspiring—it isn’t Brett Kavanaugh who appears “little” to the Nation, whom they sought to make little. Rather, it is these Democrats who are “little, in the mind and in the heart.” Americans should seriously think about the matter witnessed in the spectacle they see played out before them. If they do so, and are not taken in by false rhetoric, they will become fully aware of what is really going on here: a ruthless attempt to destroy a man’s honor, character, and reputation, not because of some perceived flaw in the man—as there is none—but because Brett Kavanaugh stands in the way of their own lust for power; he stands in the way of their own quest for personal aggrandizement. And, through all that they have done and all that they continue to do to ruthlessly cut down the honor, character, and reputation of a man, they now appear, like Dr. Elwell, even littler than they were before.If there was any doubt whether Judge Kavanaugh merits ascendancy to Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Democrats have now, themselves put that doubt to rest. But they have done so not in the manner they thought; not in the manner they planned for; not in the manner they have hoped and expected. And, perhaps worst of all, for them, the public sees them now as disgraceful actors, as circus clowns, yet still bearing animosity, still bearing grudges, despite being found out for the buffoons they are. They hold high rank in Government, yes, but they have been thoroughly exposed for the hypocrites they were; for the hypocrites they are, and for the hypocrites they will, unfortunately, always remain. They are worthy of no American’s respect and should expect none.We implore our fellow Americans to contact their U.S. Senator immediately, telling their Senator they should do nothing to dignify the Democrats’ despicable last minute attempt to sabotage confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh through their outlandish scheme to impugn Judge Kavanaugh's character, reputation and honor. Tell your U.S. Senator to vote in favor of confirming the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. As is abundantly clear, the American people need Judge Kavanaugh as he will help preserve the integrity of our Constitution, and our  system of laws and justice as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court; and that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will do so in a manner consistent with the will and wishes of the founders of our Republic. We can ask for no more of Judge Kavanaugh; and would expect nothing less from him. You will find the name and contact number of your Senator at this link: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm._____________________________________________*As of the date of the posting of this article, President Trump, on his own initiative, has authorized a limited FBI investigation. The FBI is limited to investigating the specific allegations of sexual misconduct made against Brett Kavanaugh, however implausible the allegations are. Ostensibly, President Trump felt compelled to take this action because Jeff Flake, who had agreed to refer, along with other Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the full Senate, had, literally, at the last minute, reneged on that referral. Further, Senate Republicans, Collins and Murkowski, taking their cue from Senator Flake, have now made clear that they wish for the FBI to investigate the allegations of sexual misconduct, too, before they are willing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, apart from delaying a full Senate Roll-Call vote for another week, this places the FBI in an unenviable position. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, the FBI’s report will be deemed political. This, the FBI doesn’t need, given that the American public has been apprised that, both prior to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereafter, high ranking DOJ and FBI officials have operated as functionaries of the Democratic Party and not as independent police investigators and attorneys. Moreover, since Senate Republicans have, as they made clear during the last Hearing, already undertaken an investigation of individuals whom Christine Ford named as witnesses who might corroborate her allegations, and as none of those individuals had corroborated Christine Ford’s allegations, nothing would be gained through an FBI interview of those same people. Now, two other individuals, Debra Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, have come forward with their own allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. However, the allegations of sexual misconduct that these two new accusers have brought against Judge Kavanaugh are so patently ludicrous, that any time spent and taxpayer monies expended by FBI personnel to interview these women would serve only to turn what has already become a circus into a full-fledged farce. But that is where we, the American people, are, no thanks to Senator Feinstein’s unethical, and truly despicable 11^th Hour bombshell release of Christine Blasey Ford’s barefaced accusation against Judge Kavanaugh._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATS TRY AN ELEVENTH HOUR ATTACK ON JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH’S CONFIRMATION TO THE HIGH COURT.

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls:Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he that filches from me my good nameRobs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ~ William Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3_____________________________“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”  ~ Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” May 4, 1979 through November 28, 1990_____________________________

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAKE A MOCKERY OF A SOLEMN PROCESS FOR CONFIRMING A PERSON TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND, WORST OF ALL, DARE ATTEMPT DESTRUCTION OF A MAN'S GOOD NAME--FOR NO PURPOSE BUT THEIR OWN MISBEGOTTEN AND SELFISH POLITICAL END.

The American public’s patience with the Democratic Party and with the Democratic Party’s echo chamber, the mainstream news media, must be wearing thin, and rightly so. In a disgraceful, 11^th Hour attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democratic Party member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, brought to the attention of Chairman Grassley and to other Republicans sitting on the Committee, uncorroborated accusations impugning the Judge’s character.The accusations against Judge Kavanaugh came to Senator Feinstein, last July. No explanation has been, to date, forthcoming from the Senator, as to her reason or reasons for holding onto the contents of the letter for over two months, but we can reasonably surmise that one major reason Senator Feinstein held onto the contents of the letter has to do with the political usefulness of it in attempting to derail or, at least, holding up a Senate vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the 2018 Midterm elections, when the Democrats hope to gain control of the House and even the Senate. Senator Feinstein, and other Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee knew, full well, of the difficulty, if not the empirical impossibility, of holding up the confirmation of a person admirably qualified to sit on the high Court Justice unless she had a card, an “Ace,” up her sleeve that would rally Leftists in this Country. And, apparently, she did have an “Ace” up her sleeve. In a last minute attempt to throw a wrench into the entire Confirmation process, Senator Feinstein dropped a bomb shell on Chairman Grassley and on other Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee. The bomb shell took the form of an allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, ostensibly referring to an event that, if it occurred at all and if it involved Judge Kavanaugh, happened literally decades ago, when both the Brett Kavanaugh and the accuser were teenagers, in high school.The accusation came to the Senator in a letter she received from a person who, apparently, and not surprisingly, made clear to the Senator, at the time she contacted the Senator, last July, that the accuser wished to remain anonymous. From details of the letter that Senator Feinstein only made known to Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee just days before a Roll-Call vote of the Senate was planned, Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser cast a pernicious and potentially libelous accusation on Judge Kavanaugh. One can surmise the accuser’s motives and she should explain them to the American public. But, assuredly, the accuser, and Senate Democrats, sought to create doubt upon and to impugn the Judge’s good name, character, and reputation, and that is certainly the impact Democrats, through their echo chamber, the mainstream media, are attempting to invoke in the psyche of the American public. If their campaign of deception to cast doubt on the character of Judge Kavanaugh is successful, Senate Democrats will prevent confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh as the new Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is what they want and that is the reason Senate Democrats have implemented an last minute smear campaign. They have nothing else. Thus, they engage in the most despicable act of all: an attempt at character assassination. It is for this reason that Senate Republicans must remain firm in their own commitment to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and without delay, and not allow a false flag smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh to gain traction. Now, it isn't clear whether Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and other Congressional Democrats really aware of the content of the letter in Senator Feinstein's possession before releasing it to Chairman Grassley and to other Senate Republicans. Were other Senate Democrats aware of the contents of the damning letter? And, if so, who, and when did they learn about the contents of the letter? Did they know of the contents before the Confirmation Hearing even took place. After all, Senator Feinstein had the letter in her possession for several weeks, prior to the Hearing. Senator Feinstein could certainly have questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the letter's contents, discretely, when she met with him privately; or she could have brought the matter up at the Hearing, albeit, an attack on a person's character is hardly a matter that should be the subject of a Senate Hearing on the Confirmation of a Judge to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the subject of one's character and integrity and reputation should not even be in question. Judge Kavanaugh has served admirably as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for several years. Impugning a Judge's character serves only to degrade the entire Confirmation process and denigrates, too, the dignity of everyone present, Senators as well as the nominee himself.But, we have to ask: Were other Congressional Democrats—especially Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Senators Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar, Christopher Coons, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Mazie Hirono—also aware, last July, of the contents of the letter that had landed on Senator Feinstein’s desk? If so, they aren’t saying, and no one in the mainstream media seems to be interested in asking. But, they have lent their voices to impugning the character and good name of Judge Kavanaugh merely on the basis of an uncorroborated, unsupported damning barefaced, written accusation.*As Senator Feinstein certainly intended, Congressional Democrats, along with the assistance of the  mainstream media, launched an immediate, vigorous, aggressive attack against Judge Kavanaugh, shamelessly smearing and besmirching his name and character across the National landscape.Obviously, Democrats intend to squash the confirmation of the President’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court by whatever means available, however dubious and shameful those means may be.

THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO HAS ATTACKED JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CHARACTER, COMES TO LIGHT.

Eventually the identity of the accuser came to light—by whom it is not clear.  Conceivably, Democrats, themselves, leaked the name of the accuser. Democrats had certainly become aware that a damning, barefaced anonymous accusation would not delay a Senate Confirmation vote; nor should it. They had to attach a name and face to the accuser, and that would have been their motive, then, for releasing the identity of Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser to the public.The letter to Senator Feinstein, the Nation has learned, came from a middle-aged lady by the name of Christine Blasey Ford, a resident of California, and a Psychology Professor at Palo Alta University. Of note: Fox News reports that, “Ford is a registered Democrat who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington Post.” As a registered Democrat, that fact would certainly supply a motive for the Professor having contacted Senator Feinstein.Christine Blasey Ford alleges, in her letter, as relayed to the mass media by Senator Feinstein, that the U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, assaulted—or attempted to assault the woman (it isn’t clear which, nor is it even clear if the assault or attempted assault was in fact of a sexual nature)—when the two were in high school, an event that would have occurred, if it occurred at all, well over thirty ago. Notably, the accuser is short on critical details, such as when the alleged assault occurred, where the assault occurred, and, for that matter, what it is, exactly, the accuser claims, had occurred, but which, the American public is to believe, has festered in the mind of Christine Blasey Ford for decades.The problem, of course, is that there does not appear to be anyone around who is able to corroborate the accusation. Senate Republican Committee members attempted to find someone, anyone, who might be able to corroborate Judge Kavanaugh's accuser's story. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, for his part, categorically denies the accusation. No matter, Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, have presented the accusation, and continue to present the accusation to the public as gospel, however sketchy the details. Other, more reasonable, rational individuals, including Republican members, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, are not so obliging; nor should they be; no one should.

A WOMAN LODGES A BAREFACED, UNSUPPORTED, SERIOUS, HEINOUS, IF NOT ALTOGETHER SPURIOUS, ALLEGATION AGAINST A RESPECTED AND RESPECTABLE JURIST DESCRIBING AN EVENT THAT, IF THERE IS ANYTHING TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT AT ALL, REFERS TO A MATTER OCCURRING DECADES AGO; AND THE ACCUSER HONESTLY BELIEVES DOING SO WOULD NOT LEAD TO PERSONAL REPERCUSSIONS FOR HERSELF, HAVING PROFFERED IT? HOW CAN A MIDDLE-AGED, PRESUMABLY RESPONSIBLE, RATIONAL ADULT—REMEMBER WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A CHILD HERE—WHO HAS HAD MANY LIFE EXPERIENCES, AND WHO HAS EARNED A DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY, WHO TEACHES PSYCHOLOGY AT AN ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY IN CALIFORNIA, AND WHO IS, THEN, OBVIOUSLY INTELLIGENT, BE SO CALLOUS, SO HEARTLESS, SO SELF-CENTERED, AND, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, SO NAÏVE AS TO BRING UP A PERSONAL MATTER THAT DOES LITTLE, IF ANYTHING--CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME MAY BELIEVE--TO BUTTRESS HER OWN NAME, CHARACTER, AND REPUTATION?

A serious allegation has been lodged against a man whom dozens of other individuals, male and female professionals, know well. Individuals have come forward, pointing to a sensitive, caring person, with impeccable character and reputation; a person having a brilliant legal mind, honed through many years of service to the Nation as a Judge sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. So, if one person’s deprecating comments against Judge Kavanaugh are to be given honest consideration, as both the accuser and Democrats hope—as there are, to date, no negative remarks from those individuals who know Judge Kavanaugh either personally or professionally—then it stands to reason this person must come forward and explain herself to the Nation.We know, however, that Christine Blasey Ford, did not wish to come forward, and does not wish to come forward and that, through her attorney, Debra Katz,** she has made and continues to make many outrageous demands, frustrating, and, obviously, deliberately so, the patience of Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee.One of Christine Blasey Ford’s demands are that Judge Kavanaugh testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, before, Blasey Ford testifies. That is a ludicrous demand to make and it is one contrary to our system of justice and legal procedure.An accuser bears the burden of proof, and must present evidence in support of the accusation so that the accused has an opportunity to hear and view the evidence and has an opportunity to respond to it. It is patently unfair and contrary to our Nation’s judicial practice and procedure and, for that matter, illogical to demand that the accused testify before the accused has had an opportunity to know just what it is the accused is being accused of and has had no opportunity to rebut the accusation made against him or her.The accuser is also demanding that a Senate Confirmation vote be delayed so that she has time to prepare her testimony. But, does Christine Blasey Ford truly require time to prepare? She presented her letter to Senator Feinstein in July. She should have known, ultimately, that she could not simply present a damning accusation, attacking the reputation, character, integrity, and good-name of the man without personally testifying and presenting independent corroborating evidence, to support her accusation, if she has any, that is to say.Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney, probably working closely with Senate Democrats in the shadows, is  attempting to create unnecessary delay when there is no tenable reason to do so. She, and Senate Democrats working with her, are doing this, not because the attorney really needs to prepare her client's testimony before the Senate Committee, even as she says there exists a need to do so, but because they both want to delay a Senate vote on Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the  2016 Midterm Elections in the hope, once again, that Democrats gain control of both the House and Senate and can then prevent a majority vote in the Senate, in favor of confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Senate Democratic Party majority will effectively block Judge Kavanaugh from being confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, thereby frustrating the President, and also frustrating the people who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States, and who had every reason to expect that the President would nominate a person to the high Court who would preserve the Constitution and the rights and liberties of American citizens, in strict accordance to the plain meaning of the Constitution, as drafted by the framers of it. And, Donald Trump has kept his word. We, who support the President, seek to defend the U.S. Constitution, our legal system, the supremacy of our laws and the continued sovereignty of our Nation. And the best way to do so is to secure jurists on the U.S. Supreme Court and on the lower Courts who would do the same. Activist jurists who legislate from the Bench are precisely what supporters of the U.S. President do not want. That is what Barack Obama has given to the American people, and the American people have seen what that has wrought for Nation, and Americans have had enough of that. Is not the derailing of the Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, then, the central reason that Christine Blasey Ford, a supporter of Hillary Clinton, contacted Senator Feinstein? And, isn't the presentation of Christine Blasey Ford's barefaced damning allegation, to Senate Republicans and to the Nation--an isolated, solitary, ludicrous allegation attacking a good man's honor, character, good name, and reputation--the purpose of this smear, this attempt at character assassination? Isn't this what Congressional Democrats had planned all along: to deny Judge Kavanaugh a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of his ability and brilliance as a jurist and regardless of his integrity, character, reputation, sensitivity, and decency as a person and American citizen? Isn't this what a last ditch attempt to disrupt the assured confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh is really all about? Of course it is. And, Democrats have nothing else to use in their attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court. They can come up with nothing else. So, then, this is what Senate Democrats have allowed themselves to be reduced to, ghoulish wretchedness. They utilize the most despicable of tactics in a last ditch attempt to prevent confirmation of a man eminently suited to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. They resort to character assassination. And, they don't care whether the claims impugning Judge Kavanaugh's character are true or not. Indeed, they are reduced to lauding the truth of barefaced damning, unsupported, and vacuous allegation before the accuser has even testified, turning reason, and logic, and common-sense, and proper due process and procedure and judicial fairness; and simple, plain common decency our the door. Indeed, they claim that Judge Kavanaugh must prove his innocence. And, how in law or logic would he even do that, even assuming, for purpose of argument that the onus is on him to prove his innocence? How does one, anyone, go about proving a negative?For purpose of delay, Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney has also demanded that the FBI conduct an investigation of the charge her client has made against her client. That demand is equally absurd. No individual can demand as a matter of right—and, for that matter, it is even wrong to ask—a police department or agency to conduct a criminal investigation. It is the prerogative of a police agency, whether local, County, State, or Federal, to conduct an investigation if, in the first instance, proper jurisdiction exists and it appears worthwhile to do so, which means that forensic evidence likely exists that a crime actually occurred.In this instance it is particularly absurd for the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation. First, the FBI has no jurisdiction to conduct a criminal investigation. The matter would have been within the jurisdiction of the State where the alleged matter purportedly occurred, as the matter is a State matter, not a federal one. No federal law has been violated. So, jurisdictionally, the FBI cannot investigate the matter as a crime, even if it wanted to. Second, as a possible State crime, the State’s Statute of Limitations on assault, sexual or otherwise, may have expired if a Statute of Limitation exists in the jurisdiction where the alleged assault took place. And, even if a Statute of Limitations does not exist, still, in the absence of forensic evidence and in the absence of witnesses who can corroborate the allegation--both of which are highly unlikely--given the fact that the allegation refers to a matter occurring if it occurred at all, literally decades ago, no competent prosecutor would ever attempt to prosecute such a case, as there would be little, if any, chance of obtaining a conviction.If, third, the accuser is demanding that the FBI investigate the allegation not as a crime, but as an investigation into Judge Kavanaugh’s character, then that demand is pointless if not altogether absurd as well because the FBI has already conducted numerous extremely extensive background investigations on Judge Kavanaugh as he has worked for both the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and for the Judicial Branch of Government, the Federal Judiciary, where he presently serves as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.There is nothing further to be gained from use of taxpayer funds for the FBI to do another background investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as he has gone through thorough background investigations already, the last one of which would have been required in the Judge’s capacity as President Trump’s nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. If the FBI had come up with anything concrete to cast doubt on the Judge Kavanaugh’s character, to prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the high Court, the Confirmation process would have been short-circuited, at the inception. There would never have been Hearing. FBI background investigations are extremely thorough, and especially so for those individuals who are being considered to hold powerful positions in the Federal Government, as is true here.It strains credulity to believe the FBI would have been unable to obtain evidence of criminal wrongdoing or evidence of anything suggesting a person has character flaws if any such evidence truly exists.  We should not be looking at Judge Kavanaugh at all. Americans, should, rather, be looking at the accuser, Christine Basely Ford; for if her accusation were true, it is difficult to believe that she would not have mentioned the matter to someone, if not the police, then, perhaps, to a friend, or to her pastor, or, if not to one or more of them, then certainly to her parents who themselves would have contacted the police. In this era of the hysterical "Me Too" movement (or #MeToo) with women coming out of the woodwork, many with the most outrageous of claims, reason dictates that a reasonable person be skeptical of claims of moral impropriety or criminal wrongdoing when all that exists is a bare bones allegation.In the instant case, a decades old claim of assault (sexual or not)--and one, at that, coming from a person holding political views antithetical to Republicans, a person who is certainly no supporter of President Trump, and a person who is represented by an attorney who is, herself, a known hard-core left-wing activist--smacks of an orchestrated scheme, a design, a plan, concocted by Democrats and Left-wing agitators to undermine the President at every turn. The American public has certainly seen substantial evidence of that to date. A direct, concerted attack on the President's nominees to sit on Federal Courts, especially the President's nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, when that nominee would create a clear conservative-wing majority on the Court, is something that Democrats and Leftists cannot, it is evident, abide. Indeed, since a Supreme Court Justice holds a lifetime appointment, the power of the high Court, with Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, would provide the best means possible to preserve: the U.S. Constitution and a free Republic; the supremacy of our laws, and the sovereignty of our Nation; the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry, and an  appreciation for the continued autonomy and sanctity of the individual--all of which exists within the framework of our Constitution and system of laws, as established by the founders of our Nation. None of this, Democrats and Leftist groups want to preserve. Their aims and goals require a tortuous reading of the Constitution. They see our Constitution and fallible and malleable. They do not accept the supremacy of our Constitution and laws, but rather as contained within a broader spectrum of international law and pacts and treaties and foreign tribunals, all impacting our Nation and its people. They do not believe in the conception of natural law--that the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen exist beyond their lawful power to curtail or eliminate. They believe that all laws, even our natural unalienable rights, codified in our Bill of Rights are merely man-made constructs, and, as such, they see rights and liberties as subject to constant reconfiguration, refinement, regulation, even elimination; and they seek to create new substantive rights that nowhere exist in the Constitution, such as a right to an abortion on demand. These Leftists would destroy our Country, as originally constituted: an independent Sovereign Nation. They would accomplish this by opening up our borders to virtually anyone who wishes to reside within our borders, and they would provide these individuals, these aliens, with all the rights, liberties and privileges attendant to citizens, thereby destroying the very concept of 'citizen,' along with the concept of our Country as an 'independent, Sovereign Nation' in the process. These Leftists would destroy our Nation and its Constitution as assuredly as would a foreign military invasion. In fact, it would be worse, as destruction of our Nation and its Constitution would be completed, quietly, insidiously, from within. We have seen this playing out before, through the actions of the previous President of the United States, Barack Obama. We see this playing out now, even more clearly, only because Donald Trump, rather than Hillary Clinton, secured the Presidency in 2016. And Americans now know, cannot reasonably deny, that Barack Obama, when he held Office, was busy at work, not doing the work of the American people, but, rather, busy at work quietly creating within the federal bureaucracy and within the Judiciary, mechanisms to weaken our Constitution, and our rights and liberties and dismantling our Nation, a free Republic. Much of his disassembling, consisted in part of the placement of individuals in key positions, thousands of them--Leftist ideologues, who have, it is fair to conclude, no love for our Nation, for its Constitution, or for its system of laws--certainly no love for our Nation, for its Constitution, or for its system of laws, as conceived by our founders. President Trump has begun to rectify this. He has attempted and is attempting to reconstitute our Nation in the manner envisioned and implemented by our founders. Democrats and Leftist groups and agitators, and mainstream media newspapers and organizations, perceive what is happening; they see the turnaround, and they are unhappy with it; want none of it. And, we see them fighting back; and they are doing so through means that illustrate their contempt for our Constitution, for our laws, for our jurisprudence, as their methods and actions are patently unlawful. Again, they don't care, as it is their design to dismantle this Nation and to rewrite our Constitution anyway. They have an agenda; it is one that Barack Obama has been following. It is one that Hillary Clinton--had she gained the Office of U.S. President--would have continued. It calls for control of the massive federal bureaucracy. It calls for control of the Press. It calls for control of the Judiciary; it calls for the very destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry. This process was well underway during Barack Obama's terms in Office; and it is still underway, even as President Trump attempts methodically, albeit with great difficulty, to set things right; to set things back to the way they were; to the way they ought to be; to the way our founders intended. And, we see the Press, an organ of this vast bureaucratic and judicial conspiracy--publishers, editors, reporters, commentators, editorialists, commentators--working assiduously, aggressively, ceaselessly  against our Nation, against our Nation's Constitution, and against the best interests of the Nation's citizenry. They strive to force the United States into a trans-nationalist, globalist, world order. That do not deny this. They do not disagree with our assessment. They embrace it, talk lovingly about it. They argue that President Trump has a view of this Nation and its laws that are archaic, that our Nation must enter a new age; that it must become part of a larger community of nations, politically as well as economically. They argue that we must not be insular. That we must embrace multiculturalism, alien ideas, extreme diversity. They argue that we must be willing to relinquish our old jurisprudential standards, along with those  parts of our Constitution that reflect a history, a conception of our Nation and its people, that is no longer,as they see it, useful and relevant, and that is, in fact dangerous to a new conceptual schema, a new political, legal, economic, social, and cultural framework, a new paradigm, as the old ways--the Constitution as originally articulated, the Nation State as originally conceived--all of it is no longer consistent with conception of and aims of a new international world order. The Press is, in fact, correct in its assessment of President Trump of what President Trump is attempting to do. But, the Press is wrong in one critical respect. It is this: the conception of our Nation and of our Nation's laws, and of our Nation's Constitution, as conceived by our founders, is precisely what the American people do wish to preserve. The Press, as the mouthpiece of those elements both in our Nation and abroad that wish to reconfigure our Nation to cohere with the model of the EU, see the design of our Constitution, and see the notion of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State as old and archaic--reminiscent of  an Order conceived by our founders, that is no longer relevant and, so, no longer worth preserving, no longer worth even remembering. They see our Constitution, as drafted by its framers, and as ratified by the States, as anachronistic. They see our centuries of law and jurisprudence, and of the citizenry's rights and liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution as reflecting ideas that are no longer relevant or useful. They see the notion of the sanctity of the autonomy of the individual as altogether incompatible--which it is--with the utilitarian concept of "the good" achievable only when people are conceived as and ruled over as "a collective." All that, which the American public sees as timeless and which has preceded us and which the American public sees is worth preserving, and worth remembering, and worthy of adulation, these Democrats and Leftists, see as unimportant, and, in fact, destructive to their goal of incorporating our Nation into a new international, globalist world order, one where our citizens are perceived as no different than the citizens of any other nation of the world--where, in fact, the very notion of 'citizen,' so long pervasive in our society, is now perceived as detrimental to their goal of a one world government, requiring our citizenry to be shoehorned into the populations of the world, reduced to abject servitude. Those things that we see as timeless, permanent, worthy of preserving and, in fact necessary and vital, Democrats and Leftists have been altogether dismissive of. They have quietly, but, of late, vociferously, sought to undermine, our history, our culture, our pride of Nation, our system of laws and jurisprudence, our fundamental rights and liberties. There is a war proceeding now, a war for the soul of our People; for the soul of our Nation; for the soul of our Constitution and four our system of laws. Donald Trump was elected precisely because enough Americans realized--could see--the destruction of a Nation occurring before their very eyes and therefore sought a person to hold high Office who would prevent this, would turn the destructive tendencies, impulses, as well, as design for a new conception of our Nation, for a new conception of our laws and a new conception of our Constitution, completely around. There is a war brewing in this Country. It is a war fought, not, at the moment at least, with bombs, and guns and swords, but with words. But the winds of violence, of strife and turmoil are brewing, ominously on the horizon, as we see Leftist agitators, using violence, more and more: rapidly, incessantly, with more severity; and Democrats and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, the Press, do not condemn this violence. Far from it. They condone it, even encourage it. Democrats and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, the Press, are, therefore, complicit in the incitement of it.The Leftists in this Nation and abroad, who control the media--seek to control the mind, the psyche of the public. They are losing, nonetheless. Thus, they resort to the use of agitators; and they besmirch the character and reputation of those individuals who are not on board with their game plan. This much is clear; this much is obvious; this cannot be denied. As the Democrats and Leftist radicals lose control of the discourse, they become more discouraged, and then disgruntled. By degrees, they become agitated, then enraged, and ever more determined. They thrash about, making ever more ridiculous assertions, devising ever more noxious, disreputable schemes for fighting back. In so doing, they no longer appear like human beings. They take on the wild-eyed look of animals, of beasts. And, the more obstreperous they become, the more the public turns against them, in repugnance, in loathing, as well we should; for, these people, these Democrats, these Leftists, are not the voice of restraint. How can they be? They cannot even restrain themselves. And, so the public turns against them, enraging them even more; and they devise ever more outlandish schemes and make ever more outlandish pronouncements. They are not the voice of reason. Their claims of concern for the health, safety, and welfare of others are empty, vacuous, as the public knows their words are not heartfelt. It is no more than pretense; and not subtle pretense. Their moral tone is a charade, and so it appears to the public, as their outrageous actions belie their words. These Democrats, these Leftists, are not the voice of sanity; they are not the voice of morality, despite their claims to the contrary. They are not the voice of reason. How can they be? Their pronouncements are reduced to gibberish, mere sanctimonious patter, endlessly repeated, by one and then others of them. And, the American public has contempt for them and for good reason, as they are not sincere. The public is disgusted with their empty rhetoric, their bombastic retorts; their bald faced arrogance.These Democrats and Leftists, seeming liberal in outlook as they wish to appear, as they think they appear to others, become more and more radical in bearing, as their tone becomes more strident and either childishly simplistic, or completely incomprehensible. They resort to ever more alarming, ever more irrational assertions, remonstrations, and actions. As  more and more Americans turn against them, as they see the tide of the public turning against them in disgust, these Democrats, these Leftists, become ever more agitated, ever more desperate. They resort to ever more ridiculous, outrageous, and reprehensible assertions and actions; devise ever more insidious, outlandish, and illegal schemes in an attempt to turn the tide--to return to their program, their agenda. They cannot help themselves. They are on a runaway train. They don't even know how ludicrous they look; how clownish they appear; how irrational their actions are; how irrelevant they have become. As conservatives, we American conservatives--conservatives , indeed, in our very restraint, and in our thought and in our behavior and in our deeds, and in our outlook on life--hold more securely to our Constitution, to our Nation as a free Republic, to our system of laws and jurisprudence, to our great history, and to our core values, and to our pride. We see that Democrats in Congress, and Leftist radicals, become ever more radical in presentment of their schemes, and in their protestations, and in their aims; and in their attitudes and behavior toward others. They cannot and will not countenance any view but their own. They will not debate. For, they would lose. Their aims, and goals, and philosophy are nonsensical, completely at odds with our National character. They have lost their sense of balance; of reason. They have lost all semblance of self-control. They are completely forsaken. And, that fact has not been lost anyone.

THE AIMS OF DEMOCRATS AND LEFTIST RADICALS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY CLEAR, SELF-EVIDENT: THEY SEEK TO STRIP THIS NATION CLEAN OF ITS HISTORY, ITS HERITAGE, ITS DIGNITY, ITS UNIQUENESS, OF EVERYTHING THAT HOLDS US TOGETHER--EVERYTHING THAT HAS, SINCE OUR NATION'S INCEPTION, BOUND US TOGETHER, AS ONE NATION UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND CARE OF OUR CREATOR.

A Congress controlled by Democrats and Leftists of all stripes, would strip bare the framework of our Nation and reconstruct it as merely a unit within the structure of the European Union. Our Nation would become part of an international world order, unconstrained by traditions or history. Multiculturalism would dominate. Our Nation would become a heterogenous conglomeration of unassimilable people, holding alien ideas to whom our core values, our traditions, our Bill of Rights is simply indecipherable, meaningless. As our societal fabric becomes more tenuous, we will see our Nation, our Constitution, our system of laws fragment. The Nation will be ripe for a takeover by powerful international forces. This new "modern" America would no longer be recognizable. Democrats and leftist groups welcome the change; indeed, they are working for that change; they are working for that very transformation of our Country. And they think that is a good thing; that such transformation is proper; that the old Nation, conceived and established by our founders, no longer adequately "works;" that it no longer represents the values of the modern age; that the founder's "construct" no longer reflects the new age that exists. They see, President Trump's slogan, "America First" as representative of an archaic notion; that it is  anachronistic and, worse, that it is arrogantly defiant. Democrats and Leftist groups argue for a new conception of the way Americans should see themselves, namely that they should see themselves not as citizens of a Nation, the United States, but, rather, that they should see themselves as "citizens of the world,"--an empty concept really, as we, citizens of a new world would be reduced to serfdom, as we fit into a new world feudalistic order, as the European Union is degenerating into.Our Supreme Court, though, our third Branch of Government, that in previous years, the public has been little cognizant of, can prevent this. The public is certainly cognizant of and sees the importance of our high Court now. And, what is it that we want and expect from our Justices? Americans should want and expect Justices who test the lawfulness of Congressional and State action through the Constitution, as it is written, as the framers of it understood it. Such Justices would be a mighty force to be reckoned with even if Democrats to take control of the House after the 2016 Midterm elections. For, a conservative-wing majority on the high Court can withstand a Congress run amok. But, Conservative-wing jurists who defer to and respect the Constitution, who do not legislate from the Bench, will then protect our history; our heritage; our fundamental rights and liberties; the supremacy of our laws; and the sovereignty of our Nation. All that we hold dear would be undone if Democrats are able to prevent competent jurists, such as Judge Kavanaugh, from gaining a seat on the high Court. Yet, the Democrats' tool for thwarting the Confirmation process would be laughable in the contemplation if we did not see it unfolding in practice: a malcontented middle-age woman, holding a decades old grudge. That is what Senate Democrats are using to derail the Senate Confirmation process.One decades old barefaced allegation of wrongdoing, short on details, in the absence of forensic evidence and corroborating witnesses, is hardly a legitimate, rational basis for the FBI to seriously consider launching another background investigation even if they had the authorization to do so.Of course the U.S. President could ask the FBI to undertake an investigation (the seventh?); but one would hardly expect the President to authorize yet another investigation into Judge Kavanaugh's past, as Judge Kavanaugh, after all, is the President’s nominee to serve on the high Court. It would be against the President’ interest to request such an investigation, and there is no suggestion that Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee feel that a further FBI investigation is necessary, anyway.If Senate Republicans wish undertake an investigation of the allegation, let them do so. They have the prerogative to do so; and, likely, they have already quietly undertaken an investigation. For all that, there is nothing to suggest, from one solitary allegation of purported wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh--as brought to the attention of Chairman Grassley, at the 11^th Hour by Senator Feinstein--to support an FBI investigation were the President, in fact, inclined to authorize the FBI to do so. The fact of the matter is that any further background investigation would simply delay a Senate confirmation vote and delay a confirmation vote indefinitely—which, of course, is really the point. An investigation into the allegation would be interminable; it would and could never be completed because there is nothing to be undertaken. So, if one considers the entire matter rationally, another FBI background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh's past, would be futile, redundant, and silly, making a mockery of the entire Senate Confirmation process. But, Democrats don't care. They  want to prevent a confirmation vote of Judge Kavanaugh from ever occurring. That is their goal. And, even now, Democrats must be operating in the dark to devise ever more outrageous schemes to prevent Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, if the present "tool" doesn't work. And, they will undoubtedly pull out another"Me Too" tool to use against any person President Trump nominates to the high Court. They will do everything they can to prevent a Conservative-wing Majority on the high Court.

IS JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CREDIBILITY AND CHARACTER REALLY IN QUESTION HERE? IS IT NOT, REALLY, THE CREDIBILITY, CHARACTER, AND MOTIVATION OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S ACCUSER THAT ARE IN QUESTION?

It is not Judge Kavanaugh's credibility and character that are really in question, here, but those of Christine Blasey Ford. Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser’s recollection of the allegation she has lodged against Judge Kavanaugh demands she personally come forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee to offer testimony to support her allegation if she intends for it to be taken seriously.The Judiciary Committee should also question Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser as to her motivations for having brought a damning accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, pertaining to a matter that, if there is anything to it at all, references an event occurring well over thirty years ago. The Judiciary Committee might ask Christine Blasey Ford about the possibility of her having had an hysterical reaction to something unrelated to assault or attempted assault, and the nature of the alleged assault or attempted assault—whether of a sexual nature or not. There is a possibility, perhaps a probability, that Christine Blasey Ford is misremembering critical facts. There are certainly gaps in her account, as the accusation, as presented to the public, as reported in the news, is short on critical details. The Judiciary Committee might ultimately and reasonably infer that the event, in any critical particular, had not really transpired at all.Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser may simply be recalling a bad dream she had as a child or as a teenager, mistakenly, albeit honestly, believing the dream to constitute reality; or if the event described actually happened, she may be mistaken as to the identity of the individual she believes had assaulted her or attempted to assault her. The entire accusation, from what the public has seen, to date, is altogether murky, but Democrats expect the public and Senate Republicans to accept the account as given, as true on its face. That is decidedly irrational.The Judiciary Committee should question Christine Blasey Ford as to her political leanings, as the  motivation for bringing up the matter is definitely relevant. In that regard, would Christine Blasey Ford have sent her damning letter to Senator Feinstein, if the allegation in the letter pointed to a nominee of the U.S. President who happened to be favored by Democrats? If not, would not that mean that the purpose of the letter is not to preclude an individual from being confirmed as a Justice on the high Court because of purported character flaws, but to preclude an individual from serving on the high Court that the accuser, along with Democrats, doesn’t like because of his jurisprudential philosophy and approach to case analysis? And if the accuser and Senate Democrats do not like Judge Kavanaugh, not because of any doubt as to his professional qualifications, but because of negative and baseless presumptions about how, they believe, that Judge Kavanaugh might happen to decide a case; and based on their personal biases toward the Judge, totally apart from and irrespective of his qualifications to decide cases before the Court in a well-reasoned, sensitive manner, consistent with the import of Judicial precedent and with due regard to the plain meaning of words as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and in Statute. If, then, Senate Democrats--with assistance from a compliant Press sympathetic to Democrats' goals, and philosophy, and desires to rewrite the Constitution and to change the very fabric of American society to correspond to a "modern" world, as exemplified in the social and political and legal framework we see in the Nations comprising the European Union--have orchestrated a scheme, have hatched a devious plan, have devised a plot to undermine the Kavanaugh Confirmation process as part and parcel of a greater plan to contain the U.S. President and his policy goals and objectives as he promised, consistent with the will of the American people, to preserve the U.S. Constitution and a free Republic, as the founders of our Nation had intended, then Democrat's  attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court has nothing to do with and has never had anything to do with getting to the truth; it has nothing to do with and never had anything to do with the vindication of a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who claims to have been wronged by Judge Kavanaugh, and who brings up a decades old claim of  wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh; for that is nothing but pretext. No! The real reason Senate Democrats seek to delay a Senate Roll Call vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court is to frustrate President Trump; to frustrate the will of the people. And the attack on Judge Kavanaugh's character and reputation is merely one more tactic, like the Mueller probe. Simply, Judge Kavanaugh is in the way of the agenda that Democrats intend for this Country once they resume power. A conservative wing majority in the high Court would be capable of continuing to frustrate Democrats and Leftists groups in this Country from reconfiguring the Constitution and the institutions and laws of society to conform to their new world view. Hence, they are pulling out all the stops to prevent Judge Kavanaugh from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in spite of his good character, solid reputation, impeccable judicial work, intellectual brilliance, and love and respect for our Constitution and system of laws. If, then, the delay in holding a confirmation vote is politically motivated, and not rationally related to the qualifications or character of the President's nominee, as is obvious, Senate Republicans must stand firm, and make clear to their counterparts, Senate Democrats, and to the American people, that they support Judge Kavanaugh fully and that they will not allow Senate Democrats to take control of the Confirmation process, which, unfortunately, as is becoming increasingly obvious, is happening. Senate Republicans are allowing Democrats to do just that.Of course the American public knows this to be the case, but these facts are not supposed to be obvious. Increasingly, though, it is becoming glaringly obvious to the American people that the accusation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is nothing more than yet one more weapon in the toolbox of Democrats and extreme leftists in this Country, pulled out with no legitimate aim but only to frustrate the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States, in anticipation that, one day, they will regain control of the reins of Government.Judge Kavanaugh for his part is perfectly willing to come forward, once again, before the Committee, to respond to the accusations, to get this matter behind him. He has already categorically denied the truth of Blasey’s accusations. Christine Blasey Ford, an American citizen, has made a damning accusation against another American citizen; and there must be a public accounting for it. After all she made a conscious decision to contact Senator Feinstein, accusing Judge Kavanaugh of a heinous act. Christine Blasey Ford, and her attorney, and Senate Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee apparently believing it unnecessary for Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser to make a personal appearance before the entire Nation, despite smearing Judge Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, and good name before the Nation, and, in the process, potentially, psychologically harming Judge Kavanaugh’s wife, children, and parents. Many on the political left don’t seem to care, including those in the mainstream media. Nonetheless, as of this writing, Christine Blasey Ford, through her attorney has agreed to testify, albeit reluctantly, although the conditions under which and the manner in which Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser testifies, whether openly before the Nation, as she should, or secretly, behind closed doors, as she might, are, apparently, still being hammered out, by the accuser’s attorney and Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, along with other conditions, to be hammered out, patently ridiculous though they be.Chairman Grassley and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have made clear that, if they are compelled to play the game Democrats demand they play, then, Democrats are not going to make up all the rules as they go, changing them at will. His patience must be running thin, and with good reason. But, one thing is clear. Whatever the facts happen to be, surrounding the allegation that Christine Blasey Ford has brought against Judge Kavanaugh, and whatever her motivations for bringing it, Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser must come forward and testify. She must explain herself. Christine Blasey Ford, her attorney, and Senate Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee had thought that Christine Blasey Ford need not testify. They are all profoundly mistaken.

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS OPENED A PANDORA’S BOX WITH HER BAREFACED ALLEGATION, WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, SUPPORTING THE ALLEGATION, IS VACUOUS. NOW SHE MUST DEAL WITH THE TROUBLES SHE HAS UNLEASHED AND THAT SHE AND SHE ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.

Media accounts refer to the psychological toll the entire matter has had on Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, with little, if any, regard, shown for the psychological toll this matter has had on Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Why is that? Media accounts proclaim how courageous Christine Blasey Ford is to come forward with her allegation. Really? How much courage does it take to write a letter, attacking and impugning a person’s character, and demanding that and believing that one’s identity remain obscured, hidden in the shadows, and that the accuser’s identity will forever remain anonymous? Christine Blasey Ford is an adult, not a child; and no longer a teenager. She should have known that an intelligent person, as she undoubtedly is, cannot reasonably expect to smear the name of another, publically, especially a highly respected person—presently serving as a Judge on a federal Circuit Court, nominated by the U.S. President to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court—and, yet, expect no personal repercussions to emanate from that smear. Indeed, if the accusation is false, that amounts to the commission of a serious tort. What is clear enough is that this matter has political overtones—political overtones that cannot be denied. Christine Blasey Ford, along with her attorney, and along with Congressional Democrats, seek retribution against Donald Trump for having prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. They seek retribution against the President’s nominees to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. But, it is retribution on their own heads that they deserve and that they will receive from the American public.It must need be reiterated that no person has come forward, to date, to corroborate Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation. So, who can defend the repugnant claim, apart from the accuser, herself? Apparently they include only those people who would like to believe Christine Blasey Ford and who have become inappropriate stand-ins, in the absence of a witness to the purported event. One stand-in is Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand, a Democrat sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has her own agenda, which likely includes a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2020. This is what the Senator had to say about the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, as reported by the National Review:“‘I believe Dr. Blasey Ford because she’s telling the truth. You know it by her story. You know it by the fact that she told her therapist five years ago. She told her husband. This is a trauma she’s been dealing with her whole life. She doesn’t want to be in a bedroom that doesn’t have two doors. People knew that about her a long time ago,’ Gillibrand said.”“‘These are the hallmarks of truth, these are the hallmarks of someone who wants to be believed. I believe her because she’s telling the truth. She’s asking the FBI to investigate her claims,’ the senator added. ‘She’s asking for that kind of review, that investigative work, that oversight, that accountability. Someone who is lying doesn’t ask the FBI to investigate their claims.’” From these remarks, a reasonable person can come to two diametrically opposed inferences about Senator Gillibrand: one, either she is omniscient; or, two, she is a moron. It is unlikely that Senator Gillibrand is omniscient. Other Democrats have proclaimed similar ludicrous and imbecilic remarks.Curiously, though, Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself—the Democrat who tactically, but untactfully and disgracefully released Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation, inopportunely, on Chairman Grassley and on other Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, without, at the very least, attempting to investigate the veracity of the accusation before releasing it at all, and then having decided to release the barefaced accusation on the Judiciary Committee, as well as on the Nation, only days before a Senate Roll Call vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was planned even though Senator Feinstein had received the accusation, in the form of a letter, months earlier—pointed out, as reported by the Washington Times, that: “Ms. Blasey Ford has been ‘profoundly impacted,’ but [Senator Feinstein] added, ‘I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.’”  Those remarks were the most neutral and most reasonable of remarks that any Democrat has said to date on the matter, coming from any Congressional Democrat. But, perhaps, not unexpectedly, Senator Feinstein backpedaled—no doubt at the urgent behest of other Congressional Democrats as Feinstein had essentially contradicted Senator Gillibrand; for, Senator Feinstein had created a new narrative, with her account of Christine Blasey Ford's accusation--an account not synchronized with the narrative Democrats and the mainstream media had orchestrated for the American public and have been playing incessantly to the public to encourage public support in Democrats' attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Democrats and the mainstream media always operate in lockstep with each other, often reciting verbatim, ad nauseum, the same trite talking points.So, then, as reported in the same article by the Washington Times, “Ms. Feinstein . . . later clarified her statement on Twitter. ‘During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable. She knew this would have a huge effect on her life and she was incredibly brave to come forward.’” But, note: Dianne Feinstein’s “clarification” still falls noticeably short on one critical point, and this certainly wasn't accidental. While saying she believed Christine Blasey Ford’s “information” to be “eminently credible, sincere and believable,” the Senator still refrained from asserting a belief that the information is in fact true. Thus, to her credit—and Dianne Feinstein owes the American public that much since it was the Senator who, after all, brought the barefaced allegation, directly impugning the character of an honorable man, to the public’s attention in the first place—Senator Feinstein knows that, however “credible, sincere and believable” the allegation is, it may still be false. Displaying such obvious concern for precision in her remarks--something, by the way, that we do not see from Senator Gillibrand--and from many other Congressional Democrats, who have exhibit no inclination toward the importance of personal integrity and who have no sense of personal honor but only demonstrate concern for results and for the amassing of personal power--it is odd that Senator Feinstein released the accusation prior to undertaking a quiet vetting process, herself, before the fact. Perhaps, though, Senator Feinstein did attempt to conduct a quiet, secretive investigation into the veracity of Christine Basely Ford's allegation against Judge Kavanaugh when the Senator first received the Professor's letter; and, perhaps, Senator Feinstein was unable to obtain independent evidence to corroborate the barefaced allegation. This would not be surprising given the passage of so many years and given the extensive gaps pertaining to the account as related in the accuser's letter, as related to the public by the Press. Conceivably, as we speculate, Senator Feinstein may very well have fretted over all of this, but felt, ultimately, inevitably, calculatedly, and, perhaps, even resignedly, that, if Democrats were to have any appreciable chance at all of derailing, or, at least, delaying the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court--and despite realizing the damage that could and undoubtedly would be done to the Senator's own professional reputation by unilaterally releasing a barefaced, heinous accusation--Senator Feinstein would take the risk of damaging her own reputation anyway; and, so, she released a barefaced, unsupported, uncorroborated, damning allegation, that she knew or had every reason to presume would unfairly impugn the character and integrity of an honorable man and highly respected jurist, as well as doing psychological harm to Judge Kavanaugh's wife and young, impressionable daughters. Having taken this action, probably at the urging of other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein has done irreparable damage to her own personal and professional reputation, and deservedly so. Perhaps, then, Senator Feinstein’s “clarification” was meant to inform Congressional Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee that she bears some animosity toward those Democrats by having been urged by them to release Christine Blasey Ford's allegation to the Senator Grassley and to other Senate  Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, and to the Nation. That would certainly explain why Senator Feinstein's "clarification" still manages to conflict with Senator Gillibrand’s remark—and the remarks of other Democrats--who exclaimed, unabashedly, that they accept the veracity of the allegation on its face, even though there is no reasonable, rational basis at all to do so.

BELIEFS ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TO KNOWLEDGE

Senator Feinstein acknowledges, subtly, but more than merely impliedly, that one’s belief that a statement is true does not, of itself, make a statement true even if, as with Senator Gillibrand's comment and that of other Congressional Democrats, as a group,  for political reasons, the claim is made that beliefs about truth and factual truth amount to the same thing. Senator Feinstein is correct. They aren't the same thing. She knows that it is ridiculous  to say that because someone believes a statement to be true that that the statement is true.  So, it appears, on some level, at least, that Senator Feinstein continues to insist that she simply doesn’t know if Christine Basely Ford's allegation against Judge Kavanaugh is true. But, as she brought this mess to the attention of the public, Senator Feinstein, more than anyone else, is responsible for the mess she created.No one needs to take courses in formal or informal logic, or in epistemology, to know that beliefs, however sincere do not ipso facto equate with truth. Beliefs that such and such is the case may be false, and often are. Centuries ago most people believed the Earth was flat. They sincerely believed that and, given the number of people who believed that the Earth was flat and that if one travels too far on a flat Earth, one would fall off the Earth, were held to true and credible beliefs, insofar as the majority of the people believed this to be the case. But, scientists, of course have proved, conclusively—indeed Christopher Columbus has shown through his voyage to the "New World"—that the Earth is indeed round. The Earth is a sphere, not a flat disc or plate. The point is that bare beliefs, in the absence of evidence, do not equate with truth. They never did. There is, then, no reason to raise Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s asserted belief in the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation to the level of truth, however sincerely felt that belief may be, if, in fact, Senator Gillibrand does in fact sincerely believe the accusation and is not simply pulling a political stunt. Senator Gillibrand, as with many Democrats, are conjurers, sleight-of-hand artists, who attempt to control the public's perceptions, no less so than an actual stage illusionist, doing seemingly wondrous things, but merely playing tricks, controlling the audience's perceptions. Democrats are doing the same thing, and the mainstream media is merely one of the assistants of the Democrats. The mainstream media is not interested any longer in imparting truth to the public, passively, The mainstream media is, as well, attempting to shape public opinion.As to the matter at hand, we simply don’t know whether the accuser's “information” is true, rather than false. And, contrary to Senator Gillibrand’s remark, the Senator doesn’t know either. She may profess a belief in the truth of the accusation, but, once again, one's belief in the truth of a proposition does not make that belief, true. Beliefs can be and often turn out to be mistaken. Indeed, given the span of time, Christine Blasey Ford’s recollection of the event amounting to an assault may be wholly or partially false. Her recollection may certainly be false or fallible given the passage of time, even if she sincerely believes the account to be true. We simply don’t know in the absence corroborating reports, and forensic evidence—difficult things to collect now, from a decades old allegation. But, always keep in mind: it is not necessary for Judge Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s account. This matter does not boil down to a “He said; She said” debate, as some have argued, with due allowance, as some give it, but improperly, to the accuser, for presumptively assuming the truth of the accuser’s claim.In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is always on the accuser, as it should be, as it must be, and, as, under our system of laws and procedure, always is. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, never on the defendant. The defendant may remain silent and need not present any evidence to support or contradict the accusation. If the accuser’s evidence is insufficient or lacking in all or any important detail, then the prosecution’s case falls flat. The accused therefore has the presumption of innocence, not guilt, as that presumption must be given to the accused, if fairness is to prevail. Now, we are not, of course, faced with a criminal trial here. Still, the methodology of presumption of innocence persists and other important judicial presumptions, consistent with our legal procedure, still hold. If Christine Blasey Ford fails to testify and fails to provide credible evidence to support a bald allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh, then the allegation falls flat, and must be given no force or effect.

SO, WE ASK:

Do those individuals who believe in the veracity of the accusation that Christine Blasey Ford has lodged against Judge Kavanaugh—belief in the accuser’s account, without reservation and without need to hear her testimony, under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee and before the American public, and without need to see, and, indeed, to insist on seeing independent evidence that supports the bare allegation—believe the accuser because they happen to know the accuser personally and have, through their own observations, never known the accuser to fabricate a story or to have been subject to a delusion or hallucination, or do they elicit confidence in the truth of the accusation simply because it serves an agenda: namely keeping Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, and in the process, frustrating the U.S. President, and frustrating the will of the American people, who, in full accord with the Constitution, legitimately elected Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States. If the latter is the case, then these people—Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and in their echo chamber, the mainstream media; and Leftists, supporters of “Planned Parenthood” and the “Me Too” movement and supporters of other Left-wing radicals, among others—evince belief in the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation because they have a political and ideological reason to do so, they have items on a political agenda to see through to fruition. Now, these people and members of left-wing groups may convince themselves, albeit irrationally, that they really do believe the accusation of Judge Kavanaugh's accuser to be true, when, however, in a contemplative, self-reflective moment, they may admit to themselves, that they really do not know, as they have no basis in logic to do so. But, whether they do honestly, sincerely believe the accusation, or not, the belief is not equivalent to truth. Perhaps, as appears likely, they really don't care in the truth. They only care in the spectacle and if the spectacle operates well, according to plan, to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and others may, then, choose to believe whatever they wish to believe, whether sincerely felt or merely presented for political expediency. Whatever the case, that is no reason why anyone else should accept as true what it is that the Senator or others believe to be true and happen to say is true, however fervently and loudly they proclaim their belief to accord with the truth. And, the public must be mindful of an intricate illusion--a magical trick being played upon it.

THERE IS MUCH AT STAKE HERE.

For the sake of preservation of our system of laws and justice, Americans should not accept and should not be expected to accept an uncorroborated accusation as true simply because they would like to believe the accusation to be true. But that is likely what we are seeing here. Our Constitution and our system of laws require that one be circumspect, rational, and diligent.One should not be headstrong, emotional, haphazard, gullible, in accepting as gospel things that one would, perhaps, like to believe are true simply because they fit a particular paradigm of one’s personal reality, of the way one would like things to be, irrespective of rational reflection. Americans should expect no less from a jurist. Americans should want a jurist to be competent and capable, to dispose of cases, carefully, in accordance with law, as it is written, as it is. This is why, after all, Americans should want to see confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. They should not want a jurist sitting on the high Court who disposes of cases the way a jurist happens to believe the law ought to be. Unfortunately, we see the latter among jurists, at all levels. Judge Kavanaugh, though, is not that kind of jurist.Judge Kavanaugh has the temperament as well as the intelligence to serve on the high Court. He is careful to render decisions that comply clearly, carefully, and narrowly with the original intent of the Constitution, and does not go off half-cocked, as all to many jurists, unfortunately do, rendering decisions that comply with a personal ideological perspective, irrespective of the plain words of the Constitution, of Statute and of high Court precedent. Too many jurists render legal opinions that operate more like personal, rhetorical political tracts than as true legal opinions, demonstrating less the idea of cogent and clear and articulate knowledge and application of  and adherence of the law to the facts, and more like polemics, asserting the jurist's desire for the way he or she would like the world to be, fitfully forcing law to fit a particular factual paradigm. This explains why Democrats are afraid of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and why they have made a spectacle of the entire confirmation process. They do not want to see calmness, intelligence, rationality on the high Court; quite the opposite. They want to see someone sitting on the high Court who renders decisions on the basis of emotion, and sentiment, and sentimentality, those things that the Left ascribes to, devoid of sound reason, exhibiting little if any respect for the plain meaning of the Constitution and of our laws, as written. Indeed, haven’t we seen, during the Confirmation Hearing, Democrats exhibiting themselves those very attributes in a jurist that no American should want to see in a jurist: someone who renders opinions emotionally, irrespective of what the law and Constitution say? Haven’t Democrats shown the American people that they want jurists who render decisions beyond the scope of case precedent, beyond the plain meaning of Constitution and Statute? Hasn’t it become clear to all Americans that Democrats want jurists on the high Court who are not afraid to rewrite the Constitution and laws to reflect their view of what they think the law should be, to reflect a Country the way they think the Country ought to look, rather than what the law and the Constitution demand; what the law and the Constitution dictate? Don't Americans, rather, seek to maintain a Country operating coherently and cohesively and consistently as the founders of our free Republic prescribed; as the framers of the Constitution intended?

WHAT IS CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S BAREFACED ALLEGATION AGAINST JUDGE KAVANAUGH REALLY, THEN, ALL ABOUT?

The hysteria that is being displayed, deliberately whipped up by the mainstream media, exemplifies the character of the kind of jurist the Left in this Country would like to see sitting on the high Court: a person that mirrors themselves; their personal view of what a “modern” America should look like, completely at odds with the framework the Founders of our Republic established as set forth clearly, categorically, and meticulously, in the U.S. Constitution.Mainstream media newspapers, such as The New York Times, lost little time in posting numerous articles on Christine Blasey Ford, supporting the veracity and efficacy of her remarks in both news articles and editorials, lending a sympathetic voice to the accuser’s concern for her dignity and character and for her safety and that of her family. But, why is there no complementary statements made in the mainstream media for the well-being of Brett Kavanaugh and his family? After all, Judge Kavanaugh’s character has been seriously impugned by bald, sketchy, uncorroborated allegations of one person, purporting to recall an event going back literally decades. Judge Kavanaugh has a family, too, and that family includes a loving, devoted wife, and two young, impressionable daughters. The mainstream media expresses nothing that we have seen to suggest concern for Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Apparently, in the age of the “Me Too” movement, we are to throw out concerns for the harm that this heinous accusation has had on Judge Kavanaugh and his family, for the unstated but obvious purpose of political expediency.

THERE IS MUCH AT STAKE HERE.

Ultimately, Democrats and the mainstream media are not really concerned about the health, safety, and well-being of either Christine Blasey Ford or Judge Brett Kavanaugh. For Democrats, an accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, however weak, constitutes a last ditch effort to prevent the installation of a fifth originalist on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats know full well that the high Court has the last word on the constitutionality of State and Federal legislation. Democrats have an agenda and a policy that they seek to implement. It is one that essentially rewrites the U.S. Constitution. Democrats seek to create new “rights” out of whole cloth that don’t exist in the Bill of Rights, and never did. Contrariwise, they seek to constrain fundamental, natural rights, like free speech, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms--rights that are clearly and succinctly etched in stone. They know that any legislation that they enact that fails to comply with the Constitution of this Nation as originally conceived, as plainly set forth in text, will not withstand Constitutional scrutiny and will be struck down, as well it should. Thus, the idea of a jurist who applies rigor and restraint to legal opinions, with proper deference to the written word of the Constitution is not to their liking. The idea of a fifth originalist sitting on the high Court drives those on the political Left to apoplexy, as they see their agenda for a new kind of Country--one envisioned by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a Country uncontained by and unrestrained by the Nation's Constitution, laws, and jurisprudential history--completely undone.Democrats, both moderates and far left progressives, know that, once Judge Kavanaugh sits on the high Court, as the fifth and decisive conservative voice, Constitutional questions will be analyzed and decided utilizing the jurisprudential approaches and methodology championed by the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia’s approach serves to preserve and strengthen the Constitution, consistent with the intentions of the framers of it. The Constitution that we have that has served our Country well for over two centuries would be fractured, severing forever the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights, and severing the tenuous checks and balances that the framers carefully put in place as set forth in the Articles of the Constitution, if Democrats are able to sit activists on the high Court, as they would like to do, as Barack Obama has done and would have continued to do had Judge Merrick Garland been confirmed to sit on the high Court, and as Hillary Clinton would certainly have done had she prevailed in the 2016 general election for U.S. President.Leftists in this Country want to see high Court decisions that reflect radical narratives; that display a novel and disjointed view of our Nation; a view that is completely at odds with the Nation, conceived by the founders. The rights and liberties the founders codified in the Bill of Rights and the careful attention they paid to the separation of powers as exemplified in the Articles of the Constitution are in peril if Leftists have their way; for they do not see the Constitution as demonstrative of fundamental, core values, concrete and timeless. They see the U.S. Constitution as something equivocal, temporary, even archaic—subject to the whims of the moment, and to ideas that, if expressed in high Court law, would result in the disruption of our Nation’s core values, the diminution of our natural rights and liberties, and the fracturing of the fragile concept of “separation of powers” that, together with the Bill of Rights, comprise the mainstay of a free Republic. The late Justice Scalia, and the conservative wing of the high Court is careful, in their analyses of cases that come before them, to render opinions, consistent with the plain meaning of our Constitution and laws—opinions designed to preserve and strengthen our core rights and liberties and to maintain a free Republic, as the founders of our Nation intended. Do not expect anything like that from the opinions of the liberal-wing of the high Court, who tend to read the Constitution and laws expansively, to reflect ideas that go far beyond the parameters of text, and who, using their own methodologies, at odds with the methodology of the Conservative wing of the high Court, would, in so doing, destroy the very fabric of the Republic, given the chance if they ever secure a majority.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Take the matter of the fundamental and natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. Liberal Jurists sitting on the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have chiselled away at the holdings in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010). The reasoning of the majority in the Heller and McDonald cases has been patently ignored, thereby weakening State Court precedent and destroying jurisprudential history.Second Amendment cases that have, to date, wended their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, to challenge outrageous State gun laws, have failed to secure a fourth vote necessary for a case to be heard. Firearms that are in common use, including many, and eventually, most semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns, are in danger of being banned outright in many states.Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and the late Justice Scalia have made clear, in their dissenting comments, in cases that failed to secure a fourth vote necessary to have the cases heard by the Court, their frustration at the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear lower Court cases that directly confront and blatantly attack the import and purport of Heller and McDonald. With Judge Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, though, those cases will definitely secure the fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case, negatively impacting the core of the right, to be heard. Those lower Court cases that permit Government to subvert the rights and liberties of the American citizen, will be overturned. Once overturned, the Supreme Court will assert once and for all, through cases consistent with and building on Heller and McDonald, that which we know: semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment. States cannot ban such firearms outright under the guise of calling them illegal “assault weapons.” Democrats know this would happen. That worries them. That is why they do not want Judge Kavanaugh sitting on the high Court.Senate Democrats devoted substantial time directing questions to Judge Kavanaugh, during the Confirmation Hearing, concerning the legality of certain firearms. They are aware that Judge Kavanaugh understands and appreciates the precedential import of the Heller and McDonald cases—precedential import and value of cases they don’t share. Democrats want an activist on the Court. They want someone who shares their ideological imperatives; a jurist who does not defer to the plain written word of the Constitution; a jurist who is not afraid to legislate from the Bench. They won’t get that from Judge Kavanaugh or from any Judge that President Trump is likely to nominate. That disturbs Democrats deeply. That is why they have pulled out all the stops in a reprehensible attempt to disrupt the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh.Democrats succeeded in derailing the confirmation of the late Judge Robert Bork to the high Court, and they attempted, fortunately unsuccessfully, to do the same during the Confirmation Hearing of Justice Thomas. They are using the same strategy here. They are attempting to impugn the character of a great man, devoted father, and brilliant Judge who would serve this Nation well once he sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. They will not abide this. They intend to disrupt the confirmation process, as they have done during the Hearing itself. They intend to deny confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. They may try, but they will not succeed even as they, at the moment, attempt nonetheless to delay a vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the high Court until after the 2018 Midterm elections. Democrats hope they can obtain a majority in the Senate. If that happens, Judge Kavanaugh would not, of course, be confirmed to sit on the high Court. And that is the Party’s wish. That is their goal. That is their fervent desire. Of that, there can be no doubt; but—as to that end—these Democrats, moderates and  Progressives; Socialists and Communists, and Billionaire Globalists and Transnationalists, too, will certainly fail. As their wishes, their goals, their desires, are all immodest and impure; and as their wishes, their goals, their desires are antithetical to the needs, wishes, will, and welfare of the American people; and as their wishes, their goals, their desires, are completely contrary to the application of the laws of our Nation, they will fail. They will fail utterly.There exist forces in this Country that wish to recreate a reality that suits their personal preconceptions of what our Country should look like, based on a personal conviction and certitude that they know what is best for the rest of us. That is a very dangerous attitude to have and one, were it to prevail, absolutely destructive to the continued existence of the U.S. Constitution; altogether inconsistent with and contrary to the rights, liberties, dignity, and continued autonomy of the individual American citizen; altogether incompatible with the continued maintenance of a Constitutional Republic; and wholly inconsistent with the manner in which both our legal and political systems work. Even as these left-wing power brokers claim to follow basic precepts, namely the “rule of law” and “a Nation ruled by laws, not by men,” they mean, in practice, no such thing. These people are the implacable foes of a truly free people and they have silently declared war on the very concept of a free Republic, a Republic and Nation ruled by law, not by men, in accord with the Constitution, as written.To those on the political Left our fundamental legal precepts and, indeed, the words of the Constitution itself are nothing, mere platitudes—things that at the moment are seen as convenient, perhaps, merely to mention; but, in actuality, such lofty legal precepts, to the political Left, are no more than pretext, mere rhetorical verbiage, to be discarded, eventually, like old clothes. To these left-wing power brokers who claim to speak for all Americans, concepts such as ‘Sovereign Nation,’ ‘One Nation under God,’ ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ ‘Bill of Rights,’ ‘Rule of Law,’ ‘Individual Worth and Dignity,’ ‘Individual Liberty,’ ‘U.S. Constitution,’ ‘U.S. Law,’ and ‘U.S. Citizen,’ will simply be discarded when deemed no longer necessary; when the very meaning and purport of these great concepts grow dim in the American psyche, in the Nation’s memory; lost to history, as these left-wing power brokers intend to happen once their vision for a new Country, unconstrained by the U.S. Constitution, unconstrained by our system of laws, and by our core values and history has been realized.These people hold contempt for the President of the United States. They refuse to recognize him as our President and their President, too, duly elected by the people of the United States, in accordance with the Laws of the United States. They are so beset by rage and raw hatred, so motivated and mesmerized by personal lust for power and grandeur, so enamored with themselves and with their personal vision, so convinced of the righteousness and certitude of their personal beliefs, and so assured of their own infallibility, that they do not see themselves as the buffoons they are; the buffoons they demonstrate themselves to be to the American people. These people are blind to their own conceits and pride—to those things that comprise their passions; those things that drive their actions. They reproach, demean, lecture, and scold the American people they pretend to represent—the American people they no longer even pretend to care about; unaware that the public is aware of their deceit; of their feigned concern for the needs of the American people, of the needs of the citizenry of the Country. These left-wing power brokers are oblivious to how sordid and ridiculous they look; and how patently obvious it is, the drivel they spew out.Those forces in this Nation who seek to dismantle the Bill of Rights, to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, and who seek to weaken our Sovereign Nation State and free Republic must not succeed in their endeavor. The American people must not let them. Americans must vote in the 2018 midterm elections to maintain Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. It is all up to “We, the People” to protect our Sovereign Nation, our Constitution, our sacred Rights and Liberties from the forces that would, if given the chance crush this Nation and its citizenry into submission.________________________________________________________*The New York Times has provided a forum for those who wish to attack the honor and integrity of Judge Kavanaugh, merely on the basis of one bald-faced allegation, referencing an uncorroborated extraordinarily sketchy event that purportedly occurred over three decades ago—an event that Judge Kavanaugh categorically denies ever took place. But it is an event that those on the political “Left” take as self-evident true, nonetheless.In an Op-Ed, published in the NY Times, Saturday, September 22, 2018, titled, “The Case for Impeaching Kavanaugh,” written by a Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., Professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, Professor Krotoszynski lays out his argument for impeaching Judge Kavanaugh even before the Judge has been confirmed to sit on the high Court. What is this law Professor’s “case” for impeaching Judge Kavanaugh? In his article, Professor Krotoszynski’s argument for impeachment boils down to: (1) a single bald-faced, decades old allegation of sexual misconduct, brought to the attention of Senator Dianne Feinstein, by a middle-aged Professor of Psychology, Christine Blasey Ford, albeit in the absence of any corroborating evidence or independent forensic evidence; and (2) two claims that Judge Kavanaugh committed perjury in giving testimony to the Senate, predicated on “subsequently released emails [that] suggest [Judge Kavanaugh’s] answers were at best misleading and at worst false.” What? Does this make sense?Has Professor Krotosznski made out a decipherable, compelling basis for impeachment of Judge Kavanaugh? We do not think so. Let’s take a close look at the Professor’s stated grounds for impeachment.Professor Krotoszynski argues that impeachment of Judge Kavanaugh is warranted on two grounds, both of which are extraordinarily tenuous. One ground consists of a solitary, bald-faced allegation, extremely short on details, referring to a purported event that, if the accuser is to be believed at all, involved a matter that occurred over one-third of a Century ago. Judge Brett Kavanaugh categorically denies the allegation. Moreover the allegation, apart from the accuser’s recitation of the allegation itself, cannot and is not buttressed by any supporting evidence or argument. Whatever forensic evidence that existed, if any such evidence existed at all, has long since been lost to time; and no one else to date—after Senate Republicans did in fact conduct an investigation of the accusation, although neither Democrats nor the mainstream news media acknowledge as much—offer independent support for accepting the allegation as true. At the very least, the Senate certainly has the right to demand the accuser testify and respond to questions. At the moment, it is not clear, though, when and how exactly the accuser, herself, will proffer testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, if at all. And Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, some of whom are trained attorneys, are asserting, bizarrely, that Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser, should not be required to testify. Imagine what this means. It turns our system of law and justice on its head. For, if all that a person need do is simply accuse another person of a crime without any requirement that the accuser face the accused, testify in the open, in public, present independent evidence to support the accusation, bear the burden of proof, and be subject to cross-examination, then what does that do to the very notion of “due process” in this Country? Yet, Democrats claim the barefaced accusation can and should speak for itself.Granted, the matter here does not involve a formal criminal proceeding. Judge Kavanaugh does not face criminal charges and cannot. Nonetheless, his character has been impugned, and his fate—whether a Senate Roll-Call vote for Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court is to take place—is placed in jeopardy, at least if Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are to have their way in the Confirmation process. Apparently our system of laws and procedure are to be perceived as infinitely flexible, subject to the whims, and desires, and predilections of those powerful people who seek a predetermined outcome. That would mean reducing our system of laws to nothing more than ad hoc, rules of expediency, never concrete, ever changing; and that would mean no tenable system of laws and judicial procedure would exist in this Country that anyone could rely on. Thus, the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments would have no real effect. Any person could lose his or her life, liberty, or property by the decree of whomever it is that wields power. This is the Country that Democrats would bequeath to the American people; and we see this in the manner in which Democrats seek to use an unsupported allegation of a middle-aged college Professor, purportedly referencing an event that cannot be reasonably proved. Professor Krotoszynski, though, sees this allegation as sufficiently credible that it warrants a full Senate investigation—evidently one that would not be complete until after the 2016 midterm elections. That would be convenient! Obviously, the lack of forensic evidence and the motivations of Christine Blasey Ford are seen as inconsequential factors to Professor Krotoszynski.The second ground amounts, as Professor Krotoszynski acknowledges,—if a person wishes to give the law Professor even that much leeway—to emails that “suggest” perjury. Mere suggestions of perjury though—suggestions that a person would like to believe are true—hardly rise to the level of essential irrefutable, undeniable proof. There is, then, neither a cogent legal nor logical basis upon which to impeach Judge Kavanaugh, were he to be confirmed as Associate Justice to the high Court. But, Professor Krotoszynski would relax standards to allow impeachment to proceed on the flimsiest of reasons, and this what we see.So, then, what is really going on here? Just this: as with the election of Donald Trump to the Office of President of the United States, we see that Democrats and other elements in society—and, as it is becoming increasingly obvious, elements abroad as well—who resist political results they did not expect and cannot and will not abide—have taken it upon themselves to manipulate our Constitution and system of laws to support a reality that they personally want and had, as they felt, every reason to expect, the American public be damned. And, so, they attempt, through an abhorrent, illegal, unjustifiable misapplication of law and irrespective of the import and purport of the Constitution, to reset the clock to a time prior to the 2016 election—to a world they would like to imagine exists and imagine must exist: a world where Hillary Clinton prevailed and who would have, then, appointed two activist jurists to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. One such jurist whom Hillary Clinton would have been likely to nominate to the high Court would have been Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to sit on the high Court, or someone like him, a person who has no qualms about legislating from the Bench. A second activist jurist who Hillary Clinton would nominate to sit on the high Court would no doubt share the same non-orthodox philosophy and jurisprudential methodology of Merrick Garland and of other liberal-wing Justices who presently sit on the high Court. Consider the jurisprudence of retired Justice John Paul Stevens who would, as he has pointed out, rewrite the Bill of Rights to reflect his personal philosophical whims and who believes, as does Justice Breyer, that American Constitutional analysis and decision-making can and should take into account the laws of other Nations, including so-called international law. This jurisprudential methodological approach to case analysis is altogether anathema to that of Justice Thomas, of Justice Alito, of Justice Gorsuch, and to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The liberal-wing jurisprudential approach to case analysis that admits of judicial activism and to legislation from the Bench is, as we know, anathema to that approach utilized by Judge Kavanaugh in his judicial opinions, as well. Democrats don’t want jurists sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, or, for that matter, sitting on U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who do not share their philosophical perspective, requiring, then, that they wish to sit jurists on the high Court who read the U.S. Constitution and Statute expansively, and who would be willing to create new rights that nowhere exist in the Constitution, such as the “right” of a woman to abortion on demand, and who would be just as willing to curtail those fundamental, natural rights that do exist in the Constitution, as clearly codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, the free exercise of  of religion, and the right of free speech, among other fundamental, natural rights.The mainstream media continues to deluge the public with spurious reports and opinions concerning Christine Blasey Ford's accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. It does so with the clear aim of preventing confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court. In the New York Times, we see news reports and accounts written like opinion pieces. Reporters claim that Judge Kavanaugh will not be confirmed. How do they know this? The newspaper also claims that Democrats will secure a majority in the House, and conceivably the Senate; and news accounts of the Christine Blasey Ford spectacle readily assert that the Christine Blasey Ford accusation against Judge Kavanaugh will help Democrats to retake control of Congress. These are odd comments to make in news reports, as they are written as future forecasts--purportedly telling the public what will happen, rather than what has occurred or is presently occurring. They are also laying out the strategy of Democrats and of Leftist groups in this Country for retaking control power. The aim of the mainstream media seems to be to compel the public to believe the forecasts are true, so that Americans will lose faith and hope and acquiesce to the will of Leftists in this Country. Americans should not fall for that. They didn't fall for that by believing prognostications related to the outcome of the 2016 General Election, and they shouldn't for that now. Yet, the mainstream media intends to control the public discourse.It is clear that the wrench Democrats have thrown into the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court has utility for Leftists beyond the Confirmation process. Democrats, with the help of the mainstream media, do intend to take control of both Houses of Congress. If they succeed, they will be able, as is also their aim, to contain the President and to frustrate him at every turn. That means, as well, that Democrats, Leftist groups in this Country, "Deep State Bureaucrats" and the mainstream media--all of them, working in lockstep--intend to frustrate the will of the American people too. We must not allow these Left-wing elements to succeed.Americans should make clear they will not permit Democrats and their Leftist compatriots to control the Confirmation process. They must tell Republicans to hold firm. Republicans must not capitulate to Democrats as seems to be happening. Democrats do not now control the Legislative Branch, and "Deep State" Bureaucrats do not control the Executive Branch and the public should not allow Democrats and Deep State Bureaucrats to act like they do. The Judicial Branch, in particular, must remain pure and above the fray. Democrats know that, in terms of long range social policies and goals, the Judicial Branch of Government is the most important Branch. They seek jurists who read the Constitution and federal statute expansively, without concern with the literal word and without proper deference to the Constitution and our laws. What they don't want is the seating of jurists on the federal Courts who would preserve the Constitution as crafted by the framers of it. They seek to place jurists in the Federal Courts--from the U.S. District Court level, through the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, up to the U.S. Supreme Court--with activist jurists who have no reservation in rewriting the Constitution, as they view the Constitution expansively, interpreting the Constitution and laws in a manner that fits personal ideology, not hindered by precedent and demonstrating little if any deference to the plain words of the Constitution and federal statute. Barack Obama has done tremendous damage to the high Court with his placement of two left-wing activists on the high Court. Fortunately, the U.S. Senate was able to prevent Obama from placing a third activist jurist on the high Court, Merrick Garland. So, we know that Republicans can work successfully on the part of the American people to preserve our Nation, our core values, our Constitution if they set their minds to do so. Still, Barack Obama has done extraordinary damage through numerous appointments of left-wing activist jurists to the lower federal Courts--the U.S. District Courts and in U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. We have seen what this has wrought as activist jurists have frustrated the U.S. President's efforts to protect our Nation by enjoining the President from implementing his temporary travel bans. Only through a U.S. Supreme Court decision, secured by the Conservative wing of the high Court, as we have seen, has the President been able to salvage, if temporarily, some vestige of his policy to protect this Country from Mideastern terrorists. Democrats are determined to frustrate the President and the American people at every turn. Nothing less is at stake than the preservation of our Constitution, our core values, even our history, and, as well, the Sovereignty of our Nation, and the supremacy of our laws. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, on the high Court, as Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh can help, immensely, in preserving our Nation, its values, its history, and the rights and liberties of the American people, as the founders of our free Republic intended. Democrats and other Leftists--many on the extreme, radical Left--intend to dismantle our free Republic, curtail or end, altogether, our fundamental rights and liberties, subvert our core values, rewrite our history, and denigrate our Nation, subjecting it to a new Globalist world order where our Nation becomes subordinated to the will of an internationalist body--merely one more spoke in a massive wheel. Simply take a look at the EU, and you can see what Leftists have in store for our Nation and for our citizenry. We must not allow this to happen. It is imperative that Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed to a seat on the High Court. Failure of Republicans to confirm Judge Kavanaugh will serve both to encourage Democrats to continue in their destructive practices of frustrating the President and denying the public the exercise of their Will, and likely preclude a Conservative-wing majority in the U.S. Supreme Court from emerging, thereby endangering our Constitution, endangering our fundamental rights and liberties, and enabling Leftists to dictate the future of our Country, one countenancing a new paradigm, one completely at odds with the framework created by our founders. There is no doubt of this.___________________________________**Debra Katz is a left-wing activist attorney, who was also a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton. Please be advised that, Roger Katz, one of the authors of this AQ article, is not at all related to Debra Katz. We happen to share a common surname, nothing more. The New York Times reports that Judge Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has added two more attorneys to her legal team: Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich. Likely, Senate Democrats, with the assistance of Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, have had a hand in this and are, behind the scenes, controlling the Confirmation process. Judge Kavanaugh has retained counsel too, as the Daily Caller reports that Judge Kavanaugh "has retained . . . Beth Wilkinson, to advise and represent him." Recent news accounts mention that Christine Blasey Ford has agreed to testify in open, before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. It isn't clear whether she will be questioned by members of the Judiciary Committee or by an attorney appointed by Republicans on the Committee to question Ford. It does appear, though, that her testimony will be heard prior to the testimony of Judge Kavanaugh, as would be appropriate and consistent with criminal legal procedure. The question we have is why Republicans should allow the charade to go this far. It could only mean that Republicans do not believe that they can be assured of the votes they need to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. The Senate majority is a razor thin. They can survive through no defections. Politico points to several Republicans whose vote in favor of Confirmation is in doubt and who have, apparently, demanded to hear Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. It is these Republican Senators, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and a couple of others who have, unfortunately played directly into the hands of Democrats. Democrats, for their part, are cohesive. Republicans are not. This would explain why Senator Grassley has agreed to delay a Confirmation vote. It is unfortunate and deeply disturbing that some Republicans can allow themselves to be the instrument of Democrats and Leftists in this Country. The Christine Blasey Ford matter is a trap. Apparently, Democrats, with the aid of Republican Senators Flake and Corker, and with the complicity of a couple of other Republican Senators, are using this "Me Too" movement nonsense to destroy our Constitution. If the Supreme Court secures a liberal-wing majority, all is lost for the preservation of our Constitution, our  natural, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, and the continued maintenance of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic. Why would Senators Flake and Corker fall for this? Is their hatred of President Trump so pronounced that they would jeopardize the preservation of our sacred Constitution and the preservation of our cherished history; the preservation of our core rights and liberties; the supremacy of our laws and jurisprudence; and the continued independence and Sovereignty of our Nation, and its continued existence as a free Republic because they happen, simply, personally to abhor the present President of the United States. Apparently so. Their behavior is childish, churlish, disgraceful, altogether unredeemable. No American should expect this kind of behavior from any other American, least of all from a United States Senator. These individuals are not worthy of the status they have. They are not worthy of their station. Americans should well remember them for this if Judge Kavanaugh fails to be confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, for these people, these Republican Senators, have allowed a charade, a travesty, an illusionist's trick concocted by Democrats and Leftist groups to play out, to hijack our Nation and its Constitution--one so lovingly, carefully created by our founders--our Birthright. They wish to dictate a new Constitution, reflecting ideas alien to those of the framers of it. They will destroy our Constitution, and for what? Personal animosity? A private agenda? And, by what means? Well, we know of one, and we see it playing out in the matter of the Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.Here we see a disgruntled middle-aged woman, whom, it would seem, has a personal bone to pick with a man, as she tells us, having done harm to her. But did he? This woman concocts a story out of whole-cloth or dredges a story up--if one is to give any credence to this woman's story at all--relating an event that occurred, if "memory" serves her, literally one-third of a Century ago, when the two of them were teenagers. And, because this woman, who is a Leftist whose agenda coheres with that of other Leftists in this Country and with that of Democrats, she allows herself to be used for political purposes, truly unrelated to a matter, long-dead, trivial--one that no prosecutor who has any sense at all would ever dream of prosecuting, and a matter that no police department would ever investigate (how would a police investigator begin to investigate this matter, anyway, with no forensic evidence whatsoever available, the account itself extraordinarily sketchy, with no one at all able to corroborate it, and the accused, the true victim, adamantly denying it). And, why would this woman wait, at this juncture, 30+ years later to smear the reputation of a man she has not seen, or known--assuming that she ever knew him--for over thirty years. Bringing up such a matter in a reprehensible attempt to destroy a brilliant jurist, a devoted husband, and loving father, does nothing to serve  justice, or fairness; nor can it even provide "closure," for this woman. This is a matter of pure vindictiveness, brought to the attention of the entire Country to serve a political end, unrelated to justice or fairness. Christine Blasey Ford is merely a "tool," of ruthless forces that have not her well-being at heart, but a political goal to achieve. She is not even the real victim here. But, there is a victim. It is not the accuser, but the accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh; and the sad thing here is that Christine Blasely Ford, a college Professor and psychologist, no less, does not seem to realize that she is being used as a tool. She is simply a pawn in an elaborate chess game that Democrats and Leftist groups in this Country are playing and intend to win. Democrats and the Leftist interests they represent have lost power and they want it back; and they intend to get it back by any means, however reprehensible. They have goals for this Country that they intend to implement; that they began to implement with Barack Obama in Office, and which they thought they would continue to implement with Hillary Clinton in Office--Clinton, a felon no less, who only escaped prosecution and assured conviction because she, too, serves those forces that seek to destroy this Nation, its Constitution and the fundamental rights and liberties of its people; but she is a willing pawn too, who sold her soul for money, and influence and power. She is a wretched creature. But, a great switcheroo occurred. Hillary Clinton, lost the U.S. Presidential election.  Her election to the highest Office in the Land was seemingly assured. Horror of Horrors! What went wrong. The public did not play along? They didn't listen to the soundbites; the news accounts; the cajoling. So, what do Democrats and Leftist Groups both here and abroad that sought a Clinton Presidency to do now? Their game plan is not on track. So they plan, they theorize, they brainstorm, they conspire to come up with something, anything, however ridiculous, to contain and restrain the will of the American people who saw what was coming and who fought back. They work behind the scenes in an attempt to destroy the President whom the American people elected, in full and proper accordance with the Constitution. They see in the moronic, so-called "Me Too" sex harassment movement, a useful mechanism to bring low every man, any man who doesn't tow the Leftist line, who presents a danger to their agenda; to the Leftist Internationalist agenda. And, so, we see here an 11th Hour clown's act, entertainment for children and idiots, produced by and directed by Congressional Democrats with the avid assistance and complicity of the Press, and with the connivance of a few, wayward, unthinking Republicans, who have fallen for the spectacle, totally unaware, it would seem to them, what is clear enough to others: that they have been taken for fools. Stupidity of the Highest Order! Truly Incredible. Senate Democrats must be having a quiet chuckle over their successful manipulation of the public and of their brethren on the other side of the political aisle, during their private Happy Hour. Toasts for everyone! The Grand Game continues, as they see themselves as winning._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRETT KAVANAUGH SENATE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING: DEMOCRATS GRILL TRUMP NOMINEE ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”

DO NOT FOR ONE INSTANCE BE TAKEN IN BY FALSE CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS THAT "OF COURSE" THEY DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THAT THEY ONLY SEEK TO ENACT SO-CALLED SENSIBLE, COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS. THAT IS PURE, NAKED DECEPTION. THE KEY GOAL OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS IS AND, FOR DECADES, HAS BEEN THE REINING IN OF THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND THEY WILL NOT STOP THERE. CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ALONG WITH OTHER LEFT-WING ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING THEIR ECHO CHAMBER, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SEEK NOTHING LESS THAN THE UTTER, TOTAL DISSOLUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE DUBIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THOSE WHO SEEK DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REFERS TO A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, ASCRIBED ONLY TO ONE'S CONNECTION WITH OR ASSOCIATION WITH A MILITIA. WERE THIS TRUE, THE SACRED, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WOULD BE TRIVIALIZED AS WOULD THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES BE TRIVIALIZED. IF SUCH WERE IN FACT THE CASE, AMERICANS WOULD WITNESS THE FALL OF A ONCE GREAT NATION AND FREE REPUBLIC.

BUT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT HOLD TO A FALSE  NOTION OF THE IMPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. FOR, THEIR NOTION THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' THAT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY IN A "COLLECTIVE" CAPACITY OR SENSE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED. IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' AS IT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY OF THIS NATION IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR SENSE. AND THE RIGHT THEREFORE RESIDES, INTRINSICALLY IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NOT IN AN AMORPHOUS COLLECTIVE MILITIA.  AS SUCH, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS FUNDAMENTAL, AND MUST BE RESPECTED. THE RIGHT REFERRED TO IS NOT INCIDENTAL, AND, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT IS NOT TO BE PERFUNCTORILY DENIED, AS THOSE WHO DETEST THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE YOU, FALSELY, TO BELIEVE.

“The first salient feature of the operative clause [in the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Three provisions of the Constitution refer to ‘the people’ in a context other than ‘rights’—the famous preamble (‘We the people’), § 2 of Article I (providing that ‘the people’ will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with ‘the States’ or ‘the people’). Those provisions arguably refer to ‘the people’ acting collectively—but  they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.  Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . .This contrasts markedly with the phrase ‘the militia’ in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’We start therefore  with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. We move now from the holder of the right—‘the people’—to the substance of the right: ‘to keep and bear Arms.’”~ (A portion of the Opinion of the Majority, penned by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia), in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 578-581 passim (2008) Well before the Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings, the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out that Congressional Democrats’ assault on and goal of elimination of the right of the natural, sacred, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as succinctly codified in the Second Amendment, was and always has been a central plank of the antigun Democratic Party agenda. See "the United States Safe Act in the Making: Penned and Penciled by Andrew Cuomo."This was so even though in the weeks and months leading up to the Hearing. Democrats and their liberal media echo chamber talked incessantly about Democrats’ Party’s other goals. These goals included: one, open borders; two, expansion of personal federal income taxes; three, the complete elimination of ICE, and the hamstringing of other law enforcement agencies across the Country; four, the clamping down of all investigations into subversive activities of high ranking Governmental Bureaucrats of the Deep State; and five, the removal of Donald Trump from Office.

DEMOCRATS CONSISTENTLY REMONSTRATE AGAINST THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY SEE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS OUTMODED, DRAFTED AND RATIFIED TO REFLECT THE NEEDS OF AN ANCIENT TIME AND, SO, IN NEED OF DRASTIC REVISION. THUS, THEY SEEK TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENT TO REFLECT A MODERN WORLD. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, A NOTION  NOTION HELD NOT JUST BY POLITICIANS AND LAY PERSONS, BUT  BY JURISTS AS WELL. IN FACT, RETIRED LIBERAL-WING JUSTICE, JOHN PAUL STEVENS WISHES TO REWRITE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. HE SAYS SO IN A BOOK HE HAS PUBLISHED. AND, IN THE WORDS OF THE LIBERAL-WING U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, OUR CONSTITUTION IS, AFTER ALL, “A RATHER OLD CONSTITUTION” MEANING THAT GINSBURG, TOO, APPARENTLY THINKS OUR CONSTITUTION IS IN NEED OF RADICAL REVISION.

The Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on the President’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, that took place for several days, laid bare the Democrats contempt for our Constitution and, especially, their misconception of the Bill of Rights as framed by the founders of our Republic. Spending a good part of three days of the Senate Confirmation Hearing process, by turns pontificating, chastising, and even excoriating Judge Kavanaugh, it became clear to all Americans that those Democrats, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have succumbed to the will and wishes of Americans on the far left of the political spectrum, or otherwise always held to extreme left-wing views concerning the Constitution. Americans who believe that the Constitution, and especially that part of it--the Bill of Rights--that sets forth the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen, proclaim that the Bill of Rights can mean essentially whatever it is they choose it, or wish for it, to mean. They do not look at the plain meaning of the text, but read into the sacred Document what they wish for the words of the Document to mean; not what the framers of it meant, as clearly articulated in it.But, application of such an erroneous belief concerning the Constitution, destroys the very efficacy of it. Revisionists take the U.S. Constitution to be infinitely malleable, flexible, bendable. This is what they mean by the Constitution as a "living document"--that it can be changed to reflect changes in society, changes they seek to impose on the Nation. Thus, they would twist the Constitution and contort it to a degree that essentially destroys its import and purport, as conceived by the framers of it. These leftist revisionists don’t care, and they do not care for a jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, who does not share their view of a Constitution they perceive to be easily malleable, like a lump of clay that one might knead into any convenient shape.Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to Constitutional case analysis is in line with that of Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. These eminent jurists do not read into the Constitution what they may happen to wish to see. They take the Constitution for its literal word. That doesn’t sit well with Americans who hold to a Socialist philosophy; who have drafted a new plan, a new design for our Nation; who have a Socialist Agenda and who seek to implement radical Socialist policies for our Country--policies destructive to a free Republic and destructive of a free market Capitalist economic society; policies inconsistent with the Constitution of this Nation as ratified by the founders of our Nation. Hence, progressive forces in our Nation do not want Judge Kavanaugh—brilliant and thoughtful a jurist though he be—to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THEIR IDEAS AND GOALS PATENTLY CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee made no attempt to hide their distaste of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known. Even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly set down in stone in the Bill of Rights, these Congressional Democrats would like to see the Second Amendment weakened, disassembled, abandoned, and eventually, even obliterated from historical records and memory.Yet, curiously, wrongly, and even weirdly, Congressional Democrats believe it to be perfectly permissible to expand the domain of what they presume to be fundamental rights, worthy of protection, such as a right to abortion on demand, and equal protection rights expanded to include individuals exhibiting gender dysphoria—an expansion of purported rights, nowhere explicitly mentioned or even alluded to in the Bill of Rights. All the while, Congressional Democrats seem to be under no similar compunction to retain those fundamental rights that are expressly codified in the Bill of Rights.For example, Democrats see no legal or moral compunction against constraining Americans’ free exercise of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech—to proscribe what they, alone, perceive as permitting ideas anathema to their own—and they see no legal or moral issue with doing away with the Second Amendment altogether. That is their goal, clearly inferred through three days of Senate Hearing on Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and as further evidenced in antigun legislation Congressional Democrats have proposed in the last twenty plus years.Democrats argue, as they made pointedly clear during the Confirmation Hearing that, in matters pertaining to the citizen ownership and possession of firearms, State orchestrated cries for “public safety,” as the ground for curtailing the exercise of a fundamental and natural right should, and, indeed, must, invariably outweigh the personal right of self-defense. Moreover, Congressional Democrats consistently and continuously convey at best a blasé attitude toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a natural and fundamental right that the framers of the Constitution saw need enough to codify in the Bill of Rights, and did so to preserve a free Republic and to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the American citizen.From the questions posed by Senate Democrats to Judge Kavanaugh, and by the comments they made, these Democrats do not perceive the Second Amendment to be worth protecting and strengthening, or, otherwise they simply don’t care that, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution well knew, it is only through an armed citizenry that tyranny in Government can be ultimately, successfully, forestalled. The need for the free exercise of that right has not diminished with the passing years, decades, and centuries. Rather, contrary to the pronouncements of those who seek to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the need to preserve and to strengthen this sacred right has actually, increased, many-fold, as the power of the Nation's Federal Government with the assistance of technology has itself increased exponentially in the centuries since both the formation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic, and since the ratification of our Constitution.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ALWAYS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ CROSSHAIRS.

While expressing concern for the survival of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)* which was certainly a central point of discussion manifested through three days of Confirmation Hearings, Democrats made abundantly clear, on the flipside, their disgust for the salient holding in Heller vs. District of Columbia, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Indeed, at times, Democrats’ expression of their disdain for Heller eclipsed their concern for the preservation of Roe vs. Wade. In fact, as Senator Diane Feinstein began her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh, during the first day of the Confirmation Hearing, the first set of questions that she directed to Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee did not involve the issue of female reproductive rights, but were aimed squarely at the Second Amendment—namely and most notably at so-called “assault weapons”—which, as one of a plethora of antigun measures that antigun zealots would love to impose on the Nation as a whole, this one, in particular, has been, for decades, the especial target of Congressional Democrats. Wallowing in the abyss of fallacious reasoning and seeming self-pity, they plead with Judge Kavanaugh to forsake centuries of case law and jurisprudential history, ostensibly to ensure the safety of children, but oblivious to the fact that it is not the firearm, an inanimate object--their singular target for annihilation--that is the cause of violence, but, rather, a weakness of heart and will that prevents them from actively and avidly enforcing the hundreds of laws that Congress has enacted to forestall aggressive acts of those who would wreak violence on innocent lives: the lives of innocent adults as well as children.

WOULD DEMOCRATS BE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN 2019 IF THEY WERE TO CEMENT MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?

To be sure, it is by no means certain that Democrats will take control of the House in November, after the midterm elections. Less likely, but of greater concern, is the prospect of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate. If Democrats do take control of both Houses of Congress, what is certain is that they intend to muscle through Congress a new “assault weapons” ban, modeled on the New York Safe Act of 2013.Democrats would get substantial assistance from progressive State Governors, led by the virulently anti-Second Amendment Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo—assuming, which is likely, albeit depressing to contemplate, that Cuomo does prevail in the coming New York Gubernatorial election, in November, to secure a third term in Office.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN’S RAISON D’ETRE IS TO PROHIBIT CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ANY FIREARM THAT SHE PROCLAIMS TO BE AN “ASSAULT WEAPON.”

If you recall, Feinstein attempted to ram through an “assault weapons” bill in 2013. That bill was even more draconian than the original restrictive U.S. Senate Legislation, “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994.” In Subtitle A of Title XI of the 1994 Act, Senator Feinstein laid out a comprehensive nation-wide ban on an “assault weapons.”  Subtitle A of Title XI severely restricted the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.” The “assault weapons” provision included a sunset provision and, in 2004, the “assault weapons” provision of the 1994 Act did expire. It was not reauthorized by Congress.Feinstein wasn’t done. On the heels of enactment of, and in lockstep with, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s New York Safe Act, signed into law by Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, sought to generate public interest in a new and incredibly ambitious federal “assault weapons” ban, modeled in substantial part on the “assault weapons” provisions of the NY Safe Act. The Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy provided the pretext for this.Feinstein’s bill, used much of the language of Cuomo’s NY Safe Act, but to emphasize her personal distaste for firearms, the federal bill included over 110 specifically named firearms and categories of firearms. This categorization of specifically named firearms was unnecessary as the list was redundant. No matter, Subtitle A of Title XI “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994” included the list anyway. Feinstein’s “assault weapon”, bill, if successful, would have caused the entire Nation to suffer the constraints on a weapon in common use by the American citizenry that Cuomo’s New York assault weapons ban has imposed on residents of New York.Fortunately for American citizens, Feinstein’s federal bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, went nowhere because the Senate Democratic Party Majority Leader at the time--Harry Reid--stripped Feinstein’s assault weapon ban out of a broader gun control bill that Democrats sought to pass. Senator Reid evidently believed that doing so would make the restrictive gun control measures more palatable to reluctant members of the Senate. Feinstein was furious, but Reid remained undeterred. The bill, sans Feinstein's “assault weapons” ban provision, was still soundly defeated on Roll Call vote of the Senate held on April 17, 2013.

IF BRETT  KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BILL THAT BECOMES LAW IS LIKELY TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know full well that, even if they were to secure majorities in both Houses of Congress, any “assault weapons” bill they happen, in 2019, to enact into law would be immediately challenged on the ground that a ban on an entire category of weapons in common use is contrary to the core of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller decision and as reiterated by the high Court in the 2010 McDonald decision (561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Unlike the unhappy present situation with core Second Amendment cases that wend there way to the high Court, that are invariably not taken up for high Court review, this is likely to change with Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court as a petition for a Writ of Certiorari would likely be granted. Brett Kavanaugh would provide the crucial fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case (subsequent to the seminal Heller and McDonald cases) implicating the core of the Second Amendment, to finally be heard.** Once granted, and the case heard, a Conservative-wing majority, properly employing sound judicial and logical and jurisprudential reasoning, would likely determine that an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of a substantial number of semiautomatic firearms—including handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as well as non-semiautomatic weapons, such as  revolving cylinder shotguns, along with so-called large capacity magazines, that are all in common use in this Nation—would be and must be struck down as inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the high Court’s Majority in the U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald cases. And this explains why Senate Democrats are particularly worried over the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court—enough so that they devoted substantial time to questioning Judge Kavanaugh over his methodology for resolving cases involving the Second Amendment. And this explains why the American people must suffer through a delay on a confirmation vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, due to the 11th hour political stunt pulled by Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself. Feinstein has raised an issue concerning a naked, uncorroborated allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, of a purported event allegedly occurring decades ago, that the Senator learned about through a letter she received in July of this year, and which she had sat on all this time, obviously to bring up at an inopportune time as it serves purely as a convenient political delaying tactic. Chairman Grassley and Senate Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, should not allow Democrats to turn the Confirmation process into a circus act. Unfortunately, Democrats are not acting alone. Senate Republican, Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he wishes to hear from Judge Kavanaugh's accuser before he will vote to allow the Confirmation process to proceed. It is no secret, though, that Senator Flake, who will be stepping down from the Senate, anyway, has no love for President Trump, and apparently takes delight in constantly admonishing him to the Press. It therefore stands to reason why Senator Jeff Flake would jump ship and play with Democrats in opposing the President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court even though a brilliant jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, sitting on the highest Court in the Land would help preserve our free Republic and strengthen our Bill of Rights. Does Jeff Flake think so little of the President that he would be willing to sacrifice the well-being of both the Nation and the American citizenry by placing obstacles in the President's path. Apparently this is so. For our part, we believe that Jeff Flake cannot leave Congress soon enough. That is the best thing he can do for this Nation and its people.

IN OUR UPCOMING ARTICLE:

The methodology which Judge Kavanaugh utilizes to analyze and resolve Second Amendment cases, which Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Panel, scarcely touched upon, but denigrated nonetheless, will be discussed in detail in our next article on the Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing. We look specifically at Judge Kavanaugh's critical important dissenting opinion in the case popularly styled, Heller II (Heller vs. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 ; 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130).___________________________________________*Associate Justice Byron White and Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the Majority Opinion, penned by then Chief Justice Warren Burger. Note: Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been appointed to the high Court at the time Roe was decided. Justice Scalia was confirmed to the high Court in 1986, the same year that then U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist to serve as the new Chief Justice to replace retiring Chief Justice Burger, and whom the Senate subsequently confirmed as the new Chief Justice.Six years later, in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992), the high Court essentially reaffirmed the holdings in Roe, namely that a Constitutional right to elective abortion exists, but only until viability as the State “has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting . . . the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 846. The majority in Casey held that an elective abortion is a fundamental right but the Casey Majority loosened the standard for determination of whether a State regulation unduly burdens a woman’s right to elective abortion. The Court replaced the stringent strict scrutiny approach, that favors a State’s interest in protecting an unborn child, to a lesser standard that would operate in favor of a woman’s decision for an elective abortion. Note: Justice Scalia who dissented from the Majority made clear that nothing in the Constitution elevates a woman’s decision to have an abortion to the that of a fundamental right. His dissenting opinion is critical to the methodology of textualism and originalism. Justice Scalia opined: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 978. Further, Justice Scalia opined:“That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. . . . A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example—with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree—intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially ‘protected’ by the Constitution.The [majority on the high] Court destroys the proposition, evidently meant to represent my position [which they in fact misrepresent, namely] that ‘liberty’ includes ‘only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847 (citing Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 127, n.6, 105 L. Ed. 2d 91, 109 S. Ct. 2333 (1989). That is not, however, what Michael H. says; it merely observes that, in defining ‘liberty,’ we may not disregard a specific, ‘relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right,’ ibid. But the Court does not wish to be fettered by any such limitations on its preferences. The Court’s statement that it is ‘tempting’ to acknowledge the authoritativeness of tradition in order to ‘curb the discretion of federal judges,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847, is of course rhetoric rather than reality; no government official is ‘tempted’ to place restraints upon his own freedom of action. . . . The Court’s temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction—towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 979-981. Justice Scalia’s remarks are directed against a jurist’s wrong, albeit, natural tendency, as is the case with anyone who wields power, but particularly jurists, who--specifically invoking the force of law in their decisions--operate without restraint, when they ought to be circumspect. As a result, such jurists tend to create an ever expansive array of dubious substantive rights. Not surprisingly, we see these same jurists irreverently curtailing fundamental rights and liberties that do exist and have existed since ratification of the Bill of Rights, namely and particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which they happen to be personally philosophically opposed to.AQ’s Note: The liberal wing of the Supreme Court—and the liberal wing of U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well—sees fit to play with standards of review whenever it suits the result it wants. Thus, liberal wing judges and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court tend to revert to “interest-balancing” approaches to judicial review as that approach invariably serves to support the results they want, that is to say, tends to support predetermined decisions. Thus, in Second Amendment cases, liberal-wing Judges of the lower Courts and liberal-wing Justices of the high Court employ “interest-balancing” to support restrictive, draconian firearms’ regulations even where Government enactments clearly and blatantly impinge upon and infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right succinctly codified in the Bill of Rights. These same jurists also resort to “interest-balancing” in abortion cases, but, in those cases, rather than using “interest balancing” to support legitimate actions of Government that seeks to preserve the life of the unborn child, these jurists conclude that “balancing” the interests of Government, on the one-hand, and the interests of the individual on the other hand—the interests of the individual seeking abortion ought prevail over that of Government that seeks to protect the unborn child. With little wonder, then, Justice Scalia was leery of invoking a traditional, "interest-balancing" standard of review in Heller that might, after the fact, ostensibly, give judicial cover to a liberal-wing Judge who happens to detest the very existence of the Second Amendment.It is clear enough that some regulations, such as the District of Columbia law banning, altogether, citizen ownership and possession of handguns within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, are clearly, categorically unlawful. Thus, the majority in Heller saw no need to revert to an "interest-balancing" standard of review, when it rendered its opinion that the D.C. handgun ban is de jure unconstitutional; for, application of any traditional standard of review would amount to mere legal pretense—an empty, redundant exercise, devoid of import. Although Justice Scalia was circumspect in penning the Majority’s Opinion, one finds, clearly enough, when perusing the opinion, that the Majority in Heller knew full well that the D.C. handgun ban was audacious in its conception and abjectly ludicrous--a bald-faced "slap-in-the-face" at the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban therefore deserved no serious judicial consideration.If the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were to have any meaning and purpose at all, the D.C. restriction had, properly speaking, to be struck down, and struck down unceremoniously; and so it was. The Heller majority, though, used the case to exemplify once and for all, beyond any further need for clarification, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to one’s service in a militia. With that point now clearly articulated, it was the fervent hope of the Heller Court’s majority, that Government action that fails to give proper deference to the right as codified in the Second Amendment would at once be struck down; and that it would be unnecessary for courts to go through tortuous gyrations to strike down firearms’ laws and regulations that are facially unlawful.Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the tenacity of governments and courts that abhor the Second Amendment, to find lawful governmental action that is facially and categorically unlawful. The philosophical disposition of jurists who personally abhor the Second Amendment, as we have seen, leads them to patently ignore the principal holdings of, and of the Majority's reasoning in Heller and McDonald, even as they perfunctorily mention those cases in their opinions to which they give no more than lip-service. Unfortunately, too, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the reluctance of moderates on the high Court--now the lone Chief Justice, John Roberts, now that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired--to take up cases that blatantly ignore Heller and McDonald. This means of course that this Nation requires the swift confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Judge Kavanaugh would hold the crucial fourth vote, that would allow cases that infringe the core of the Second Amendment to receive high Court review that they deserve.The 11^th Hour attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to throw a wrench into confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh must not be allowed to gain traction. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and who, according to news reports, indicated they may refrain from allowing the vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh by the full Senate to proceed, then that would send a clear message to the American citizenry, that elected Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, that elements exist, both among Republicans and Democrats, who do not wish for the U.S. President to fulfill his promises to the American people. President Trump has promised to nominate people to the U.S. Supreme Court who believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights as ratified. A confirmation vote of the full Senate, on President Trump's nomination of John Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court, must proceed forthwith**See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, a Second Amendment case implicating the very core of the Second Amendment that failed to receive a critical fourth Supreme Court Justice vote, necessary for review. This case, as with others decided by liberal judges of the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who take a very dim view of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deals directly with the issue as to whether so-called "assault weapons" fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Jurists deciding these cases use methodologies at odds with the reasoning of the majority in Heller and McDonald. Not surprisingly, these Courts invariably find for the government and against the American citizen in holding that firearms defined as "assault weapons" in l0cal regulations or State law, are not protected by the Second Amendment.  That was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Friedman case. These are the pertinent facts of the case: The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans the manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic  firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons,” which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a. The City’s ordinances were challenged by an American citizen and resident of Illinois. The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the City. The Petitioner appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that routinely upholds such bans, affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied as the case did not receive a fourth critical vote from the Justices, necessary for the case to be heard. When cases are not decided for high Court review, the reasons for refusing to take up a case are not generally stated. The high Court simply asserts that a Petitioner's Writ is denied, and the Court leaves the matter at that. The nature of the votes cast by each Justice is never given, either. In the Friedman case, it is clear that the Seventh Circuit blatantly ignored the reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. The Writ for Certiorari should have been granted. It wasn't. It is clear enough that the liberal-wing of the Court and two members of the conservative wing, likely the so-called swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recently retired, along with Chief Justice Roberts, did not want the case to be heard, and they did not want the case heard for a specific reason. They obviously feared that application of the holdings of Heller and McDonald, together with the reasoning of the majority in those cases, would dictate the overturning of the Seventh Circuit Court's decision in Friedman, and that, in turn, would result in a cascading effect, across the Country, where assault weapon bans would be overturned in every jurisdiction that presently ban or severely restrict the ownership and possession of a large category of semiautomatic weapons, including firearms that are not semiautomatic in operation, namely, revolving cylinder shotguns. Understandably, Justices Thomas and Scalia were livid that Heller and McDonald could and would dare be blithely ignored by jurists for ideological reasons, predicated on personal biases, mandating results that are contrary to law. Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissenting comment in response to the high Court's failure to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Friedman. The late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller decision for the Majority, joined Justice Thomas in the Associate Justice’s dissenting comment. We can reasonably infer that Justice Alito, who penned the majority opinion in McDonald, also voted in favor of reviewing the Friedman case, even though he did not join with Justice Scalia in Justice Thomas' dissenting comment. Even so, that meant that, at best, only three votes--one short, of the required minimum, four--were cast for high Court review of the Friedman case.Justice Thomas wrote in salient part:“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 903; id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3058, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 938 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below — have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410-412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. . . . Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald.The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Had Judge Kavanaugh been sitting on the high Court, instead of Justice Kennedy, at the time the Court was considering Petitioner’s Writ in Friedman, it is highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh would have provided the critical fourth vote necessary for the Friedman case to be heard, along with one vote each cast in favor of review from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. Were the Friedman case heard, then consistent with the Heller and McDonald holdings—and this is a point that bears repeating—it is also highly likely the majority on the high Court would hold that so-called “assault weapons,” which include many popular semiautomatic weapons, and other kinds of weapons, including shotguns that operate through revolving cylinders, do in fact fall within the core of the Second Amendment. That would put to effective rest all the media fanfare and ridiculous uproar over this matter. Thus, any legislation that bans the civilian citizenry of our Nation from owning and possessing such weapons would be struck down as unconstitutional. This, then, easily explains, in great part, the apoplectic reaction by progressives, and by other left-wing radical elements in our society, toward Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to sit as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. These left-wing elements know that unlawful legislation, which includes much of what it is they want, and what they would have obtained had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Presidential election--and had she appointed non-originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she would certainly have done--will not withstand judicial scrutiny at the level of the Supreme Court, with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to sit on the high Court, that will put a damper on the efficacy of a Socialist agenda, ever coming to fruition, long after Donald Trump’s Presidency has ended. Thus, Donald Trump's legacy and, indeed, the jurisprudential legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, will be preserved. Thus, the blood spilled by those who sought to create a free Republic, and the blood spilled by Americans, since--in all the wars and conflicts fought to maintain our free Republic--will not have been in vain._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.