WHY DO SOME STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLATANTLY DEFY SECOND AMENDMENT RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

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

MULTI SERIES

PART FOURTEEN

WHY DO SOME STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLATANTLY DEFY SECOND AMENDMENT RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

Scarcely eight years had passed since ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 when the question of the power and authority of the U.S. Supreme Court came to a head in the famous case of Marbury versus Madison. The High Court made its authority felt in a clear, cogent, categorical, and indisputable language in this seminal 1803 case.The facts surrounding the case are abstruse, generating substantial scholarly debate. But what some legal scholars discern as having little importance to the logical and legal gymnastics the Court at the time had to wrestle with, and upon which legal scholars, historians, and logicians have directed their attention today, has become a cause célèbre today:“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. . . . This is of the very essence of judicial duty.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; Cranch 137 (1803)Article 3, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution establishes the powers of the Court:“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution. . . .” The Constitution’s Framers sought to make the import of the articles and amendments to it as plain and succinct. And they did a good job of it.Even so, ruthless, powerful individuals in the Federal Government and in the States ever strive to thwart the plain meaning and purport of the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of their own selfish interests, imputing vagaries to language even where the language is plain and unambiguous to serve their own selfish ends to the detriment of both Country and people. And that ruthlessness extends to those who, with vast sums of money at their disposal, influence these “servants of the people,” in pursuit of and to achieve their own nefarious interests and goals.Back then, over two centuries ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Marbury vs. Madison, the Court deftly side-stepped the delicate political and legislative issues of the day that gave rise to the case and carved out the Court’s own territory.The High Court made two points abundantly clear:One, the U.S. Supreme Court does not answer to either the Executive or Legislative Branch. It is not to be perceived as a poor stepchild of either of those two Branches. It is a Co-Equal Branch of the Federal Government.Two, on matters impacting the meaning and purpose of the U.S. Constitution, neither the U.S. President nor Congress can lawfully ignore the Court’s rulings. This means that, where the Court has spoken on challenges to unconstitutional laws, finding particular laws of Congress to be unconstitutional, Congress has no lawful authority to ignore and countermand those rulings, or circumvent those rulings by enacting new laws that purport to do the same thing as the laws that the Court has struck down. Nor can the U.S. President cannot override the Constitutional constraints imposed on his actions.The States, too, are forbidden to ignore Supreme Court rulings, striking down unconstitutional State enactments. Nor are the States permitted to repurpose old laws or create new laws that do the same thing—operate in violate of the U.S. Constitution.  Jump forward in time to the present day.The Federal Government and all too many State and municipal Governments routinely defy the High Court’s rulings, engaging in unconstitutional conduct.But this defiance and even contempt of the High Court rulings leaves an American to ponder, “why?”Even cursory reflection elucidates the answer to that question. The answer is as plain as the text of Article Three, Section 2 of the Constitution, itself.The High Court has neither power over “the purse” that Congress wields, nor power over the Nation’s “standing army” the Chief Executive controls.Yet, the fact remains the U.S. Supreme Court is the only Branch of Government with ultimate say over the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, as Marbury made clear, well over two hundred years ago. To say what the Constitution means, when conflict or challenge to that meaning arises is within the sole province of the High Court.Unfortunately, without the capacity to withhold funds over the operation of Government, nor power to enforce its judgments by force of arms, the Court’s rulings are all too often, blatantly ignored or cavalierly dismissed.As if this weren’t bad enough, the mere fact of the Court’s authority is now actively contested.Audaciously, some individuals in Government, in the Press, and in academia, have recently argued the U.S. Supreme Court’s authority to say what the law is, should not be vested in the High Court, regardless of the strictures of Article Three, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution.Consider, an Op-Ed, titled, “Should the Supreme Court Matter So Much?” The essay appeared in The New York Times, and not that long ago, in 2018, written by Barry P. McDonald, an attorney and Law Professor no less who exclaims:“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the Court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).When disputes came before the Supreme Court, the justices were expected to ensure that Americans received ‘due process’ — that they would be ruled by the ‘law of the land’ rather than the whims of ruling individuals. In short, the Court was to play a limited role in American democracy, and when it did get involved, its job was to ensure that its judgments were based on legal rules that were applied fairly and impartially.What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).” The question of interpreting the Constitution is the subject of some debate? Really? Apparently, this Law Professor, Barry McDonald, has wholly forgotten the import of Marbury versus Madison, a case burnt into the mind of every first-year law student. His remarks are eccentric, disturbing, and disheartening.If the Framers of the U.S. Constitution really had such a low opinion of the High Court, they would not have constructed a Government with a Third Branch but would have subsumed it into one of the first two? Obviously, the Framers thought enough about the singular importance of the U.S. Supreme Court, to include it in the framework of the Federal Government, and as a co-equal Branch of that Government.It is one thing to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings because of an antipathy toward those rulings and claim the Court can’t do anything about it anyway because the Court hasn’t power to enforce its rulings. That is bad enough. But it is quite another thing to argue the Court has no reason to exist, ought not to exist, and thereupon rationalize doing away with the Third Branch of Government or otherwise reducing its authority to render rulings to a nullity by Executive Branch or Legislative Branch edict.Application of alien predilections, predispositions, and ideology to the Nation’s governance is a path to abject tyranny; to dissolution of the Republic; defilement of the Nation’s culture and history and heritage; destruction of societal order and cohesion; and abasement and subjugation of a sovereign people. The Nation is on a runaway train, running full throttle, about to make an impact with a massive brick wall.The New York Times just loves to publish articles by credentialed individuals who hold views well beyond the pale of those held by their brethren if those views happen to conform to, and strengthen, and push the socio-political narrative of the newspaper’s publishers and editorial staff.Use of such dubious, fringe views to support a viewpoint is a classic example of “confirmation bias,” an informal fallacy.There are dozens of informal fallacies. And the American public is force-fed ideas that routinely exemplify one or more of them.This defiance of State and Federal Government actors to adhere to the Court’s rulings and even to contest the authority of the Court is most pronounced, most acute, and, unfortunately, most prevalent, in matters pertaining to the import of fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people—and none more so than the citizen’s right of armed self-defense.Consider——In the first decade of the 21st Century, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled clearly and unequivocally in Heller versus District of Columbia that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia penned the majority opinion.Among its other rulings in Heller, the High Court held the District of Columbia’s blanket ban on handguns impermissibly infringes the core of the Second Amendment. It thereupon struck down the D.C. ban on handguns as unconstitutional.And the Court also held a person has a right to immediate access to a handgun in one’s self-defense. Not surprisingly, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions disliked these rulings and were intent on disobeying them, and arrogantly defied the Court.Looking for an excuse to defy Heller, these jurisdictions argued that Heller applies only to the Federal Government, not to them. That led to an immediate challenge, and the High Court took up the case in McDonald vs. City of Chicago.Here, Justice Alito writing for the majority, opined the Heller rulings apply with equal force to the States, through operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.Did the Anti-Second Amendment States abide by the Court’s rulings, after McDonald? No, they did not!They again defied the Court, conjuring up all sorts of reasons to deny to the American citizen his unalienable right to keep and bear arms in his self-defense.The States in these Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions claimed that, even if a person has a right to armed self-defense inside his home, the right to do so does not extend to the carrying of a handgun outside the home.The State and Federal Courts in these jurisdictions conveniently misconstrued the Supreme Court’s test for ascertaining the constitutionality of Government action infringing exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment. These Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions also placed bans on semiautomatic weapons, fabricating a legal fiction for them; referring to them as “assault weapons.”  American citizens challenged the constitutionality of all these issues. And many of these cases wended their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, only to be thwarted because the Court could not muster sufficient support among the Justices to deal with the flagrant violation of Second Amendment Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning.One of these cases was the 2015 Seventh Circuit case, Friedman versus City of Highland Park, Illinois.The liberal wing of the Court didn’t want the case to be heard. That was no surprise.But, apparently, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy didn’t want to hear the case either.Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were furious and said so in a comprehensive dissenting opinion.Had the Court taken up the Friedman case, Americans would have been spared this nonsense of “assault weapon” bans. The Court would have ruled these bans unconstitutional on their face, in which event the Federal Government and Anti-Second Amendment State governments would be hard-pressed to make a case for wasting valuable time and taxpayer monies dealing with an issue the High Court had ruled on. Unfortunately, the Friedman case and many others were not taken up by the Court.Americans are compelled to continue to spend considerable time and money in challenging a continuous stream of unconstitutional Second Amendment Government action. And often, this is a futile expenditure of time, money, and effort, albeit a noble and necessary one all the same._________________________________________

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL UNFAZED BY CHALLENGES TO NEW YORK GUN LAW: “GO FOR IT,” SHE RETORTS!

One of the most persistent and virulently Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions, that has spurred numerous challenges to unconstitutional and unconscionable constraints on the Second Amendment through the decades, is New York.In 2020, four years after Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died, under disturbingly suspicious circumstances, and shortly after Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the Bench, and the U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s first nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, to a seat on the High Court, the Court took up the case, NYSRPA vs. City of New York—often referred to colloquially as the “NY Gun Transport” case. An extensive explication of that case is found in a series of AQ articles posted on our website. See, e.g., our article posted on April 27, 2020, and reposted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on the same date. A second U.S. Supreme Court case, coming out of New York, NYSRPA versus Bruen, officially released on June 23, 2022, ruled New York’s “proper cause” requirement unconstitutional.New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany thereupon struck the words “proper cause” from the State’s Gun Law, the Sullivan Act, codified in Section 400.00 of the State’s Penal Code. But, doing so served merely as a blind.Had the Hochul Government refrained from tinkering with the rest of the text of the Statute and other Code sections, it might well have avoided further constitutional challenges from justifiably irate New Yorkers. It did not.Hochul and Albany did not stop with the striking of “proper cause” from the Gun Law. It went well beyond that. Her Government and Albany wrote a detailed set of amendments to the Gun Law. The package of amendments, titled the “Concealed Carry Law Improvement Act,” “CCIA,” do not conform to the Bruen rulings but, rather, slither all around them. On a superficial level, deletion of the words “proper cause” might be seen by some, as Hochul and Albany had perhaps hoped, to forestall legal challenge. But, if challenge came, time would be, after all, on the Government’s side. And Hochul knew this.The Government has money enough to fight a protracted Court battle. The challenger, more likely, does not. Even finding a suitable challenger takes considerable time, exorbitant sums of money to file a lawsuit, and substantial time to take a Second Amendment case to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it is far from certain the Court will review a case even if a petition for hearing is filed, for the Court grants very few petitions.For well over a century the New York Government has inexorably whittled away at the right of armed self-defense in New York. And it has successfully weathered all attacks all the while. The New York Government wasn’t going to let the U.S. Supreme Court now, in the Bruen case, to throw a wrench into attaining its end goal: the elimination of armed self-defense in New York. Much energy went into the creation of the CCIA. It is a decisive and defiant response to the U.S. Supreme Court and furthers its goal to constrain armed self-defense in the public sphere.Likely, given the length, breadth, and depth of the CCIA, the Government saw Bruen coming, long before the case was filed, and had ample time to draft the contours of the CCIA a couple of years ago. A clue that another U.S. Supreme Court case, challenging New York’s Gun Law, would loom, presented itself in Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.  Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch had made known their strong disapproval of the way the “Gun Transport” case was handled, after the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh cast their lot with the Anti-Second Amendment liberal wing of the Court, allowing the case to be unceremoniously and erroneously shunted aside, sans review of the merits of the case. A day of reckoning with New York’s insufferable Gun Law was coming. The Government of New York could not reasonably doubt that. The core of the Gun Law would be challenged, and the U.S. Supreme Court would hear that challenge. The Government likely worked up a draft response to an antagonistic U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the core of the Gun Law in 2020, shortly after the New York “Gun Transport” case ruling came down. That draft response would become the CCIA.The Government likely completed its draft of the CCIA well before Bruen was taken up by the High Court. The Government had only to fine-tune the CCIA immediately after oral argument in early November 2021. And the Government did so. Hochul almost certainly received advance notice of the text of the majority opinion within days or weeks after the hearing before the New Year had rung in. Nothing else can explain the speed at which Albany had passed the CCIA and Hochul had signed it into law: July 1, 2022, just eight days after the Court had released the Bruen decision, June 23, 2022.The CCIA amendments to the Gun Law integrate very nicely with and into other recent New York antigun legislation, passed by Albany and signed into law by Hochul. Thus, contrary to what the Governor’s website proclaims, the amendments were not “devised to align with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.” Rather these amendments were devised to align with other New York antigun legislation. What does this portend for New Yorkers? Those New Yorkers who had hoped to be able to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license with relative ease will now find procuring such a license no less difficult than before the enactment of the CCIA.Most hard-hit are those present holders of New York City and New York County unrestricted concealed handgun carry licenses. The “proper cause” hoop that present holders of such concealed handgun carry licenses were able to successfully jump through is of no use to them now. These renewal applicants must now satisfy a slew of new requirements—more draconian than the original ones they had previously successfully navigated. All New York concealed handgun carry applicants are now in the same boat. And meeting the new requirements are exceedingly difficult. Despite the clear intent of the Bruen rulings, to make it easier for more Americans to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license, it is now harder. Likely, very few individuals will be able to successfully pass through the hurdles necessary to obtain a New York license the CCIA requires. Thus, getting a license will remain a coveted prize, difficult to gain as previously, and likely even more so.And the few individuals who do happen to secure a valid New York concealed handgun carry license will find themselves in a precarious situation for all the troubles they had in getting it.These new license holders will find exercise of the right of armed self-defense outside one’s home or place of business, in the public realm, full of traps and snares that did not previously exist. And there is something more alarming.The mere act of applying for a concealed carry license—whether the license is issued or not—now requires the applicant to divulge a wealth of highly personal information that, hitherto, an applicant never had to divulge, and the licensing authority had never asked an applicant to divulge. And, if a person fails to secure a license, his personal data will remain in his State police file, indefinitely, and will likely be turned over to the DOJ, DHS, ATF, IRS, and/or to a slew of State or Federal mental health agencies. All manner of harm may be visited upon the person that otherwise would not have occurred had the individual not bothered to apply for a New York concealed handgun carry license in the first place. To apply for a New York concealed handgun carry license, an applicant may unwittingly be alerting both the New York Government and the Federal Government that he is a “MAGA” supporter, and therefore a potential “Domestic Terrorist.” And, if so, he is then targeted for special treatment: surveillance, harassment, exploitation, or extortion. And he cannot claim a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because he voluntarily relinquished that right when he applied for a concealed handgun carry license.If one thinks this is farfetched, consider the excesses committed by the Biden Administration directed to average Americans in the last several months.We explore these troubling matters, in connection with the application requirements for a New York concealed handgun carry license, in the next few articles.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS A PROTECTOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT FOR HOW LONG?

When recounting the import of U.S. Supreme Court case holdings, especially pertaining to our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties—the most important of which is codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—one must be reminded that the Third Branch of Government is not a distant poor cousin of the other two and is not to be treated as if it were such. Yet, it is often denigrated as such, especially when some case decisions, like those in the recent Bruen and Dobbs cases, happen to throw some people into a fit of rage, threatening the Court and threatening the life of some Justices within it, and threatening the viability and “legitimacy” of the High Court.Two co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and Legislative, along with assistance from the legacy Press, do nothing to curb this insult and danger to the third co-equal Branch. Instead, these two Branches, along with the Press, either remain silent, or actively, avidly encourage the disassembling of the Third. Hence the concerted effort to “tame” the Court through the device of “court-packing,” a thing the Biden Administration looked to accomplish through creation of a commission for just that purpose.  Fortunately, that came to naught. Still, these are the sort of antics of Americans come to expect from the Harris- Biden Administration. And we see these antics from a bloated, rancid, unelected, and unaccountable Administrative Deep State; and from an obstreperous, preening, arrogant Congress; and from a seditious, treacherous Press; and even from some academicians whose essays exhibit an unrestrained, radical Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist oriented socio-political bent.Americans see a treacherous Federal Government, a seditious Press, and large multinational conglomerates uniting in a collective effort to erode the underpinnings of a free Republic and eventually eradicate it. And it does so because a free Constitutional Republic doesn’t address their wants and desires—as if it ever should have been so.The present Administration does nothing to prevent a vicious, vile mob from attacking the Court, but remains painfully silent. And members of Congress go further, even inciting a mob to violence. Schumer, who should know better, as a Harvard educated lawyer—although he never practiced law—threatens a Justice at the steps of the High Court, and a would-be assassin eventually tries to oblige.  And Maxine Waters, a sociopath and lunatic if there ever was one, marches with a mob to the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, shrieking: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.”More restrained in his remarks belittling the Court, but no less dangerous because of the nature of them, a Law Professor at Pepperdine University, one, Barry P. McDonald argues the founding fathers had intended to relegate the Supreme Court to second-class status. But, if true, the impact of that inference has dangerous repercussions not only for the Government itself but for the peoples’ right to check the power of that Government through force of arms. The Constitution to this scholar is nothing more than an amorphous, shapeless lump of clay to be reshaped and remolded at will or whim, not unlike a potterer producing a clay pot on a ceramic pottery wheel, changing the design as his fancy suits him, as the wheel goes round and round. McDonald’s essay was published as an Op-Ed in the NY Times, a few days after the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Obviously, Professor McDonald disapproved of the confirmation, no less so than The New York Times that sought him out as a credentialed college professor to give weight to its own abhorrence of the Court and of the confirmation of Kavanaugh to sit on it as Justice Kavanaugh. McDonald wrote, in principal part,“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).When disputes came before the Supreme Court, the justices were expected to ensure that Americans received ‘due process’ — that they would be ruled by the ‘law of the land’ rather than the whims of ruling individuals. In short, the court was to play a limited role in American democracy, and when it did get involved, its job was to ensure that its judgments were based on legal rules that were applied fairly and impartially.What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).” So, we are to believe that the founders thought less of the High Court because of the Building they were housed in, or because they devoted a few lines to the Judicial Branch in Article 3 of the Constitution, or because we are to accept Professor McDonald’s on faith that the founders expected each Branch to decide for itself the expansiveness of its powers? And where, in all of that jockeying for power among the servants of the people in Government does that leave the people of the United States, who are the true and sole sovereign over Government? To give credence to this odd notion that the High Court is relegated to a humble position in the Federal Governmental structure, Professor McDonald intimates that John Jay resigned from the Court because he thought the Court lacked “energy, weight and dignity.”Professor McDonald fails to cite anything to support the inference or provide context for it.  The actual letter, where that phrase appears, a letter from John Jay to President Adams is available for viewing on the founders' archives website.  It is clear from a perusal of Jay’s letter to President John Adams, declining the President’s invitation to serve once again as Chief Justice of the High Court, that John Jay’s declination was not tied to a belief, contrary to what Professor McDonald intimates, that the framers must have had a low expectation for the Court and that, therefore, John Jay no longer wanted to be a part of the Court. Such an idea is absurd; yet McDonald places significant reliance on it for his thesis. But, if John Jay had such misgivings about the Court, he would not have served as Chief Justice of it, in the first place, nor stayed on the Court for as long as he did. The facts are as follows: “In 1789, after Jay declined George Washington's offer of the position of Secretary of State, the president offered him the new opportunity of becoming Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, which Jay accepted. He was unanimously confirmed on September 26, 1789 and remained on the bench until 1795. As this was an inaugural position, many of Jay's duties involved establishing rules, procedure, and precedents.” So, Justice John Jay, a founding father, did much to develop the federal judicial system and resigned, when elected Governor of New York. See article in NYCourts.gov.  A few years later, John Adams, the second President offered John Jay the Chief Justice position once again. He declined the offer but did so not because he thought the Supreme Court had been accorded no real power under the Constitution, but, rather, because he felt the Executive Branch of Government would not allow the Court to exercise its Article 3 powers as the Constitution intended, dismissing the Court’s authority and power out-of-hand. This early power grab by the Executive Branch came to a head in the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison, when Chief Justice, John Marshall, asserted the Court’s rightful powers that the Executive Branch had chosen to ignore. And in that struggle it was Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. President, who acceded to Marshall, acknowledging, if only reluctantly, the Supreme Court’s Article 3 authority that the Executive Branch sought to ignore.The Federal Government was just in its infancy, but, even then, the three Branches had started to jockey for power. Even so, usurpation of power is patently contrary to the dictates of the Constitution which delineates the powers and authority of each Branch, thereby establishing the parameters for the exercise of powers so delineated for each Branch. No Branch is permitted to transgress the Constitutional boundaries of power set for it. Had the framers of the Constitution sought to place the High Court under the auspices of another Branch as in the English Parliamentary System, the framers would have plainly provided for that. They did not.There were many possible Governmental forms and many permutations within any Governmental form to choose from.  The framers of the Constitution considered many configurations of Government and rejected all but one: A tripartite co-equal Branch Republican form of Government in which each Branch would be accorded its own set of limited, clearly articulated, and demarcated powers and authority. Thus, the Framers constructed one form of Government they hoped would be the least susceptible to insinuation of tyranny. Still the framers of the U.S. Constitution harbored doubt that their best efforts to establish a Government of three co-equal Branches would be sufficient to forestall the insinuation of  tyranny into the Government. Their concerns were justified.They knew that such is the nature of Government that no Governmental form would suffice to prevent the inevitable and inexorable tendency of a centralized Government with a standing army to resist the irresistible tug, and urge, and itch, to gather ever more power for itself.Since the Federal Government was constructed to be the servant of the people, the founders made certain that the American people would bear arms to secure their freedom and liberty from tyranny and they understood that the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms would rest—must rest—beyond the power of Government to toy with. For it is only through an armed citizenry that Government—especially one that is hell-bent in exercising absolute power and concomitantly oppressing the citizenry—can be kept from usurping the sovereignty of the American people and subjugating them in the process.Exercise of Governmental Power has shifted between and among the Branches through the decades, as they jockey for power and this is inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution that demarcates the power and authority of each Branch; the power and authority that each Branch was allowed to wield, and not intrude on the domain of another Branch.The American people as the sole sovereign over Government would check the insinuation of tyranny—a given—through exercise of the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that would remain an immutable “constant,” irrespective of the machinations of the Three Branches of Government.And it is the stubborn constancy of the Second Amendment continues to rankle Big Government and its supporters to no end becoming more noticeable as the Government continues to devolve ever further into tyranny.  Today, we see the coalescing and merging of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches. And we see attempts to bring the Judicial Branch into the fold.  And none of this bodes well for the American people. This means the right of the people to keep and bear arms grows more insistent. Consider——The Biden Administration, with a compliant Senate, has barreled through confirmation the first of a new kind of Supreme Court Justice: one who has no regard for the rights and liberties of the American people. This person, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a person of mediocre talents at best, according to a National Review report. She was selected by the Administration’s shadowy puppetmasters, precisely because she is a dutiful proponent of the Marxist dogma of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.” Did the National Review provide support for her nomination? One reporter did. See an article in the Federalist about this, chastising the National Review because of this. This nomination and confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson and more like her would not bode well for the independence of the Court.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through DOJ/FBI and ATF misuse of its Administrative Rulemaking authority.And, does anyone doubt for a moment that five Justices—the faux Conservative-wing Originalist, Chief Justice Roberts, and four liberal-wing Associate Justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, plus Garland, wouldn’t have overturned the rulings of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases, using the Bruen case for just that purpose, apart from affirming the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for the Respondent City of New York, against the Petitioners. In a nightmare world that could have happened, and, indeed, would have happened. And, here in reality, the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are more than annoyed at the outcome of Bruen and Dobbs, that their dream of negating the Second Amendment did not happen. They are absolutely apoplectic over that. Just look at how this obsequious, fawning head of the DOJ, unlawfully but dutifully targets Americans for special treatment at the behest of the Biden Administration and at the behest of other radical groups like the National School Board Association.    The framers of the U.S. Constitution would not be pleased but not all that surprised at the Government’s turn toward tyranny. As the framers wrestled with and finally settled on a Republican form of Government, consisting of three co-equal Branches, they also created a “failsafe” to offset the tendency of Government toward tyranny. Government would serve at the behest of the American people, the true and sole sovereign of Government and Nation but only if that Government is kept in check by an armed citizenry, whom, Constitutionally, it has no control over as it is prohibited from infringing the natural law right of the people to be armed.  Thus, the cause of frustration of those forces that seek to usurp the sovereignty of the American people by controlling their possession of and access to arms and ammunition.The British Empire sought to do this once and failed. Much more insidiously, the Government of the United States, today, seeks to do the same thing and this Government has been busily at work, especially in the 20^th Century and to the present day, to dispossess the American people of their firearms and stocks of ammunition and, further, to destroy their will to resist.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through ostensible DOJ/FBI and ATF Administrative Rulemaking authority. Not to be long forestalled by the inconvenience of the U.S. Constitution, the Nation’s Tyrannical Government has attempted to do just that. The first major Federal legislation infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was in the 1930s with enactment of the appalling National Firearms Act of 1934 and Congress added to that infringement with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the “Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994.” And the threat continues to this day. These enactments conflict with the primacy and supremacy of the Second Amendment to ward off the threat of tyranny and are prima facie proof of the Government’s embrace of Tyranny. Yet——Historical events demonstrating the fact of Government usurpation of powers and authority that belong alone to the American people become of themselves legal justification for controverting the dictates of the Constitution.But Government action that erodes fundamental Rights and Liberty should not operate as prima facie evidence of the lawfulness of those actions merely because they occurred. But that is what we have. Historical events demonstrating unequivocal illegal Government action infringing Americans’ fundamental rights manifest, paradoxically—like a conjurer’s sleight of hand—as self-justifying evidence for the legality and propriety of the actions—a kind of historical necessity: “it happened, so it must be right and proper.” The historical antecedent event thus transforms as a transcendental moral truth.That is the argument the Biden Administration makes for corralling the Second Amendment. And that over-reliance on history and on the appeal to history as part of the Court’s standard of review of the legality of laws impinging on the Second Amendment point to a serious flaw in Bruen. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Amy Coney-Barrett must know this.In fact, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett specifically points to the problem of utilizing history as a standard by which to ascertain whether a particular Governmental action unconstitutionally infringes the Second Amendment. In a short concurring opinion which, curiously no one joined, she says, in part, this: “I write separately to highlight two methodological points that the Court does not resolve. First, the Court does not conclusively determine the manner and circumstances in which postratification practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution. . . . Scholars have proposed competing and potentially conflicting frameworks for this analysis, including liquidation, tradition, and precedent. . . . The limits on the permissible use of history may vary between these frameworks (and between different articulations of each one). To name just a few unsettled questions: How long after ratification may subsequent practice illuminate original public meaning? . . . . What form must practice take to carry weight in constitutional analysis? . . . . And may practice settle the meaning of individual rights as well   as structural provisions? . . . The historical inquiry presented in this case does not require us to answer such questions, which might make a difference in another case. . . . Second and relatedly, the Court avoids another ‘ongoing scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868’ or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. . . . Here, the lack of support for New York’s law in either period makes it unnecessary to choose between them. But if 1791 is the benchmark, then New York’s appeals to Reconstruction-era history would fail for the independent reason that this evidence is simply too late (in addition to too little). Cf. Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2020) (slip op., at 15-16) (a practice that ‘arose in the second half of the 19th century . . . cannot by itself establish an early American tradition” informing our understanding of the First Amendment). So today’s decision should not be understood to endorse freewheeling reliance on historical practice from the mid-to-late 19th century to establish the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Court is careful to caution ‘against giving postenactment history more weight than it can rightly bear [citations omitted].’” We discuss this problem of history as a component of a new standard of review in Second Amendment cases in future articles analyzing Bruen._________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved   

A DUAL COVERUP: SENILITY OF A PRESIDENT AND THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY BY A SON

What’s going on in our Country? Biden’s administrative staff attempts to cover up Biden’s serious cognitive decline with the ferocity of a mother hen guarding her chicks, and Biden’s secret service detail operates like strong-arm enforcers of an old-world crime syndicate to cover up his son’s illegal possession of and further misuse of a firearm.Recall that, back in December 2020, before shadowy powerful Globalist elites worked their sorcery to transform a clear Trump U.S. Presidential victory into a weird defeat—YE OLDE SWITCHEROO—Joe Biden appeared on Stephen Colbert’s comedy show, to defend his son Hunter who had some explaining to do regarding his taxes.“President-elect Joe Biden defended his son Hunter Biden amid an ongoing investigation into the younger Biden’s taxes.During an interview with Stephen Colbert that aired Thursday night, Biden sat alongside his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, and expressed ‘confidence’ in his son.In raising the subject of Hunter Biden, the liberal comedian Colbert claimed to Joe Biden that ‘the people who want to make hay in Washington are going to try to use your son as a cudgel against you.’‘How do you feel about that?’ Colbert asked. ‘And what do you have to say to those people?’‘I have, we have, great confidence in our son,’ Biden responded. ‘I am not concerned about any accusations being made against him. It's used to get to me. I think it’s kind of foul play but look, it is what it is and he’s a grown man, he is the smartest man I know. I mean, from a pure intellectual capacity – and as long as he’s good, we’re good.’” Fox News “Hot Topic” report, published, December 17, 2020 “As long as he’s [Hunter’s] good, Biden is good,” so said the present “President of the United States back in December 2020. Jump ahead to March 2021. It is quite apparent that neither Hunter Biden, nor his father, Joe, is doing “good.”“The President,” Joe Biden,” for his part, is doing exceedingly poorly. This we know; it is an open secret. Joe Biden obviously has acute and chronic dementia, probably Alzheimer’s, which is the most prevalent form of dementia, according to the CDC.And that sad excuse for a Press Conference, delivered on March 25, 2021, didn’t allay concerns about Biden’s precipitous mental decline. It only reinforced our suspicions about Biden. Look at his eyes when he speaks: vacant; indicative of Alzheimer’s disease. And this is the “President of the United States?” He’s an apt symbol of our Nation’s incipient decline under the Democrats and Bush Republicans.Juxtapose Donald Trump’s commanding presence before the cameras with Biden’s sorry performance at his first Press Conference, and perhaps his last; tame, lamblike; and one cannot but conclude that Biden has neither the bearing and character of a leader of a proud and powerful Country such as ours, nor the physical stamina and mental acuity to stand firm against our Nation’s competitors and enemies: just what the neoliberal Globalist elites and Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists wanted, and what the American people now have.Take a look at this October 2020 article in the New York Post:“Former White House physician Ronny Jackson told reporters Tuesday he was ‘convinced’ that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, 77, does not have the cognitive ability to be commander-in-chief. . . .”“As a citizen, not as a candidate running for Congress, but as a citizen of this country, I’ve watched Joe Biden on the campaign trail and I am concerned and convinced that ‘he does not have the mental capacity, the cognitive ability, to serve as our commander-in-chief and our head of state,’ he went on.”See also article from the Alzheimers Association. See also Webmd and health digest. Health digest points out that: “According to the Alzheimer's Association, the disease progresses as time passes, with symptoms of memory loss and recall of even simple tasks growing worse. There is no cure, and treatment focuses on managing symptoms and slowing the progression.”

HOW TO DEAL WITH A PERSON WHO HAS ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Notice how the Press and staff indulge Biden, so as not to upset him; how deferential they are toward him. But then, that is the key when dealing with a person who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. That is how a caregiver should treat a person suffering from that debilitating mental disease. Indulge that person. Put that person at ease. Never anger or confuse that person. And that is what Biden’s handlers and the Press do. See article in better health while aging: Surviving Alzheimer's Managing Difficult Behaviors Cheatsheet“Put the person with dementia's feelings first. He or she cannot change; YOU have to change, or you have to change the immediate environment.  Collect yourself (no matter how irritated you are). People with dementia are sensitive to others' moods and will pick yours up and mirror it. So take a deep breath. Count to 3. Or do a silent scream in the bathroom. Remind yourself, ‘It's not him/her. It's the dementia!’  Avoid making the mistake of assuming they'll forget your angry moment. Although it's true that people with dementia tend to quickly forget what was said, the emotional impact of an encounter (negative OR positive) lasts much longer! Do: Approach slowly and from the front. You're less apt to startle, confuse, or provoke. Play back the person's emotions and ask questions: ‘You sound upset.’ ‘You look sad. Can I help?’ ‘I know this bothers you. Let's see what I can do.’  Try developing a go-to mantra for soothing: ‘I'm here.’ ‘Everything's OK.’ ‘Not to worry, love.’  Make your body language match your words. Avoid sighing or rolling your eyes. Smile, nod, use a friendly tone, relax your posture. Unspoken factors convey more than half of any message. Try touching an arm or shoulder.” Golden Carers say that cue cards are a good mnemonic aid for those suffering from early-stage Alzheimer’s.“Cue Cards are inexpensive to make and may be tailor-made to the needs of each individual. They are a feasible alternative to hi-tech, expensive tools.

• Cue cards should be in black and white and with or without pictures depending on the individual.
• Cue cards should be written in a large font (as large as the need be) so the individual is able to read them easily.
• Cue Cards should contain words or short sentences.
• Stick to one medium: stick figures, line drawings, cartoon-like, or pictures (Remember that people with advanced dementia are better off with black & white cue cards).
• Laminate for endurance.” 

EVIDENCE THAT SOMETHING IS VERY MUCH AMISS IN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION ISN’T TO BE REFERRED TO AS THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ANY LONGER, BUT AS THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION

Apart from Biden’s odd reference to Kamala Harris as “The President,”—which might have been discussed in closed-door meetings with Biden, suggesting that Biden will soon be stepping down, which might also explain why the mentally confused Biden mistakenly referred to Harris as “the President”—the public recently learned that the “Biden Administration” is now, officially, the “Biden-Harris Administration.” And, during the Press Conference, as if to allay any concern about Biden's precipitous and obvious mental decline, Biden says he plans on running for a second term in 2024. The question about his plans came from one of the friendly Press reporters who likely was tasked or pegged beforehand, in this highly orchestrated Press Conference, to ask that very question, even as Biden, through his surrogates had said, back in December 2019, according to US News and World Report, that Biden would only serve one term. And this term will probably be abruptly curtailed in the next few months, given the rapidity of Biden's decline, which probably is due in great part to the stress of merely sitting as a cardboard cutout in the Oval Office, as Biden is given little to do except, occasionally, to come before the public to mouth a few nonsensical platitudes and false pronouncements in attempt to placate a skeptical American public. CBS News reports,“President Joe Biden said Thursday that it is his ‘expectation’ to run for reelection in 2024. The president was asked if he planned to run for a second term during his first White House press conference, which took place 65 days after he took office.‘My plan is to run for reelection. That's my expectation,’ Mr. Biden said in response to a question from CBS News chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes. The president added that he ‘would fully expect’ that Vice President Kamala Harris will remain on the presidential ticket, and called her ‘a great partner.’” Biden's handlers are working on the fly to change the structure of the Administration to reflect Biden's swift mental decline and to create the illusion of continuity. The Biden  Administration thus devolves into the Biden-Harris Administration.BPR reports,“The White House has now begun officially referring to President Joe Biden’s administration as the “Biden-Harris administration” and has instructed federal agencies to begin referring to it as such as well.”And then what? Is the Biden-Harris Administration to devolve into the Harris-Biden Administration? It is more than just a little disconcerting to hear this. This state of affairs isn’t good for the Country. It isn’t good at all. This isn't something that can be made palatable to the public. For, never before in our Nation’s history has the President of the United States officially disclosed the express sharing of power of the Executive Branch. In fact, this sharing of power can’t ve lawfully be done, even as it becomes plain, that Democrats do not respect the U.S. Constitution, but twist and contort and distort to cohere with their ultimate goal and that of their Globalist puppet masters: transforming a Free Constitutional Republic into a totalitarian oligarchical dictatorship, to be merged at some point into a much larger transnational governmental scheme. But for the nonce it is clear that, so long as we have a United States Constitution, there can be no lawful sharing of power in the Executive Branch of Government. The Constitution is explicit about this.The first sentence of Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, sets forth succinctly and categorically that, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” There is only one Chief Executive of our Nation and only one who can serve at any one time. If the Chief Executive cannot serve, for one reason or another, then the Vice President of the United States serves in his stead. That is the salient reason why the Constitution makes specific reference to a Vice President, who then presides over the Executive Branch if or when the President is unable to continue serving as President. Thus, The President is either in or he’s out. The President either serves as President or he doesn’t and steps aside. Now, this is not to say that the President cannot delegate power. Indeed, that is the principal purpose of having a “principal officer in each of the executive departments,”  i.e., Cabinet Level officers, as the Constitution also provides for in Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.”But, Vice Presidents, themselves, traditionally have had little power. The Constitution does not even suggest that they have an advisory role, as advisory roles go to Cabinet-level officers of the Executive Branch of Government, as the Constitution provides for in Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Consider these quotations from “Everyday Power” that exemplify the lack of a defined role for the person who serves as Vice President during the tenure of the President:

• “I do not propose to be buried until I am dead.” — Daniel Webster, turning down the vice presidency in 1839

• “Being vice president is comparable to a man in a cataleptic fit; he cannot speak; he cannot move; he suffers no pain; he is perfectly conscious of all that goes on but has no part in it.” — Thomas R. Marshall, vice president under Woodrow Wilson

• “I am vice president. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything.” — John Adams

• “The second office of this government is honorable and easy, the first is but a splendid misery.” — Thomas Jefferson in 1797, when he was vice president

• “I would a great deal rather be anything, say, professor of history, then vice president.” — Theodore Roosevelt

• “I have no interest in it. Might very well turn it down, indeed, and probably would.” — Al Gore

• AND THIS ONE FROM JOE BIDEN: “I never had a boss. I don’t know how I’d handle it.” – Joe Biden, when asked in about the possibility that they might select him to be Barack Obama’s running mate.

The President can, of course, delegate power to his Vice President as he sees fit, as the U.S. Constitution is silent about this, and delegation of power to the Vice President isn't inconsistent with the dictates of Article 2. Under the Bush Administration, George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, who served from 2001 through 2009, did delegate substantial power to his Vice President, Dick Cheney. That was probably the first time in American history that a Vice President actually exercised considerable power in the capacity of Vice President.It was common knowledge that Cheney wielded considerable power within the Executive Branch, as the left-wing periodical, “the Nation” pointed out, going so far as declaring that Cheney was the most powerful Vice President in the Nation’s history. Be that as it may, it was understood that, despite wielding substantial power, Cheney was still only the Vice President. It was George W. Bush, not Dick Cheney who always appeared front and center before the public, declaring the decisions that he, as U.S. President made, as well that should be for it was George Bush, not Dick Cheney, who was elected U.S. President; and it was clear to the public that George Bush was in fact “THE” U.S. President. There was no sharing of power between the two to even suggest that there existed a Bush-Cheney Administration.  THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS THE SHARING OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL POWER IF THAT IS TO MEAN THAT THE VICE—PRESIDENT OR ANY CABINET LEVEL OFFICIAL MAKES DECISIONS CONTRARY TO THE WILL OF OR IRRESPECTIVE OF THE WILL OF THE U.S. PRESIDENT.DELEGATION OF SOME ACTIVITIES OF THE PRESIDENT? YES, AS THE PRESIDENT FROM TIME TO TIME SO WISHES. BUT SHARING OF POWER? NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!But at this moment in time, it is fair to ask whether the statement by “the Nation” publication, referred to supra is still true, now that Harris and the Cabinet have taken over the basic functions of the Presidency and that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are now truly sharing power, i.e., sharing the decision-making authority as the official categorization of a “Biden-Harris Administration” clearly suggests and is obviously meant to suggest.

IF BIDEN’S COGNITIVE ACUMEN IS INDEED IMPAIRED, AS CLEARLY IT IS, DOESN’T THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAVE A RIGHT TO BE TOLD THAT, AND SHOULD NOT BIDEN IMMEDIATELY STEP DOWN?

Back in March 2017, The Hill pointed out that,“Information that could be damaging is often withheld from the public. When Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke, his wife and physician covered up his condition rather than installing a designee to assume the powers of the office. FDR’s disability from polio was masked; questions still linger over whether Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease had begun to affect him in his second term.It would seem that the public’s right to know would outweigh the right to privacy of the candidates, which begs us to wonder if there should be a standard procedure to determine and reveal the medical history and status of presidential candidates, including their mental health.The same logic applies to determining when a sitting president is unfit to serve. The 25th Amendment of the Constitution provides for succession if the President dies, resigns or is unfit to discharge her/his duties. However, there are no specific criteria to define the latter, an issue that is further compounded when it concerns mental disability.The 25th Amendment has been invoked six times since its ratification, from reasons ranging to the scandals of the Nixon administration to presidents who underwent medical procedures requiring general anesthesia. No one would argue with the possibility of a disabling presidential infirmity for reasons of mental disorder. Psychosis, dementia, depression and addiction could be severe enough to impair a president's ability to discharge his or her duties. However, we lack a process and criteria to apply this constitutional mechanism for reasons related to mental function.”Since assuming Office, has the public ever received a pronouncement from Biden’s attending physician as to the state of Biden’s physical and mental health? Apparently not!But, back in July 2020, The American Spectator reported this about Biden:“It’s clear that Joe Biden is showing signs of mental aging: his speech is garbled, his sentences diverge into asides without coherence, and his numbers and names are scrambled in laughable ways (‘We have 120 million dead from COVID!’ he informed Americans last month).Biden, who was first elected to the Senate 48 years ago, has been known for decades for his verbal gaffes. Democrats usually exploit this flaw to explain away their presidential candidate’s confused speech, claiming his lackluster abilities are evidence of a life-long quirk rather than a sign of cognitive decline.‘It’s not a product of age; it’s just who he is,’ wrote Paul Waldman in the Washington Post last April.” Biden’s mental state hasn’t plateaued since assuming Office. It has only gotten worse, much worse!Pelosi and other Democrats say nary a word about that, but they weren’t reluctant about raising false flags about Trump, during his tenure in Office.As early as October 2017 Democrats raised the false and ludicrous spectacle of Trump’s mental acumen. NBC News reported,“The 25th Amendment is the ultimate constitutional ‘check’ — a corrective mechanism for an American president who is physically or psychologically unable to lead. Most important, it grants legal authority to those closest to power — first, the vice president and Cabinet members, then members of Congress — to stage an intervention. At the very least, these individuals are authorized to call a temporary timeout if the president is judged unfit to govern. Is America today in need of such an unprecedented intervention?” And, three years later, Pelosi and the Democrats were still at it: Heavy.com reported,“During a Thursday interview with Fox, President Donald Trump said, “I’m back because I am a perfect physical specimen and I’m extremely young. And so I’m lucky in that way.”Speaking at her weekly press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded by saying that Trump was ‘in an altered state’ and ‘the disassociation from reality would be funny if it weren’t so deadly.’Pelosi then announced that Democrats would meet on Friday to talk about the 25th Amendment, which, as The Guardian pointed out, ‘contains a clause that allows a president to be removed from office against his will because of physical or mental incapacity.’” Trump fired back at the Speaker, tweeting, ‘Crazy Nancy is the one who should be under observation. They don’t call her Crazy for nothing!’”And, as late as January 9, 2021, the Los Angeles Times shamelessly, scandalously,  disseminated disinformation, asserting that Trump has a ‘delusional disorder.’“As the gatekeepers of our democracy, they need to inquire about whether Trump is potentially dangerous as the commander in chief — including raising questions about whether he has a reality-distorting mental state.One such condition is ‘delusional disorder,’ which is unique among psychiatric conditions in that the area of dysfunction can be highly circumscribed. An individual with this disorder often has a single fixed delusion and otherwise functions normally, setting it apart from illnesses such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, in which the patient typically experiences broad impairment in social and occupational functioning.” Yet, the Press and the White House remain painfully silent about Biden’s obvious slide into serious dementia, and yet gets seemingly distraught when Russia provides the truthful information that the U.S. Government and the Press deny the public access to, claiming Russia is engaged in a campaign of disinformation. ABC News asserts,“The Department of Homeland Security has found that Russia is spreading disinformation regarding former Vice President Joe Biden’s mental health, according to a DHS bulletin obtained by ABC News.ABC News previously reported that DHS withheld publication of an intelligence bulletin warning law enforcement agencies of a Russian scheme to promote ‘allegations about the poor mental health’ of Biden. The draft bulletin, titled ‘Russia Likely to Denigrate Health of US Candidates to Influence 2020 Election,’ was submitted to the agency’s legislative and public affairs office for review on July 7. The analysis was not meant for public consumption, but it was set to be distributed to federal, state and local law enforcement partners two days later, on July 9, the emails show. It was not— and after an uproar in the media an updated version of the bulletin was released Tuesday, providing details on what the Russian operation looks like.” Granted Russia has its own agenda, but, because Russia makes reference to Biden’s ‘poor mental health,’ is this is to mean that Russia’s pronouncements are, ipso facto, false? Rather, isn’t the U.S. Government and the “free Press” engaging in its own disinformation campaign by deliberately denying the public access to Biden’s serious mental decline? And, if so, why; what does this portend for a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people?Honestly, who has the public more to fear? Russia or a seditious Press and a renegade U.S. Government that is dead-set on destroying its own Nation; in emasculating its own military; attacking its own people; denigrating its own history, heritage, and culture; tearing down its own geographical borders and opening the Nation up to a flood of tens of thousands of diseased and poverty-stricken illegal itinerant aliens, international crime cartels, and an assortment of international terrorists; capitulating to a powerful, belligerent China, and to ruthless billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites, and Radical Leftist Marxists and Anarchists; brainwashing the American public; dumbing down America’s youth; barricading the U.S. Capitol with high walls, razor wire, thousands of heavily armed troops and police; engaging in a National terror campaign targeting Americans for holding “wrong” political beliefs, and creating out of whole cloth a new category of persona non grata, referred to as a “domestic” terrorist; and tearing apart the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties of the American citizenry.The official declaration of a new Administration, only two months in, and tagged the Biden-Harris Administration is not something to treat as trivial, and to dismiss as unimportant as the idea of shared power in the Executive Branch of the United States was never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution and is clearly illegal under Article 2 of the Constitution. See argument, supra. And it definitely is not cause for celebration.Kamala Harris does not herself appear to suffer from acute dementia, but her judgment definitely raises cause for concern. Here, as reported by Fox News, is a person who giggles at the thought of visiting the Southern Border, as if the colossal mess at the Southern Border is a laughing matter, and yet she is the point person whom Biden’s handlers now have placed in charge of the crisis and chaos on the Nation’s Southern Border, as reported by The Blaze. And, the American public is supposed to feel all warm and bubbly, and safe and secure, knowing that Kamala Harris is now in charge of the crisis and chaos at the Border. Really? And what other major foreign and domestic policy decisions is Harris making on her own that one would expect of the President, as Article 2 of the United States Constitution requires? Well, she discusses policy directly with foreign leaders. See Washington Times article. Taking calls from and meeting with foreign leaders a job specifically for the United States President, not the Vice President. After all, IT IS THE U.S. PRESIDENT, not the Vice President, who takes the Oath of Office, as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, to wit:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”So, we have some idea what Kamala is doing. But we must ask: what is it that Joe is doing? What, EXACTLY, does Joe Biden do with his time these days? Joe doesn’t tell us. It is his Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, who tells us. And Psaki informs us that, as the Washington Times reports in the same Washington Times article, supra, the staff “keeps him pretty busy.”“‘The President himself would tell you that we keep him pretty busy, and he has a full schedule this week,’ Ms. Psaki told reporters in a Feb. 8th press briefing. Note the phrasing, ‘we’ the staff, keep the president busy.”The staff keeps Joe busy with a “full schedule”? The staff keeps Biden busy doing what?Whatever it is, apart from signing documents that Biden’s staff gives to him to sign, we would like to know what other things Biden does as purported leader of the Nation, and we would like to hear that from Joe, not from his Press Secretary lest the public is left to reasonably surmise that, whatever it is Joe Biden does with his time these days, it is pretty clear he isn’t running the Country.Maybe the staff keeps him busy playing with “Tinker Toys” or with coloring books. It’s certainly a fair question to ask of the President: Just what it is this man is doing in the name of the American people, as the ostensible leader of the Nation in accordance with Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution?The public never had to ask that question of Trump’s staff. For all the vicious, vile, virulent attacks on Trump, no one ever needed to ask who it was that was running the Country.The seditious Press abhorred Donald Trump, but it wasn’t because the Press thought Trump wasn’t leading the Nation. They knew full well Trump was performing his Article 2 duties as U.S. President, and they hated him for it. They hated President Trump because he wasn't taking orders, and wouldn't take orders from the unelected “experts” of the Federal Bureaucracy. Well, that's just too bad. The electorate didn't vote Trump into Office so that he would simply be a good little fellow who, like Bush, or Clinton, or Obama, would “know his place,“ and would allow the “experts” to run the Executive Branch of Government. That's not why the American people voted Trump into Office. That wasn't what the public expected of or wanted from him. And that wasn't what the framers of the U.S. Constitution ever expected of a U.S. President either. It is the U.S. President who is expected to be the policymaker and the decision-maker, setting the course of the Nation in accordance with the will of the electorate, consistent with the authority vested in the U.S. President under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  If an “expert” wishes to play the part of decision-maker, rather than a mere advisor, then that “expert” should run for elected Office himself, and attempt to convince the public that he is the best man to set policy for the Nation as President of the United States. Unelected, so-called “experts,” ever lurking in the shadows, should not be dictating policy for the Nation as behind-the-scenes surrogates for the Commander-in-Chief of the Nation. They are policy advisors only. They are not policymakers, and they are not decision-makers. Biden is neither a man with vision, nor policymaker, nor decision-maker. He is simply a messenger boy and a decidedly poor one at that as is clear just from listening to the man. Through garbled, incoherent speech, anyone can see that he hasn't a clue what it is he's talking about. And Kamala Harris is hardly more convincing as a messenger boy.And this brings us back now to Biden’s son, Hunter, whom Joe refers to as “the smartest man I know”—this coming from a man with acute dementia. If true, if Hunter is such an intellectual whiz, maybe Hunter should be running the Executive Branch of Government. But then, again, maybe not.This just out as reported by the New York Post:“The Secret Service intervened in an investigation into a 2018 incident involving Hunter Biden and his girlfriend at the time — his former sister-in-law, Hallie — in which she took his gun and tossed it into the trash, thinking he was going to kill himself with it, according to a report.When she returned to retrieve the gun, it was gone, Politico reported on Thursday.Police in Delaware launched an investigation in case the gun, left in a trash can across from a high school, had been used in a crime, the report said.But Secret Service agents contacted the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork recording the sale, Politico reported.The owner, Ron Palmieri, at first balked at the request, suspecting they were attempting to hide Hunter’s ownership of the gun, but ultimately complied and turned over the documents to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the government agency that oversees federal gun laws.The Secret Service said it has no record of agents investigating the incident and said President Biden was not under protection at the time.Then, several days later, the gun was returned by a man who searches trash.There were no charges filed or arrests in the incident.The role of the Secret Service remains unclear.Hunter answered ‘no’ to the question on the transaction asking, ‘Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?’ . . . .Lying on the form is a felony.” Okay, so here we have a man, Joe Biden, who wants and intends to take away “assault weapons” from the civilian population—that is to say semiautomatic firearms—from tens of millions of law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizens. And, the public learns that Joe’s son, Hunter—someone who suffers from chronic illicit drug addiction as Hunter Biden readily admits, and as the Guardian newspaper, for one, reports—has gotten hold of a handgun which he isn’t supposed to have possession of precisely because of his addiction, but obtained a gun anyway because he lied on Federal ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record (Form 4473) regarding his drug addiction. Lying on ATF Form 4473 is a felony. This is bad enough. But what is worse is that the Secret Service, operating ostensibly on behalf of the President of the United States, has, it is apparent, misused its substantial power and authority in an inglorious, disgraceful attempt to cover up the President’s son’s felony, and, in doing so, compounding the wrongdoing and making a blatant hypocrite of Joe Biden in the bargain.Biden, you see, prides himself on being tough on gun issues and on keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. It's the one thing, perhaps the only thing, that he has retained any lasting memory of and conviction about. And, given his recent remarks, both he and Harris seek to impose new, extremely stringent firearms measures on responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens—making it unlawful for the average, responsible American civilian citizen to possess any semiautomatic firearm.What, then might American citizens make of all of this?We have seen duplicity and hypocrisy by Democrats and their friends in the Federal Bureaucracy before, and with disturbing regularity. And that duplicity and hypocrisy continue.The public has certainly seen more than a few examples of egregious unethical and illegal behavior on the part of high-level DOJ and FBI, who have made unethical and illegal behavior common practice. During the entirety of Trump’s tenure in Office, the DOJ and FBI became a political tool of those both within the DOJ and FBI and outside it who waged a concerted war to destroy Trump, his Administration and those closest to him; all in a shameful, ignominious, unlawful attempt to undermine the will of the electorate who voted him to Office.And now we see apparently unlawful behavior on the part of the Secret Service running interference for the President and his wayward son to hide the evidence of Biden’s son’s illegal purchase of a firearm.With scarcely more than two months into the so-called Biden Presidency (now Biden-Harris Presidency)—the coup d’état completed—it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say our Country is going to Hell in a Handbasket.Excuse us. Our Country isn’t going to Hell in a Handbasket; we are already there!____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TURMOIL IN AMERICA OVER THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

ESSAY: A NATION ON THE PRECIPICE OF DISASTER: IF TRUMP LOSES THIS ELECTION, AMERICANS LOSE THEIR COUNTRY; IT'S AS BASIC, AS SIMPLE AS THAT!

OUR NATION-STATE IN THE MIDST OF A HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE STATE OF AFFAIRS!

The headline of the Sunday November 8, 2020 home edition of The New York Times reads: “Biden Beats Trump.”Really? If that headline and many similar ones coming out of mass media are true, then a free Constitutional Republic and independent, sovereign nation-state is on its deathbed and the stonemasons can start carving the Nation’s gravestone setting forth the date of birth and the date of death of that once great Nation-State that once proudly existed but exists no more:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ JULY 4, 1776 TO JANUARY 20, 2021

Yet, a goodly chunk of the American electorate says, “Hold Your Horses! Not so fast! .” How many American citizens who voted for Trump in the 2020 general election is uncertain at this point. Pew Research says the number stands at just under 70 million Americans. The BBC says the number stands at over 70 million Americans. Indeed, even the seditious USA Today itself acknowledges the number stands at more than 71 million Americans that voted for Trump. Any of those numbers is a record, but less than the 75 million votes cast for Biden, also a record, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, as of November 7, 2020. But are the Biden numbers an overcount? Are the Trump numbers an undercount?Did Biden really win the 2020 U.S. Presidential election or is the Press just pulling the wool over the public’s eyes, as it has done for the last four years in its incessant attacks on Trump, expecting the public to accept the old adage: “saying so means it’s so”?Let us all take a long, deep breath and look at a few critical facts.First, Donald Trump has not conceded the election and should not; not with the sleazy manipulation of and the addition of conceivably millions of illegal mail-in ballots for the Neoliberal Western Globalist elites’ Candidates of choice and the Manchurian Candidates of choice, Joseph Biden, and Kamala Harris.The jubilation felt by Biden supporters—fueled in no small part by false declarations of a Biden/Harris victory by the mainstream media—is a bit early in the day. United States Presidential elections aren’t decided by the media. They can recite raw numbers and make all the declarations they want—God knows Americans have been subject to enough of the nonsense spouted by the mainstream media, for the past four years—but in most cases the result of a U.S. Presidential election isn’t even known on election night, and the Press doesn’t have the authority to decide elections anyway. And, in at least one instance, a Press headline was dead wrong. Rutgers reported,“There have been incorrect or premature claims of victory before, but usually the candidates know enough not to go overboard. Al Gore placed a concession call to George Bush on Election Night in 2000, and then had to withdraw his concession. (The concession is a formality, not legally binding.) With New York governor Thomas E. Dewey, he was predicted – wrongly – to beat President Truman in 1948 and newspapers ran headlines with the wrong news.” Second, the process for declaring a winner is an involved and lengthy one as well it should be given the enormity of the impact on the Nation, and it is precisely stated in Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution.Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.Third, there have been catalogued instances of fraud pertaining to both the casting of votes and the counting of them in this election. The DOJ is looking into this and the Arbalest Quarrel fully supports Attorney General William Barr in his efforts to ensure the integrity of our federal elections.And, President Trump has filed several lawsuits at least one of which is up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump has often warned of and accurately predicted the very disturbing happenstance that has transpired. There must be and there will be accounting. Trump is doing this less for himself than for the good of the Nation, our Constitution, and our people, consistent with the Oath of Office he took four years ago. The Arbalest Quarrel fully supports Trump in his worthy and critically important efforts to defend the integrity of our federal elections and, therewith, the preservation of our free Constitutional Republic and the sanctity of our citizenry's sacred fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, natural rights and liberties, bestowed on us by the one loving omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and morally perfect and beneficent Divine Creator.

THE INTEGRITY OF OUR FEDERAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL PROCESS MUST BE GUARANTEED AND PRESERVED

Trump has every right to question whether some States—principally Arizona, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Maine, and Pennsylvania—had conspired to secure the number of “mail-in” ballots necessary to get Biden to the magic number of 270—manufacturing the requisite number to tip the State over to Biden. Were each of these States truly diligent and honest in the implementation of their vote counting procedures and in deciphering lawful ballots? Recall that before the election—with paltry news coverage by the mainstream Press and the major networks—Democrats and those ruthless forces adamant in getting Biden and Harris into the White House, whatever it takes, filed a substantial number of lawsuits, 245, as reported by CBS News, to change election laws through Court action, not through the State Legislatures, just weeks before the election. But, under our Constitution, only the State legislatures, not the Courts, nor State Governors, nor State Bureaucrats, and that includes State elections officials', have the authority to enact laws, or implement their own procedures, governing the election of a U.S. President, and the election of Legislators, namely, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. See U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, supra.Democrats deliberately, consciously, unconscionably, diabolically sought to weaken safeguards for fair elections, utilizing the pretext of the Chinese Coronavirus to allow for the casting of millions of unsupervised, unsecured mail-in ballots in lieu of voting at the polls. And, for the most part, Democrats were successful, as activist jurists did weaken election laws, allowing for tens of millions of mail-in ballots to be sent out, with insufficient oversight as to how the ballots that were sent in were to be counted. See CBS news article.And, apart from the poll workers, looking at ballots, hand-counting them, deciding which ones to count and which ones not to count, another equally disturbing issue has cropped up, and that pertains to the machines utilized to tabulate votes.These machines are proprietary. One of the biggest purveyors of voting machines, certainly in past elections, is Diebald, Inc., a Company of questionable repute; a Company that is likely in league with the legion of forces marshalled against Trump. See bradblog. A purported computer “glitch” in voting machines manufactured by another Company, Dominion Voting Machines, gave votes to Biden that were supposed to go to Trump. On November 6, 2020, the website NOQ reported,“The same company that reported glitches with software updates in contested polling locations in Georgia is also behind the software glitch that seemingly reversed 5,500 votes in a county in Michigan.Dominion Voting Systems, which claims to work with 1300 voting jurisdictions including nine of the 20 largest counties in the nation, produced the software used in Michigan that erroneously gave Democratic candidate Joe Biden a 3,000 vote advantage in Antrim County. After the glitch was fixed, it was discovered that President Donald Trump actually won the county by around 2,500 votes.”  Problematic voting, discrepancies in tallying votes, vote harvesting, ballot dumps, statistical anomalies, and the fact that historically, incumbents rarely lose elections—these matters and others—all raise doubts as to the fairness of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. Never before in the history of our U.S. Presidential elections has voting—long residing for one day and one day only, in person, at the polls, been relegated to the mechanism of tens of millions of ballot by mail dumps allowing for early voting—often weeks in advance of the election—and late counting of ballots.President Trump and tens of million of Americans who cast their ballots for Trump have every right to be skeptical of the legality and legitimacy of the results, and with the avid assistance of a complicit seditious Press, may well have insinuated  imposter, Joseph Biden, on the Nation. So, yes, Trump has not conceded the election. But that hasn’t stopped the Leftist rag, Washington Monthly, to caustically remark:“So what would it look like if Trump refused to concede? Is there really a way he could stay in office? It’s unlikely. For starters, successful autocrats rarely lose elections. ‘They take steps to rig it well in advance,’ said Steven Levitsky, a comparative political scientist at Harvard University and the coauthor of How Democracies Die. They pack electoral authorities, jail opponents, and silence unfriendly media outlets. America’s extremely decentralized electoral system and powerful, well-funded opposition makes this very difficult to pull off.” In the above citation, zero in on the two sentences, “. . . successful autocrats rarely lose elections. They take steps to rig it well in advance.” True enough. But who is the autocrat, here? And, who likely rigged the election? Is it Donald Trump or the ruthless, powerful, inordinately wealthy, tight-nit, well-organized, and inherently secretive billionaire neoliberal Globalists who have machinated against Trump from the earliest days of his first term in Office, when they realized that they could not control him, to carry out their agenda, as those U.S. Presidents, had willingly done so before him: Bill Clinton, the two Bushes, and Obama. Again calling a person a name, ‘Autocrat,’ is self-serving and amounts to nothing more than a churlish childish prank. Labeling one with a pejorative doesn’t make it so. There is more than a little sleight of hand going on here.Peering at the last four years of Trump’s Administration provides a picture at odds with the bald assertion that Trump is an autocrat. If Trump were truly an autocrat, he has been a remarkably poor one. Apparently defending the U.S. Constitution as written, and supporting the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans, and placing emphasis on the needs and concerns and interests of our Nation and its people, and disdaining the starting of new wars and continuing old ones defines Trump’s Presidency as an autocracy according to the Press. Very odd, that!Still, the seditious Press routinely pushes the idea that Trump is an autocrat. Although the expression ‘autocrat’ refers to one person, consistent with its usual definition—think of such infamous examples as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others of bygone eras or those in our present one, reigning in third world countries and in failed states—the fact of the matter is that the import of the term has expanded exponentially. Autocracy is where this Country was headed under the Administrations of Trump’s immediate predecessors: a new world order autocracy. See Sheldon Wolin’s profoundly well-reasoned and prophetic work, “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” Yes the specter of totalitarianism, i.e., autocracy, tyranny, is alive and well, and a Biden/Harris Presidency is just the ticket to return the Country back to the game plan to convert our Nation into a totalitarian nightmare.The game plan was well underway and almost completed under Obama’s Presidency and would likely have been completed under the Hillary Clinton Administration—that is—before a wrench was thrown into the well-greased, well-oiled machine chugging toward the dissolution of our Nation-state.The hidden autocratic architects of our Nation’s downfall will be back on track on January 20, 2020 if it is Biden who is inaugurated President of the United States.And, no, Biden and Harris are not, themselves, autocrats, in any real sense, either, although they might appear to be. They are, rather, the willing puppets, the playthings, the chosen actors, of those who sit behind the scenes controlling the play as it unfolds here in the U.S. and on the world stage. The true autocrats are the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists—a few here at home and many others overseas—whom Biden refers to as our “allies.” It these secretive, sequestered Plutocrats who are the real autocrats, the ones calling the shots from afar.Apart from their new essential mainstays, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists have operated and continue to operate through a ragtag assortment of heterogenous groups: Globalist Marxists, Anarchists; Congressional Democrats; Bush Republicans; Radical Left academicians and jurists; tens of thousands of Radical Left federal bureaucrats securely ensconced in the Administrative Deep State; smugly complacent and sanctimonious Hollywood types; Radical Left Technology moguls; members of the central banking community; and, of course, a compliant, sympathetic seditious Press.These elements don’t care that Biden suffers from obvious mental and physical infirmities or that the duplicitous Harris has a loathsome, almost infinite capacity for crass opportunism and self-aggrandizement, who had been, unsurprisingly, rejected as a possible candidate by her own fellow democrats among the polity, during the Democrat Party Primaries. And yet, here they both are, seemingly out of nowhere, selected by the puppet masters as the stars in a new Broadway production, and on the brink of victory if the Billionaire Globalists have their way.The forces that have supported and worked to get these two into the White House find the character qualities of Biden and Harris just what they want, what they need. These two, Biden and Harris, are duplicitous, avaricious, amoral, obsequious toadies of the hidden puppet masters. Biden has sold out our Nation, during his tenure as Vice President under Obama, and both of them would do so now.The ruthless elements that support these two frauds do not represent the interests of this Nation; nor do they respect the Constitution. They are contemptuous of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people. Biden and Harris share their sensibilities.This isn’t to say Trump is a saint. He isn’t, never was. He is impetuous, boastful, prideful, like many successful, ambitious people. But Americans should look past this. When one considers Trump’s many accomplishments, on behalf of the Nation and its people, it is odd that many Americans would discount this, or ignore this altogether. Also see The Gadsden Times report on Trump's long list of major accomplishments. Rather, those Americans, unable to control their temper, having, it seems contracted an acute case of canine distemper, rage nonstop against Trump, eliciting the usual specious, insufferable comment that “Donald Trump doesn’t appear Presidential.” Or, they will echo the erroneous and ludicrous remark heard myriad times in the seditious Press that “Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobe” and, they will, of course, invariably reiterate one comment heard, perhaps, more than any other, that “Trump is an autocrat.” The public internalizes and, as if on cue, obediently parrots back the viral memes they have heard ad nauseum by the seditious Press: lame remarks indeed. Indeed, this seditious Press admits that when looking at those Americans who exhibit open hostility toward Trump, we see that this is predominately characterized and predicated on certain presumed personal characteristics; not on his politics. Many of these Americans will even acknowledge his positive accomplishments or admit their confusion in coming up with an accomplishment they disagree with. Still they voted against him, which says much about the power of the Press to sway public opinion. See AP news accounts. The seditious Press and those others who detest Trump and constantly rage against him fail to mention or even to consider that Trump has  always faithfully executed the laws of the United States, consistent with his duties under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It is far easier for the Press simply to ignore the truth of his faithful execution of his duties or to deny the fact out-of-hand, as as self-evident, true, when in fact the Press is simply a conduit for the expression of false narratives and utter bald-faced lies.Furthermore, Trump has completed or is in the process of completing many of his 2016 campaign promises. See Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “Trump Makes Good On 2016 Campaign Promises and Has Earned a Second Term.”Trump's accomplishments and his decisive attempt to make good on or having fulfilled many of his 2016 campaign promises during his first term in Office says volumes of his ability, intelligence, stamina, fortitude, dogged determination, and personal integrity. These are not only admirable character traits of any American citizen who would serve as the U.S. President; they are character traits that Americans have a right to expect from that citizen who would lay claim to the highest political position in the Land. They are character traits that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have not. But malevolent, malignant elements both here and home and abroad don’t care about any of that. What they want from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are obedient servants; that is to say, obedient servants to them, not to the American people, and to the Nation, and, above all, to the Nation's Constitution, without which the Nation ceases to exist. What these awful, ruthless malevolent, malignant Billionaire Globalist elites want are lapdogs; loyal servants to them upon whom they will lavish all manner of gifts. All that Biden and Harris need do, is obey the commands given to them, as would any obedient dog. These ruthless forces understand that the positive qualities of President Trump, to serve God, Country, people, and the U.S. Constitution, is of no value; it is of no moment; it does not serve their interests. So, it is not what they want. It's not what they ever wanted. It's not what they expect from the President of the United States. It is not what they bargained for. It's not what they expect from their President; their toady. It is not a component of their game plan. Service to God, to Country, to the American people, and to the Constitution, are all detrimental to their plans for a one world government. The system they envision has no use for God, or for independent, sovereign nation states, or for the well-being of the citizenry of those nation-states, or for the system of laws that undergird those nation-states, or for the history, traditions, culture, core values that have come to define the people of those nation-states.The forces that seek to crush Americans into submission have invested much time, money, and resources to disassemble the United States, and they seek a final return on their extensive investment. And that return they expect, covet, and intend to reap, entails completing the program that was rudely interrupted when the electorate voted Trump into Office. The forces that crush know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will give them everything they want; everything Hillary Clinton would have given them had she been elected to succeed the Administration of Barack Obama. Clinton in the White House had been expected. More, it had been, in their minds, ordained. And they were both embarrassed and enraged when they failed to sit their puppet in the Executive suite. With their lapdogs, Biden and Harris, in Office, they will move at warp speed to move well beyond even the illusion of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State. It is time now for the great reset.What these Billionaire Globalists and Corporatists been working so very long and tirelessly for is control over America’s resources; control over the geographical mass; and for inclusion of the tattered remains of the Nation-State, that was once an independent, sovereign Nation-State, into a global economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical amalgamation of those political and social and economic and cultural and juridical constructs that once existed as independent, sovereign nation-states; that had once been subject to their own rules of law; their own customs, their own culture. The success of the Billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites portends a hollowed out America; a diminished America not unlike the diminished nations of the EU. For these ruthless, amoral elements, such things as national pride, national identity, a shared national culture and history, have no place, no purpose. These things are to be tucked away as relics of a by-gone age, much as our historical flags and monuments have already been tucked away, boxed up, and carted off to the dark recesses of a museum or have otherwise been dismantled or destroyed outright. Only the trappings of the Nation will exist, will be permitted to exist, if only for a time: the Nation’s flag, perhaps, even as it is mocked by Radical Left Marxists, and by Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists. Perhaps a few of the Nation’s monuments—those considered innocuous, and that do not harbor even an inkling of national pride or significance—will be allowed to stand; and perhaps a few seals and emblems here and there; and, perhaps, a few documents will be allowed to be kept, albeit as historical curios, oddities, but as nothing more than that.

A DIMINISHED COUNTRY REQUIRES FOR ITS LEADER A DIMINISHED MAN: JOE BIDEN IS THAT MAN

Here we have a man who, as Vice President, in Barack Obama’s Administration, had not the desire to serve his Country but rather had the temerity to serve himself and his immediate family, lining his own pocket and that of his immediate family, by selling favors to and ingratiating himself with foreign adversaries: China, Russia, Ukraine, and other nations. Imagine how much more money Biden would be able to make for himself and his family, will be able to make, selling out our Country as U.S. President, not merely as Vice President of the United States. As the puppet of the neoliberal Globalist elites, Biden will be well taken care of, indeed, just as the Billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites have taken good care of their stooge, Barack Obama, and the Bushes, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. And, once Biden steps down, probably at some point during his first term, the sociopathic disingenuous, hypocritical, duplicitous Kamala Harris will slither in, take over, and, no doubt, run for U.S. President in 2024. 

JOE BIDEN: A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS?

One need not ask how it is that an intellectually deficient, emotionally and physical wreck of a man as he now is—one who has, in any event, when he did have command of his intellectual faculties, accomplished little if anything worthwhile in the half century he had been in politics, and whose own past allegiances and attachments, properly considered, happen to be contrary to the current Radical Leftist cultural milieu—could actually assume the Office of President of the United States? Biden is, on any estimate, extraordinarily ordinary. He is just the sort of man the Globalist elites would want; for he would be exceptionally easy to control; he will be exceptionally easy to control. As he, unlike Donald Trump, will listen to, will adhere to, will happily, eagerly and enthusiastically obey the directives of the experts, who will shepherd him through the intricacies of the Governmental processes, undercutting, erasing, eradicating Trump's myriad foreign and domestic policy accomplishments. The result will be renewed chaos in the Middle East and Africa; the destruction of small business and the American labor force; necessary public reliance on Government welfare assistance to maintain a modicum of survivability and sustenance; erosion of the Nation's sacred, and inviolate, fundamental, natural unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties; persistent, round-the-clock Government surveillance; the rape of our natural resources; hundreds of billions of dollars dropped into States sans adequate oversight; an end to border security; the abolition of any meaningful notion of 'citizen' of the United States; absolute corporatist and monopolistic control over the means of food and materials production, and over the flow of and creation of and distribution of information; degradation of health care; resurgence of a multiplicity of Global economic pacts and treaties that will provide the vehicle for subordination of our Constitution and subordination of our system of laws and jurisprudence; insinuation of Chinese Communist Government as well as Western Globalist elite control over the entirety of our institution of public education, indoctrinating the masses in the ideology and tenets of Collectivism; top-down control of all local, county, and State police forces; relaxing of criminal laws, allowing for waves of habitual criminals and the mentally ill out on the streets to prey on the polity, to keep the public constantly off-guard and in a constant state of fear; the coopting of our military by NATO and the UN; a massive, geometric progression in the accumulation of public debt to feed the insatiable appetite of the billionaire, neoliberal Globalist elites, reducing the Nation's population to an abject and endless state of penury; subordination of the national will to extrajudicial foreign tribunals, NGOs, and international organizations that will be impossible for the U.S. to extricate itself from, which is all by design to make the return to the nation-state construct and ideology of individualism impossible. This is just foretaste of what the American people can expect as the machinery for absolute and iron-clad control over the American people are set into motion during the first few weeks and months of the installation of Biden as the Neoliberal Globalist elite's President.And Joe Biden will be the vehicle through which the downfall of our Nation will occur. Is it really any surprise, then, that Joe Biden would emerge, seemingly impossibly as the Democrat Party's candidate for U.S. President? Could any of the others truly be counted on, so completely, so obediently, to toe the line and, at once, be certain to capture enough of the American vote to mask the subterfuge in vote gathering and tabulating going on behind the scenes? Could Bernie Sanders be counted on to toe the line of the ruthless, secretive Billionaire neoliberal Globalist Corporatists and, as well, be reasonably certain to secure enough honest votes by Americans to hide the subterfuge taking place behind the scenes, involving the millions of  manufactured, dishonest votes surreptitiously introduced into the mix? Who better than Joe Biden to play this role! Could Tulsi Gabbard do this? Or Elizabeth Warren? Or Amy Klobuchar; or Andrew Yang? Or Pete Buttigieg? Or Francis O'Rourke? Or Michael Bloomberg? Who better than Joe Biden has that seeming dignity, solemnity—especially with a little help from a legion of image-makers and handlers? And Barack Obama had his role to play too.Is it really any surprise that Barack Obama didn’t immediately come out in support of his former VP for the Democrat Party’s nominee for U.S. President to take on Donald Trump? Obama would certainly have had his reservations. He would certainly have known that most of the other nominees were in fact more qualified. Was Obama waiting for a cue from his benefactors, the Globalist elites, who had, as well, previously propped him to serve their ambitions? Did Obama therefore wait, obediently for his cue? Still, one might ask how it is that this man, Joe Biden, could garner support from an electorate when he had accomplished nothing useful for the Country, and, who comes with his own "racist" baggage and, yet, is now so close to securing the U.S. Presidency, along with the duplicitous, opportunist, Kamala Harris, in tow, who is chomping at the bit to sit in the Oval Office herself? Well, the Billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites poured a lot of money into this election and were certainly involved in more than a little manipulation in the tallying of votes and in hacking into the voting machines to give Biden a substantial edge, without arousing too much suspicion of underhanded dealing other than what could be plausibly denied. Obviously, elaborately conceived, immaculately planned, hermetically sealed, and extremely well executed chicanery goes a long way in sitting an otherwise distinctly commonplace, mediocre man in high Office—even in the highest Office of the Land.Apparently it is enough to expect from much of the public that they would elect the team of Biden and Harris, not for their policies—which they have kept mostly silent about, even if the public would have had a good inkling of that anyway—but simply because he isn’t Trump. So, apart from machinations at the polls and with mail-in ballots, and with hijacked voting machine software that handed the election to Biden and Harris, is there anything, really, that endears many Americans to this decidedly unexceptional team of Biden and Harris other than the irrational desire to defeat Donald Trump? And that, apparently is enough. And, as a result, this Nation will see the Country eviscerated as various stakeholders—comprising western Neoliberal Globalist Corporatist bosses, and Xi Jinping's Manchurian Communist overseers, and the riff-raff of  the world's Socialists, Communists, Marxists and Anarchists insist on and receive return for their investment in these two.But, average Americans who did cast votes for Biden and Harris, what do they receive for their vote? Sure, they get Trump out of the Oval Office, but what then? Does the Country return to what they think is normalcy? Really? Is it not the case that average Americans have simply been duped? And, if so, How is it that so many educated Americans could have fallen for the charade? The answer to that question rests in something that receives precious little attention but has been central in securing public support for or, at least, public acquiescence to a Biden/Harris Presidency since the outset of the campaign, which, indeed took place not for a period of months, but for a period of years—ever since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office, to serve as the 45th President of the United States.  The American public fell hook, line, and sinker to a massive, rigorous program of brainwashing, of psychological conditioning. The public was the victim of a mammoth Psychological Operations program, or PSYOPS. See recent AQ article, titled, “Americans Embroiled in A Counterrevolution: “The Future Of The Country Rests In The Balance,”  and  AQ article titled, “Treacherous Americans Pose the Greatest Threat to the Survival Of Our Nation,” That many Americans would vote for Biden, given his obvious mental, emotional, and physical failings, along with a lack of integrity and honesty, and with little if any knowledge of what his political, social, economic, and geopolitical policies are, says much about the impact that years of psychological conditioning of the public’s psyche has had on the public’s critical faculties. PSYOPS doesn’t work overnight. It involves a slow, methodical process of conditioning the masses to adopt a particular set of beliefs. More conditioning is required to egg them on to action. The result is that, if enough people can be encouraged to act against their own best interests, a mighty Nation can be destroyed without a gunshot fired. Such is the power of PSYOPS.The father of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays and the proponent and great exploiter of propaganda’s uses, Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels, would be well-pleased if they could but see how their well-honed tool has come to be used to such great effect against the American people.

CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE ENCOURAGED TO FORSAKE THEIR CONSTITUTION SO EASILY?

That segment of the American public that feels in a partying move should step back for a moment and pause to consider the import of Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”Are these just empty words?How often has the public borne witness to the lies Biden recited during his two debates with Trump or of the blather Biden’s handlers have recently given him to utter, with, no doubt more vacuous pabulum to come in the days ahead?How often have Americans heard the seditious Press cavalierly and perfunctorily dismiss well-documented instances of massive fraud and corruption on the part of Joe Biden and many other senior level Government officials, through utilization of such curt and snippy expressions as: “unsubstantiated rumors,” or “unsubstantiated accounts,” or “wholly debunked reports” or “no evidence of wrongdoing” or “baseless accusations” or “no violations of law,” expecting the public to take these phrases as gospel, self-evident truths? Too many times to count! So, it should not be surprising to anyone that the Press, along with cable “news” shows like CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR, and the big three television networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC would once again fall back on phrases that have become so hackneyed that they have lost any significance. They have become mere substitutes and stand-ins for, rather than assertions of judgment rendered only after hard-slogging investigation of the truth of a matter. But then, “news” sources today aren’t in the business to report the news, to inform the public. They are in the business to spin yarns; to encourage the public to accept fiction merely posing as fact and to get the public to behave in certain pre-defined ways in accordance with the whim, wishes and wiles of their Globalist benefactors.The job of the Press today has been transformed. The job of the Press isn’t to hold Government accountable to the people; to hold Government in check, but, rather, to hold the people in check; to seduce and prod the public into believing and accepting the prevailing myths and memes of the ruthless, powerful, wealthy, jealous forces bent on tearing our Nation asunder, leaving its people in tatters, and its Constitution in shreds, as it subsumes the vestiges of our Country and those of other western nations in a new, massive transnational corporatist confederation: a new world order. Many in the Press have degenerated into collaborators of, indeed prostitutes for, the Globalist elites.The new job of the Press corps is to project carefully sketched narratives onto the public psyche. These narratives are designed to create in the public mind the idea that the Globalist agenda is a good thing, a positive thing for the Nation, when it is nothing of the sort. It is diseased and is intended to sicken and destroy the sanctity of the American spirit, not lift it up and purify it.This, then, is the new undertaking of the Press corps. And, too, it is the job of the of the functionaries of the Globalist elites whose faces they have presented to the public even as these elites themselves remain hidden, sequestered in monolithic homes and offices around the world. The Globalist elites’ functionaries or overseers have included Henry Kissinger; George W. Bush and the late George H.W. Bush; Bill and Hillary Clinton; the late John McCain; Barack Obama; and now they have enlisted the aid of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.But why these last two, in particular, rather than any of the other Democrat Party Candidates for U.S. President? Why, indeed? Is it not but for the reason that the propagandists for the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” have determined that these two, in their very mediocrity and obsequious desire to please those who bestow on them, shower them continuously with material rewards—money, fame, an illusion of power—have the best chance of defeating Trump? The very expression that Biden has used to describe himself— “political moderate”—is in one sense a bald-faced lie, but in another sense it is true, if one treats the word, ‘moderate,’ as a synonym for ‘mediocre,’ ‘middling,’ ‘passable,’ ‘ordinary.’ For the expression is more characteristic of Biden’s nature and much less an apt, accurate descriptor of his politics, as Biden’s politics—if he has any firm convictions on that score—are, at best, cryptic, or, at worst, simply a nebulous, inarticulable muddle.

A TICKET INTO THE WHITE HOUSE? ATTACH ONE PLACID, UNASSUMING, NONTHREATENING PERSONAGE TO ANOTHER ASSERTIVE, CAUSTIC, PSEUDO-CHARISMATIC BLACK FEMALE

The propagandists and image makers have come to realize that, given the antipathy toward whiteness and maleness that many Americans have come to embrace through carefully nourished psychological conditioning, these Americans are anxious to place a black female in high Office.Kamala Harris is the perfect complement to Joe Biden, as he is a non-descript, non-threatening exemplar of the new male. The propagandists and image makers, on behalf of their Globalist benefactors, had apparently concluded that the best way to maximize votes and the best chance to gain control of the reins of Government and thereby return that control over their benefactors, the Neoliberal Globalist elites, is to plant an unassuming man in the Oval Office. Once that is accomplished, and realizing that there is just so much they can do to keep up the pretense of maintaining a man suffering from the throes of incipient dementia in Oval Office, is to slowly ease him out of Office, replacing him with a younger, energetic, intelligent black female.With their placeholders safely ensconced in Office, the Globalist elites will once again be able to return to their agenda, having complete control over one Branch of the U.S. Government, and having much and perhaps total control of the Legislative Branch of Government as well. That will leave them to contend with the third Branch.While Biden can, as Chief Executive, easily eliminate and will eliminate all of Trump’s executive orders, and as he can and will slowly work, as ordered by his overseers, to unwind Trump’s foreign and domestic policies with the help of a generally, compliant, complicit Congress, it is quite another matter having to deal with Trump’s three U.S. Supreme Court nominees, now firmly residing on the High Court Bench. They will take action to neutralize the impact of a five to four Conservative-wing, Strict Constitutionalist Majority.The Globalists chose their puppets well: basing their selection on outward superficialities, anticipated to be amenable to the public, and inward horrific character flaws, which would be useful to the Globalists themselves. Thus, Biden and Harris are mere placeholders, nothing more. They will be given money, and prestige, and a semblance of power, and, in return, they will obey all directives presented to them by their benefactors. Pretending to serve the interests of Americans, the Nation and the Constitution, they will, instead, subvert all three.That Biden is obviously in mental decline and emotionally more sycophant than leader and that Kamala Harris has all the characteristics of a sociopath: ruthlessly opportunistic, mendacious, unemotional, uncaring—indeed, everything that Hillary Clinton is and that every normal person is not—it is most telling that the worst sort of people can end up in control of the second Branch of Government, subservient to their Globalist overseers; and most happy to serve them as their own goals have now been realized.And, in this realization, we see the faults that inured to Donald Trump—faults unforgivable to the Globalist elites.The Billionaire Globalist elites unleashed the dogs of war on Trump and never let up. Their minions unleashed incessant, unparalleled attacks on Trump and on those closest to him, including his own beautiful, respectful, and devoted family. And they did this because Trump would not toe the line. He refused to accept and work toward fulfilling the Globalist agenda. He would not play the role his predecessors played. In fact, he was antithetical to playing any role.Trump took his “America First” and “Make America Great Again” slogans to heart. These slogans when converted into actionable policy objectives are antithetical to the Globalists’ goal for a one-world system of governance. So, the slogans had to be treated not only as inappropriate catch phrases for America, but as inherently evil; irreligious; even obscene. His policies had to be sabotaged. Trump had to be removed. And the seditious, compliant, obedient Press, and academia, and Big Tech, and the Democrat Party leadership, and Wall Street, and the Government Bureaucracy, and the Bush Republicans, too, all went diligently to work.For the last four years, ever since Donald Trump took the oath of Office as the 45^th President of the United States, the sanctimonious, seditious Press—the foghorn of Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists and Radical Left Marxists—has sought to destroy this man, as their benefactors, the Globalist “elites” demanded. The Press sought to take down this man whom the American people had elected to return America back to Americans. They elected Trump to the highest Office in the Land for the singular purpose of preserving their Nation and the fundamental rights that undergird the Nation. And Trump sought, for four years, to do just that, and, whether motivated principally by personal ambition or by true concern for the American people, the Nation, and the Constitution, in accordance with the Oath he took, the Globalists would have none of it; could stomach none of it; would not abide it. For over two decades, under the Administrations of their puppets, the Secret Society Skull and Bones Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, they quietly, inexorably moved the Nation toward dissolution. Much of the electorate had seen this and understandably rebelled.In a very real sense, then, the impact of the present election shouldn’t be construed as an isolated event, critical as it is; but simply one more tool in the Globalist elites’ armory that was retooled to accomplish the Globalists’ purposes. But, despite tens of millions of people whom the seditious Press was able to turn against Trump, through relentless, unceasing campaigns of disinformation, noninformation, and misinformation, there were tens of millions more who supported him as they did in 2016. Indeed, he brought into the fold, minority groups as well, much to the consternation and dismay of the Globalists and their Democrat Party cohorts.These powerful forces never believed that Trump would or could actually secure the Presidency in 2016, and, so, the allowed, the U.S. electoral process to proceed sans tampering. Much to their chagrin they realized that Trump had secured the majority of electoral votes necessary to snatch victory from their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, the unholy offspring of the forbears. But it was too late to prevent Trump from assuming the U.S. Presidency.These same powerful forces may have attempted, for a short period of time, to encourage, and then cajole to work with them on their behalf as his predecessors had done. When it was clear Trump wouldn’t oblige them, they went to work to remove him from Office, trusting they could do so before Trump’s domestic and foreign policy objectives would cause irreparable damage to their plans for global control. They failed, but not for want of trying.Recall those attempts to bring Trump down during his first term in Office. Those strategies included: a lengthy DOJ probe into purported illegal dealings of Trump’s Campaign Associates with Russia; a House impeachment bizarrely grounded on one perfectly reasonable, aboveboard call between U.S. President Trump and the President of the Ukraine; inappropriate utilization of the 25th Amendment to the United States; and outright sabotage of Trump’s foreign and domestic policies. Yet, despite all these well-planned and executed, time-consuming, costly, mammoth efforts to unseat Trump, that the malevolent, malignant forces had marshalled against Trump, each of them came to naught. If they were to succeed in dumping Trump, they would have to do so through manipulation of the Electoral process.Seen in this light, is the likelihood of massive election fraud, beyond the realm of probability? Is it not, rather, the last-ditch effort of desperate elements at home and abroad to take out Trump, once and for all?Understandably, President Trump, and the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, have every right to be skeptical about events that have unfolded during this election. Indeed, has not Trump warned about this eventuality months before the election, fully aware that the powerful, malevolent forces aligned against him would not permit him to serve a second term in Office, and would be perfectly capable of creating the illusion that their feeble-minded stooge would actually garner the necessary electoral votes to defeat Trump—that Biden would emerge victorious, and that the process would be all nice, tidy, and seemingly legal? And, has not the seditious Press sounded the Halcyon alarm, telling the public that Trump would, after all, contest the fairness of the election, which they knew he would do, must do; and, so, having sounded the alarm in advance, did they not intend to create the illusion that the results of the contest would be fair and aboveboard knowing full well that they are not; that the fix was in; and that Trump was simply a “bad sport;” would always be a sore loser, and was doing what had been expected of him and that the public should not be surprised—turning attention again on Trump and away from their own illegal, reprehensible antics?So the burning question remains. Did Biden receive sufficient legitimate votes to actually turn the tide, or did Trump actually obtain more votes—votes sufficient to get him to 270, as he succeeded in doing in 2016?The Globalists were this time mindful of the uniqueness of America’s Electoral College and they made sure that, with a little nefarious help from friends, from collaborators in the kitchens where a few special votes could be prepared, and where a few more votes could be cooked up in special computer program ovens, Biden would indeed make it over the 270 hurdle.But, again, we note, Trump hasn’t conceded the election. And, again, we say, he should not; must not. There is too much at stake—the very existence of a free Constitutional Republic. And there is clear evidence of wrongdoing even if the Press argues otherwise, and attempts, once again, ever again, to deter, like a carnival magician, the public’s gaze from the truth; declaring Biden the winner, even though the seditious Press has no such power to declare anything; only to report the news  which it rarely does and to draw attention away from critical matters which it always does.  The U.S. Supreme Court has to take a look at a few of those State “kitchens” to see just what has been cooked up and baked.As the seditious Press heralds Biden’s seeming victory, on behalf of the Globalist elites and Xi Jinping’s Communist China, Americans should not fall for this new subterfuge; for subterfuge it is.

ANYONE WHO CLAIMS BIDEN IS THE PRESIDENT-ELECT IS EITHER LYING OR MISINFORMED

Yes, the NY Times shamelessly and irresponsibly blurts out that “Biden Beats Trump,” but it carefully couches its words in a discrete caption in that same November 8, Sunday Times article, when it says: “Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Kamala Harris were declared the victors on Saturday after they widened their unofficial margin in Pennsylvania.” The use of the passive voice in the caption gives an inkling as to the truth of the matter. For one must ask, who declared Biden and Harris victors? The Press cannot really do so, and, in that small caption, it doesn’t say, because it cannot. In fact no one can say for certain, at this point in time, who won the election. Times reporters reiterate the assertion that “Biden was declared the winner,” slyly utilizing the same passive voice to mask the fact that, Biden has won nothing because only the U.S. Senate has ultimate authority to officially certify the winner of a U.S. Presidential election, and the Country is far from that goal. So far, the only declarations of Biden's purported victory in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election have come from the seditious newspapers and from some cable and network pseudo-news shows that raged against Donald Trump's Presidency since the day he took the Oath of Office. But, the declarations of the seditious Press and other seditious media sources don't mean a damn thing except to their base and to other uneducated, uninformed individuals among the electorate who fervently wish to believe that Biden won the election or who otherwise accept, if only reluctantly, the statements of media who deliberately, happily spread the lie, like all the other lies and fabrications they have spun for the last four years that have done nothing to benefit the security and well-being of the Nation and the well-being of the American people and have done everything to harm the Nation and its people.The certification process of a U.S. President is a complex, multi-step process, with several critical steps along the way. See the website, the conversation:“Once a final tally of voters’ in-person, mail-in and provisional ballots has been concluded, all 50 governors prepare their state’s Certificate of Ascertainment, a document listing their electors for the competing candidates.Each state completes that process at its own rate. This year, because of the pandemic, finalizing the electoral vote count will likely take a lot longer. Once completed, copies of the Certificate of Ascertainment are then submitted to the U.S. Archivist.After the governor submits names to the Archivist, each state’s Electoral College electors meet in the state capital – D.C.‘s meet in D.C. – to formally cast their votes for president and vice president on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year, that’s Dec. 14, 2020.On Jan. 6, Congress convenes to count the electoral votes and certify the winner of the election.Because the sitting vice president also serves as president of the Senate, Mike Pence will preside over this count in 2021, just as Vice President Joe Biden did in January 2017 when Donald Trump officially became president-elect. Each state, called upon in alphabetical order, files its votes. . . .At the end of the Senate’s electoral vote count, the vice president announces the results and asks if there are any objections. . . .After the Senate certifies the election results, all the Certificates of Ascertainment and Certificates of Vote then become available for public review at the Office of the Federal Registrar for one year, then transferred to the National Archives for the permanent record. Those who question the outcome of a U.S. election, in other words, can actually double-check the tabulations themselves.Established almost 250 years ago, this complex process is a foundation of American democracy. Many have questioned whether this antiquated system truly represents the will of the people in modern America.But for 2020, it remains the process that will decide the presidential race.” Given these lengthy, involved steps and given the fact of Hillary Clinton’s downfall in the last election, this helps explain why the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites through their toadies in the Democrat Party would like nothing better than to do away with the Nation’s Electoral College and the complex, comprehensive, seemingly, as they see it, messy process required.The Globalists want to adopt a simple process, oft referred to as the national popular vote. On the face of it, absent serious reflection, it may seem, to some, to make sense: one man equals one vote. Tally up all the votes and see who wins. But like so many seemingly simple answers to complex questions, this one hides a den of vipers.First, going to a national popular vote format to decide U.S. Presidential elections invites mob rule. It is easy to manipulate the minds of the masses. It is much more difficult to control the mind of the individual as is necessary with the present Electoral system we have in place.Second, the national popular vote idea isn’t really democratic at all, as it would allow a few major geographic regions to decide America’s future for the greater segment of the Country, denying many States any participation in the selection process at all; hardly fair, then. That is why the framers of our Constitution, having decided against a national popular vote—and they did consider it, along with other mechanisms as it isn’t a recent, novel idea—decided that use of a national popular vote mechanism to select our Nation’s President is not a sensible idea at all.The last four years, and especially the last few months, should convey to any reasonable mind the dangers of mob influence and mob rule. See the website liberty talks. Utilization of a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College is a horrible idea, but one the Democrats and their Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist benefactors have latched onto. Another similar horrible idea, really an extension of the national popular vote scheme is referred to as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If instituted this would destroy the very idea inherent in Federalism, as a few States with extraordinarily large populations, concentrated in a few major urban areas, would decide U.S. Presidential elections. The majority of States and their citizens would be aced out. Votes cast in those States would be reduced essentially to a nullity. This is Gerrymandering extended to the entire Country. Unscrupulous agents of this approach would only need to control small highly concentrated centers of individuals, utilizing them as a convenient proxy for the entire Country. The Neoliberal Globalist elites and their toadies in Congress, in the Press and in the academia don’t want to have to cope with a Nation of tens of millions of critical thinkers. No! They want a collection of sheep that can be and are easily led simple, carefully designed slogans. They then sprinkle those slogans with feigned notions of morality to tug at the public’s emotional strings. Lastly, they repeat these slogans over and over through the echo chamber of a seditious Press. The mob internalizes these slogans into their subconscious. The slogans become part of their sacred belief system, their new religion. They think the ideas implicit in the slogans are their own ideas. They are oblivious to the fact that these aren’t their ideas at all. They are false memories; planted in their psyche by the propaganda masters.Consider some of the relatively old, well-worn slogans, expressions, and verbiage and some relatively new ones that have been projected into the public psyche. Some are straightforward, some simplistic; some complex.These memes, i.e., mental viruses, some of which may become archetypal patterns firmly planted in the collective unconscious, which are designed to create a specific response in the psyche, positive or negative, include:

• Black Lives Matter
• Trump is a Racist, Sexist, Xenophobe, Homophobe, Misogynist . . .
• White Privilege
• White Supremacist
• Critical Race Theory
• Biden is a ‘Political Moderate’
• MS 13 gang members are human beings, not animals
• Trump keeps children in cages
• “People will do what they do”
• Antifascists aren’t Fascists
• Systemic Racism
• Police are Racists
• Christianity is the White Man’s Religion
• America was built on slavery

And on and on and on.Many Americans seem to be more susceptible to these memes; easily sensitized to them; their psyches highly malleable. Thus, they accept policy prescriptions designed to destroy their individuality and selfhood, and withal, their fundamental rights and sovereignty which they willingly cede over to Government.Apart from outright lies, news blackouts, comprehensive misinformation and disinformation campaigns, and construction of elaborate fictional narratives engaged in by the seditious Press, Americans have witnessed massive censorship conducted by the major social media and internet monopolies, namely, Google, Facebook, Twitter, MSN, and Amazon.com. These elaborate, mammoth propaganda campaigns which, together, amount to one huge RICO enterprise have increased exponentially since the day Trump took Office. The American public has been the target and test subject of information distortion the likes of which have never before existed in human civilization. The seditious Press and social media distorts and contorts reality to such an extent that Americans view of their Country as represented to them is the polar opposite that which exists. The idea imprinted on the mind of the public that Trump is an autocrat is but one salient example. One other is presented in the following assertion by, what is referred to as the LGBTQ Community on the website LGBTQNation. On its website, they posted the following, which reads in pertinent part:“During the late 1940s, researchers, led by Theodor Adorno, studied the historical conditions that paved the way for the rise of fascist regimes in the 1920s and 1930s, World War II, and the Holocaust. They theorized about individuals who would support the growth of fascism.They suggested that people of a certain personality type, which they labeled the “authoritarian personality,” were most ripe for extremism, in this case, those most susceptible to anti-Jewish prejudice and anti-democratic political beliefs.They relinquished their autonomy and critical thinking faculties for the prospect of going back to a future reminiscent of a (mythic) idealistic past of economic, political, social, cultural, and personal security, where their “ingroup” won and led, and those “outgroups” served obediently and acquiesced to “ingroup” needs and demands.They relinquished their autonomy and critical thinking faculties for the prospect of going back to a future reminiscent of a (mythic) idealistic past of economic, political, social, cultural, and personal security, where their “ingroup” won and led, and those “outgroups” served obediently and acquiesced to “ingroup” needs and demands.They pledged obedience and allegiance to a powerful leader or social institution. In other words, they surrendered their freedom for the promise of social and personal security, which usually includes the suppression of those outside the circle, the “others.”So why did so many Americans vote to reelect President Donald Trump, a dangerous demagogue?He painted a gruesome image of a post-apocalyptic United States, replete with vicious marauding gangs, gunshots whizzing throughout the inner cities, decrepit crumbling structures and highways, rampant poverty, declining socialist-inspired health care systems, imminent terrorist attacks, ruthless criminal drug-dealing rapist invaders from our southern border.He continued to incite hatred and violence at his rallies, and fear, stereotyping and scapegoating all Muslims and so-called “illegal aliens,” promised to punish women who have had and their doctors who have performed abortions, argued that he would continue to restructure the Supreme Court to an ultra-conservative majority, which would, thereby, reverse both Roe v. Wade and marriage equality.And he perennially pledged to “Make America Great Again.” ” Pay particular attention to the paragraph: “They relinquished their autonomy and critical thinking faculties for the prospect of going back to a future reminiscent of a (mythic) idealistic past of economic, political, social, cultural, and personal security, where their “ingroup ” won and led, and those “outgroups” served obediently and acquiesced to “ingroup” needs and demands.”Autonomy and critical thinking are qualities embraced in the tenets of Individualism, which are the foundation of the fundamental rights and liberties of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, along with the Constitution's Articles that establish a Federal Government of very carefully delineated, limited powers. Those qualities are not existent in Collectivism which is the obverse of Individualism, which the LGBTQ community, at least this faction of it, adheres to, as is evident in their emphatic, unrestrained, libelous attack on Trump. But, more to the point, as can be seen from the above passage of LGBTQNation, and the reason we cite it, is not to launch an attack on LGBTQ members but, rather, to illustrate how propagandists coopt sacred ideas for ignoble purposes to support the antithesis of what these organizations espouse. This is a recurrent theme of the propagandists. The last thing they want to embrace is a Nation of autonomous individuals and critical thinkers. And now we are at the precipice of disaster. Once this Nation falls off the Cliff into the Abyss below, it will be impossible to to soar back to the Cliff's edge. The best our Nation can hope for at that point is to conjure up a parachute in the hope of slowing the descent so as to lessen the impact of a hard landing. And good luck with that.If Biden is in fact elected U.S. President, our Nation's people will witness the very thing that the Press is telling us we have avoided were we to see a second term of Trump in Office. That is a bald-faced lie. Biden and Harris are tools of the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites. With each passing day Americans will see how their fundamental rights and liberties are curtailed. First Amendment speech will abridged and the Second Amendment will slowly, inexorably be constricted until it exists, at best, as a privilege. Get set for Tyranny, writ large for we are doomed. In our earliest articles that the Arbalest Quarrel posted on its website, we dealt in detail with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's passion, the New York Safe Act of 2013. We wrote about the  NY Safe Act at length, and pointed to Cuomo's intent to see the NY Safe Act as the model for the Nation. It would be an irony for the ages to witness the NY Safe Act adopted for the entire Nation in lieu of National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation that this Nation could have seen when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress back in 2014. Legislation did pass the House, but Senator McConnell allowed it to die in Senate Committee, and once Democrats regained control of the House, such legislation would never be passed. The question now is whether and to what extent the Second Amendment can withstand a Biden Presidency if in fact it is he and not Trump who takes the Oath of Office on January 20, 2021 and if the Republican Party loses control of the Senate. Do not expect the Heller and McDonald cases to withstand a concerted effort by Radical Left Democrats to overturn the central holdings of those cases. With Biden in Office and with Democrats in full control of the House, Congress will draft legislation and will enact legislation to pack the Court, to negate a conservative-wing majority. It would then be a relatively easy matter for a new Second Amendment case to wend its way to the high Court and, with a new liberal-wing majority, the central holdings of Heller and McDonald will be overturned. This isn't mere supposition. It is the goal of the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites to destroy independent sovereign nation-states to use transnational economic pacts and treaties to gain political control of all western nations just as the nations of the EU are subject to political, social, cultural, and juridical control through Governmental arms located in Brussels. An armed citizenry is both antithetical to and an anathema to the Collectivists, and de facto erasure of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is high on the list of those who are anxious to bring the U.S. into the EU fold.Clearly, the fix was in prior to the present election. The election we have witnessed is simply an extension of what we have seen before; the engineering of Trump's downfall, which entails the downfall of the Nation, the dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic, and the subjugation of the American citizenry, reduced to penury and unending misery. And we saw the machinery in motion with a sudden revamping and loosening of State elections law procedures through the courts at the behest of the Democrat Party machinery, bankrolled by Billionaire Globalists. If these ruthless forces can get away with this, America’s worst fear will be realized. After 244 years, the Nation will have died. Has it all come to that? Has a Nation that was born in fire and flame now to die by nary anything more than a mere whimper, through nefarious undertakings by forces that have sought his Nation’s demise for decades?The seditious Press has long pointed to a Biden/Harris win, citing their preferred polls to support that fervent wish, albeit the election never became the voter blow-out they had wished for and had apparently expected, contrary to the predictions of their favored pollsters. But perhaps that was all shadow play to discourage Trump supporters; to hide what they expected, indeed what they long knew could be a victory for the incumbent, Donald Trump, despite the savaging of the life of many Americans and the destruction of the economy, courtesy of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus unleashed upon the Nation and the world.Knowing this, fearing a Trump victory, one must ponder whether powerful forces manufactured tens of thousands of fictitious ballots and developed other strategies to make certain that Biden would edge out Trump in the coming election.Was the election truly aboveboard and fair or was it more akin to those we see in Banana Republics and which we roundly denounce: an illusion, a puppet show, an abject farce?Keep in mind that it is rare for an incumbent U.S President to lose an election. Even so, the mainstream seditious Press dismisses out-of-hand the suggestion that massive fraud had occurred, falling back on the usual verbiage to perfunctorily deny that Trump could have won the election; denying out-of-hand that Trump win the election. The Press can have none of that. The Globalist elites can have none of that. The election was their last chance to destroy the Trump Presidency and they made certain that they would not screw this up.Trump’s legal team is, at best, fighting a rearguard action. This buys time for Trump and for the electorate who had cast their votes for him, and it is predicated on the fact that much of the votes for Biden are not legally cast votes at all. If true, the question is: how many ballots comprise unlawful, illegal attempts by fierce opponents of Trump who insist on dragging the feeble Biden and his duplicitous cohort, Harris, across the finish line to take illegitimate control of the Executive Branch of Government? If those unlawful, illegal votes are greater in number in certain specific States that went to Biden when the votes really went to Trump, then the electoral map that the seditious Press displays is erroneous.Of course, the collaborators in the charade could easily hide their tracks, and probably did so. Many of the illegal votes cast have not been segregated from the legally cast votes. So, the American public will never know the truth. Those that have been deluded into thinking they want the Biden/Harris team in the White House will be thrilled and don’t care how the team gets there; just that it does. Other Americans do care and will and ought to care deeply that those in the White House, namely Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, are imposters, and don’t belong there at all. If the integrity of the electoral process is justifiably in doubt, there can be no unity in this Country, and Biden’s call for unity is not only impossible it’s insulting and absurd.

ABOUT THAT ELECTION PROCESS IN EACH OF THE STATES—

Each State, through its Legislature, establishes the mechanisms governing the procedure to be utilized in federal elections. Uniformity from State to State doesn’t exist; isn’t meant to exist as none is required. Still, whatever those mechanisms and procedures for casting, collecting and counting ballots, are, and whether one votes at the polls or—more frequently now—by applying for an absentee ballot or, as in some states, by ballots mailed to households (notwithstanding that such States have no assured way of knowing who is residing in that household), one thing about voting in federal elections is absolutely clear: only a citizen of the United States has the legal right to vote in federal elections, to select members of Congress and to select the President of the United States.Of course, with Biden in the White House and both Houses in control of Congress, Congress could enact a law to permit non-citizens the right to vote in federal elections. The U.S. Constitution itself does not appear to prevent that. Even so, if Congress is reluctant to extend the right to vote to some non-citizens, they can more easily at least expand the domain of individuals who are not, at the moment, citizens of the United States such as those who fall under the purview of DACA. That would provide Democrats with millions of new voters likely to vote for Democrats. Then there is the matter of the the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that a citizen be at least 18 years of age to vote. A Constitutional Amendment to lower the age to, say, 16, might be within the realm of possibility with a new era in America that sees the Collectivist vision taking hold. And, there is still a question whether citizens who are convicted felons or who have been adjudicated an incompetent or who have been disenfranchised for violations of election laws may still vote in federal elections. Each State has established its own requirements. But, a Democrat Party controlled House and Presidency can see enactment of federal law allowing voting rights extended well beyond anything that many States presently provide for and allow.At the moment lax elections laws, many of them, most curiously, concocted very recently, are an open invitation to widespread voter fraud. Thus, what should be deemed a notable strength of our democratic process, can also operate, and apparently has operated, as a serious weakness and notable flaw. We see this in the present election, where extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, innately ruthless forces, intent on making sure Trump doesn’t secure a second term in Office, have reconfigured elections laws so that the voting process can be easily manipulated, thereby ensuring that Biden/Harris cannot lose. Thus, tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions—of unlawful ballots may have been counted and accepted as legitimate votes when they should have been thrown out. Similarly, lawful votes may not have been counted, skewing votes in favor of Biden over Trump, giving Biden—the Globalists’ favored candidate—votes necessary to win a State’s electoral votes. Knowing the critical importance of the rust-belt States, and of the importance of Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina, one must need ask: “did vote tampering occur?” Or, more to the point, “how could vote tampering have not occurred, given so many new and lax elections’ laws sanctioned by courts just days or weeks before the election, and without input from State legislatures as required by the U.S. Constitution?”And then there is the issue of illegal aliens in this Country, tens of millions of them. What assurances do Americans have that these people have not cast votes in the 2020 election. If we are to believe that Biden secured four million more votes than Trump, who among those who cast votes for Biden, votes that then were harvested, might not be illegal aliens? Since the vast majority of votes cast in the 2020 election were mail-in ballots and, in many  States, ballots were sent to homes absent a specific request for a ballot. What sort of verification process, if any, did such ballots go through? Given the consequences of this election on the future of our Nation, this matter deserves careful consideration. The organization Fairus.org writes,___________________________________Mass immigration has had a significant effect on American electoral politics. Despite the fact that it is a crime for aliens to vote in federal elections, noncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts. This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress. This also translates into more electors under the Electoral College for such states, which means that noncitizens also exert an indirect influence on presidential elections.In addition, there is evidence that both foreign nationals who are lawfully present in the United States and illegal aliens – who have already broken the law by their unauthorized presence in the country – have voted in recent elections. During the 2016 election cycle, noncitizens were discovered on voter registration rolls in both Virginia and Pennsylvania. And the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York charged a Canadian woman with making a false claim to citizenship after she registered and voted in more than 20 elections.Several past elections – for the presidency and other offices – have been extremely close. Accordingly, ballots cast by noncitizen voters have the potential to improperly alter the outcome of elections. Consider how close the 2000 presidential election was – and how tight recent congressional and gubernatorial elections, have been. Could the outcomes have been affected by noncitizen voting? The answer is probably yes.With the 2020 election fast approaching, the possibility exists that voting by noncitizens could significantly influence the results. Many “immigrants’ rights” groups contend that noncitizen voting constitutes a harmless misunderstanding of the rules and should not cause great concern. Even worse, a small but vociferous and radical minority of open-borders enthusiasts has claimed that noncitizen voting is actually a good thing! However, this approach undermines the rule of law. It also enables individuals whose interests may not coincide with those of the American people to exert influence on our domestic politics. Given the rate at which both the legal and illegal alien populations have been allowed to grow, the United States should be concerned with ensuring that the electoral power of U.S. citizens is not undermined and with protecting the United States from foreign influence through “diaspora diplomacy.”Proponents of noncitizen voting point out that the practice was common throughout much of U.S. history. This is true, but also quite misleading. Yes, aliens were often allowed to vote from the 1780s into the early twentieth century. However, this was a way to encourage the settlement and development of America’s vast territories. Moreover, noncitizen had to fulfill certain conditions to vote, e.g. the ownership of 50 acres of land and two years of residency in a territory, or declared intent to become a U.S. citizen.In addition, there were ethno-racial and socio-economic aspects to noncitizen voting in the early Republic. As one proponent of alien voting (and a current Democratic Congressman from Maryland) admitted: “the early spirit of political openness toward aliens was perfectly compatible with the exclusionary definition of ‘the American people as Christian white men of property.’”With the expansion of voting rights during the early twentieth century – including, in particular, to women – the practice was brought to an end, with Arkansas being the last state to outlaw noncitizen voting (in 1926). In addition, the First World War not only energized patriotic sentiments but also brought home the potential threat posed to the integrity of our elections by allowing the citizens/subjects of hostile powers to vote.Currently, elections in the United States are governed by a complicated mix of federal, state, and municipal election laws. As a rule, noncitizens are prohibited from voting and are subject to criminal penalties if they do.__________________________________________The article by the organization FAIR, came out in July 2020. The purport of the letter was to draw attention to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, expressing dire concerns over the integrity of it. The 2020 Election is now come and gone. And, we, Americans, may have to deal with the lasting negative consequences of the elections for the life of this Nation, however much time is left for it and that may not be much longer if Trump fails in his pursuit to have a full audit of the votes cast and a full transparent accounting of the election. It should never have come to this. Playing catchup after the fact is never easy. It is the realization of the myth of Sisyphus, a true uphill battle, with legions of anti-Trump anti-Constitutional Republic forces to contend with, it may well be much too late.These forces proceeded as carefully, as methodically, and as discreetly as they could to bolster their chances for success. Polls gave numerous false forecasts to disillusion Trump supporters. Big Tech engaged in rampant censorship of pro-Trump articles and messaging. The Press continued its rabid disinformation campaigns, ramping up their dirty work in the weeks leading up to the election. Democrat Party controlled States quickly had elections laws illegally changed, to reduce election security and safeguards, inviting widespread fraud through the vehicle of millions of mail-in ballots, allowing complicit poll workers and politicians to engage in massive overcounts of ballots cast for Biden, and they quickly covered up their tracks, making post-election audits extremely difficult.With multitudinous, powerful forces aligned against Trump, this election was their last chance to remove him from Office. It was this or nothing. If they could get their toadies Biden and Harris into Office, this would allow the ruthless Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites to return to completing their agenda’s principal goal: de facto dissolution of the United States as an independent, sovereign State and, concomitantly, its insertion into a new, radically transformed economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical construct operating in a completely new environment. What they envision would first comprise a loose amalgam of increasingly fractured nation-states, such as those comprising the present EU. Eventually the Countries of the EU, along with that of the U.S., and the Commonwealth Nations would all be subsumed into a tight transnational, supra-Marxist monolithic corporatist (non-capitalist) construct, one grounded in the philosophical tenets of Collectivist dialectical materialism. Can the the vast majority of the American public really want this? Of course not. Does the public even realize what is in store for them and for the Nation? No; not at all. The vast majority of Americans would deny what they see before them anyway. It doesn't matter. The downward spiral has commenced. The goal of the Nation's spoilers may well come to pass. Trump's lawsuits and Barr's investigations are likely to come to naught. The forces aligned against our Nation are too powerful, too well-organized, and well-entrenched in the very core of our Nation; at all levels, in all sectors of business and government. And these forces have captured the minds and hearts of great segments of the population. Still——

IT IS WONDROUS STRANGE HOW SO MANY AMERICANS CAN BE SEDUCED INTO VOTING AGAINST THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS, SOME EASILY, OTHERS IF ONLY THROUGH A LITTLE MORE EFFORT.

It is interesting to reflect on how otherwise intelligent Americans can be so thoroughly conditioned to adopt a way of thinking that is decidedly, perversely irrational. Yet, through four years of Press employment of fictitious narratives, of keeping critical news accounts from the public, and creating false reports out of whole cloth, and of the steady bombardment of reprehensible attacks on President Trump, is it any wonder that the psyche of many Americans has softened, turned to mush?Tens of millions of Americans have voted for a person for U.S. President, Joe Biden (to be replaced soon thereafter by the abominable Kamala Harris) whom they know, in the back of their mind, to be mentally, emotionally, and physically fragile, as well as corrupt, and therefore clearly incapable of serving in the most demanding job a human being can possibly perform, the job of President of the United States.But many Americans have voted for Biden and Harris, nonetheless. The fault rests upon years of psychological conditioning. Many Americans have, in Donald Trump, turned away from a man who has proved strong, capable, resilient, adaptable, resolute; a man who has implemented policy both domestically and abroad that has benefitted the Nation and its people. Yet, perversely, many Americans have dismissed all of this. They cavalierly dismiss Trump’s accomplishments out-of-hand because they have been psychologically conditioned to do so. Many other Americans, true, were able to retain their sense of rational, critical thinking. But all too many have, unfortunately, allowed their emotions to get the better of them. The seditious Press engaged in a massive disinformation campaign. They deliberately played upon and preyed upon those very emotions of Americans, and thus found a useful pathway into the psyche through which the Press could do its damage on their psyche.Trump has demonstrated his ability to protect and preserve our great Nation and he has done so. Whether motivated by selfishness or a selfless desire to serve the best interests of this Nation and its people, or a combination of both, this is of no moment. Yet many Americans are oblivious to Trump’s many positive accomplishments. They shun him anyway. They do so, tenaciously, remorselessly, egged on by a malevolent Press.And of their support for Biden, what is one to make of it? Their support of Biden isn’t predicated on what Biden has to offer the Nation. Indeed he has said little about that. Many Americans voted for Biden not because they love or respect him, but, rather, because they loathe Trump, which, if that is all there is to it, is decidedly unreasonable if not altogether irrational. And why do many Americans loathe Trump? They loathe him because the Press has preyed on their psyche. Everything the Press says about Trump is negative and boils down to a simple mantra: “Trump is despicable.” That message has lodged in the psyche of millions of Americans, and we are all in danger of losing our Country forthwith because of this.

AMERICANS ON THE PRECIPICE OF DISASTER

We are on the precipice of losing our Country. We are on the verge of losing our most cherished, priceless gifts—gifts that the founders of our Nation and millions of Americans who followed them have fought hard to secure; gifts difficult to maintain absent a concerted effort on all of us to do so: a free Constitutional Republic; the sovereignty of the American people; and our Nation’s fundamental, natural, sacred, unalienable rights. Once these gifts are lost to us, they will never be regained. They will be lost forever. And, under a Biden/Harris Presidency, we will lose these cherished gifts.Our diminished status will be reflected in the fact that the United States no longer exists as an independent, sovereign nation-state, where the people are the rulers, not Government, not Big Tech, not the Big Banks, not unelected bureaucrats, not foreign interests. But apparently many people have forgotten this if they have ever realized this salient truth at all.Our diminished status will be reflected in the fact that the reality of fundamental rights, intrinsic to man as bestowed on and in him by a loving Creator, will be modified, abrogated, ignored or reconstituted as, at best, weakened appendages of what is left of our equally weakened Constitution. Such sacred rights that we, as a people, once had exercised will be reduced to mere privileges bestowed on this or that person by grace of the State and unceremoniously rescinded at will by that State; and otherwise unlawful if exercised by a person absent State sanctioning of the privilege.The use of propaganda and the infusion of money has taken its toll. Americans will lose everything they hold most dear if Biden and Harris are seated in the Executive Office, and it seems more and more likely that they will do so.The election of the U.S. President in 2020 was the last battle for control of the soul of America. Biden also says that the election has been a battle for the soul of the Country. But what does he really mean? With him in Office, operating at the behest of his benefactors, the Globalist elites, and their toadies in Congress, and in the Bureaucratic Deep State, he will be presiding over a vanquished soul, a dead soul.A glimmer of hope yet remains if the DOJ and FBI undertake a thorough investigation to ascertain whether a conspiracy of fraud in mail-in ballots has wrested control of the election process—fraud not undertaken by Russia but by those close to home and those from afar whom Biden refers to as our allies: namely those ruthless elements that reign over the nations of the EU. But, if this is happening behind the scenes, we haven’t heard about it from the Trump Administration, and we would not hear about it from the seditious Press in any event. In fact, as reported by the Washington Times, back in August 2020, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, flatly rejected the likelihood of fraud emanating from the utilization of millions of mail-in ballots in lieu of traditional voting at the Polls. Does Senator McConnel still believe this in light of poll workers signing affidavits attesting to the existence of fraud during ballot counts? Apparently so. The Courier Journal recently reported, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell weighed in on the 2020 presidential election Friday morning but did not directly address President Donald Trump's baseless claims that it's being rigged against him — and repeatedly refused to do so when reporters pressed him on the issue.”

There is no evidence of illegal votes being counted or of election fraud despite Trump's allegations Thursday night that illegal votes are being tallied in an attempt to ‘steal’ the election from him [but adds] ‘Here’s how this must work in our great country: Every legal vote should be counted. Any illegally-submitted ballots must not. All sides must get to observe the process. And the courts are here to apply the laws & resolve disputes. That's how Americans' votes decide the result. ’ ”

This is all well and good, but, McConnell's remarks beg the question whether only legal votes are being or have been counted, and whether or to what extent the tampering can be uncovered after the fact as the fraudsters will obviously try to hide their tracks and will be able to destroy much of the evidence as they are in control of it. Allegations of election results tampering are widespread and involve many States. The present situation is wholly unlike the issues that surrounded the Bush/Gore election that only involved Florida, and involved the mechanical issue of interpreting chads on punch cards. One cannot really decide which way McConnell will ultimately turn. He is a wily fox, indeed. His instincts for survival are second to none. In his latest November 10, 2020 comments, as reported by the NY Times, McConnell backpedaled his previous calculatedly cautious comments, demonstrating much stronger support for the President, during his speech in the Senate. He said,“President Trump is 100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options. Let's not have any lectures about how the President should immediately, cheerfully accept preliminary election results from the same characters who just spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the last election.”The Senate Majority Leader's clearly stronger statement in support of Trump's position may reflect the meeting that McConnell had with Attorney General Barr, as reported by Reuters. Reuters reported matter-of-factly that,“McConnell met privately with Attorney General William Barr.” Reuters went on to report that, “In a speech on the Senate floor, McConnell did not acknowledge Biden as president-elect nor his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, as vice president-elect. The Republican also took a swipe at media outlets that called the election for Biden, saying “ ‘the Constitution gives no role in this process to wealthy media corporations.’ ”Kudos to Senator McConnell for refusing to give credence to seditious Press and media reports that treat the 2020 election like it's done deal. It isn't. And the Press and media are doing a disservice to treat this most serious matter as if Biden is the President-Elect Joe Biden. He isn't. He's nothing of the sort. The Press and Biden can fume all they want over Trump's rebuff of Biden's their desire to see Biden receive daily intelligence briefings. But, there is a very good legal reason to preclude Biden from receiving these, quite apart from concerns whether he is a person who should be trusted to deal with the Nation's foreign policies anyway. For, if Trump were to deign to allow Biden access to those briefings, that act would defeat the President's contesting of the results of the election. It would amount to conceding that Biden won the 2020 election and is entitled to the designation, President-Elect. Of course, the U.S. Senate would still have to certify Biden as having won the election and that would only follow on the Electors of the States meeting in D.C. to cast formal votes. But, the concession on the part of Trump would result in immediate challenge to the import of the President's lawsuits. So, under no circumstances should Trump agree to allow Biden to receive daily intelligence briefings. And this brings us to ex-President George W. Bush, who coming out of the woodwork, offered his own two cents about election fraud, which amounts to as much vacuous blather as do the noxious, incessant news and media accounts. ABC Affiliate KTSP reports:“Former President George W. Bush says the American people ‘can have confidence that this election was fundamentally fair, its integrity will be upheld, and its outcome is clear.’ He says in a statement that ‘no matter how you voted, your vote counted.’  And Bush says President Donald Trump has the right to request recounts and pursue legal challenges, with any unresolved issues to be ‘properly adjudicated.’ Bush says now is the time when ‘we must come together for the sake of our families and neighbors, and for our nation and its future.’ Bush says he's spoken with Joe Biden and thanked the president-elect for what Bush says was ‘the patriotic message’ in Biden's national address on Saturday night after being declared the election winner.’ ”Bush says in a statement that while he and Biden have political differences, the former president says he knows Biden to be a good man who has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country.”Ahh, yes, George W. Bush “knows Biden to be a good man who has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country” in the same way no doubt that Bush himself has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country: throwing our Nation headlong into a multi-trillion dollar cluster-f**k in the Middle East that we have yet to extricate ourselves from, and then sending our Nation into the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression of the 1930s. One good man to another; indeed!Recall that it was Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, who was successfully unwinding the mess that Bush and the Neocons created and embroiled us in. In fact, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton only worsened the situation in the Middle East by extending the Middle East conflagration to Libya. And Donald Trump really did a better job improving the U.S. economy than did Barack Obama. See Bloomberg Quint report. Sure, the economy tanked, as did the economies of the rest of the world, and we can all thank the Chinese Communist Government of Xi Jinping for that. Whether the unleashing of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus plague on our Nation and on the rest of the world was the result of negligence, gross negligence, reckless indifference, or willful, intentional malice amounting to an outright act of war, the resulting devastation to our economic life, and to the physical and emotional life and wellbeing of the individuals, cannot and ought not be laid at the feet of President Trump even as the seditious Press and the insufferable Democrat Party leadership and many of its members consciously, unconscionably do just that, giving the Chinese Government a pass all the while, blaming Trump for all of it. One must wonder about that. And, now we have George W. Bush, gushing all over Joe Biden. Does his pronouncements concerning the manner in which this 2020 election has been handled to date inspire confidence? Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? It shouldn't. If anything, the remarks of this Skull and Bones member Globalist warmonger should set off alarm bells. His condescending tone alone should anger any adult American. Condescension is the hallmark of the Globalist elites when talking to, or about, anyone who isn't one of them, part of their select club. They can't help themselves in reverting to form when talking to the Hoi Polloi. Condescension, patronizing airs is in their nature. Biden will unify nothing. Hell his Party has spent four solid years deliberately tearing the Nation apart, insidiously and maliciously and diabolically creating the impetus and climate for the divisions and divisiveness that have constantly beset our Country up to this very moment. That won't change if the U.S. Senate does certify this man; and, with Harris, waiting expectantly, impatiently in the wings, a person even worse than Joe Biden, a true sociopath, who has as much compassion for her fellow Americans as one might find in a jumping cholla cactus. Between the lines of his remarks, Bush is saying to Americans, the jig is up. No more pretense; none is necessary:“You, Americans, have lost your war of independence. It just took we, transnationalist elites, 144 years to wrap it all up. It has been a hard fought battle. Granted you have given us a run for our money. But it's over. The Counterrevolution has succeeded. The Nation is no longer yours. Accept this or face the dire consequences of your intransigence and stubbornness.”The same disingenuous, at best, desultory words, calling for unity, are echoed in the recent speeches of Biden as concocted by his handlers. This 2020 election should raise the concern of tens of millions of Americans who voted for President Trump's election. What Americans today bear witness too is on an order of magnitude far greater than anything that has transpired in and confronted the electorate during the 2000 Bush/Gore election fiasco.We Americans are facing right here, right now, not just a coup attempt, but the final blow to our Nation's Government: the coup d'état.

IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT OF OUR COUNTRY TO BE SALVAGED FROM THE DESTRUCTORS OF IT?

It is singularly odd  that Republicans would pick up several seats in the House and remain on a knife's edge in the Senate yet lose the Presidency. Of course, Republicans still do not control the House, and they may yet lose control of the Senate. Still, the idea that Republicans would gain seats in the House if Trump truly did lose the election doesn’t make sense. For it suggests that Republican voters would wish to destroy Trump’s Presidency, which would lead to a complete reversal in his policies, but at the same time somehow think that they will still be able, somehow, to salvage some of those policies in Congress if they happen to retain control of the Senate and increase their seats in the House.  The NY Times says this is perfectly reasonable; that Republicans are merely hedging their bets. Really? What does that even mean? What it means is that Bush era Republicans, along with Democrats, both wish to get back to the agenda that their Billionaire Globalist benefactors had laid out for them: inexorable dissolution of our Country as an independent sovereign nation-state; and this means the eventual merging of the remains of our Nation into a one-world Government. The EU is the Globalists’ blueprint for that eventuality.

WILL TRUMP ULTIMATELY BE FORCED TO CAPITULATE OR WILL HE FIGHT COME WHAT MAY?

This much we do know as of the posting of this article: Trump’s legal team has filed several lawsuits in a number of States and is preparing to bring his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. But what can the Supreme Court truly do to thwart a concerted effort by devious forces that have worked long and hard on removing Trump from Office? Their dubious election tactics and strategies for pushing a feeble Joe Biden across the finish line may have likely succeeded. And that is fine for many Americans.Keep in mind that the psyche of many average middle-class and upper-middle class Americans who voted for the Biden/Harris ticket has been softened through years of quiet, constant, inexorable psychological conditioning. They honestly believe Trump’s Presidency represents nothing more than an anomaly, an aberration, a quirk, an oddity, a momentary digression; that a Biden/Harris Administration will represent a return to normalcy. But is that true? What does that purported return to “normalcy” portend?Is it rather not the case that 15 years of this Country suffering under the Administrations of Bill Clinton, two Bushes, and Barack Obama, have given many Americans the illusion of normalcy, of normality, even as these Americans have seen the slow dismantling of the Country; have slowly seen our Country turning away from its sacred roots. Do they not realize that what they have taken to be normal—fifteen years of foreign and domestic policy that has severely weakened this Nation—has been something decidedly and decisively abnormal?Of course most Americans have realized what was occurring, and they were deeply concerned, seeing the slow dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic. That is why they voted for Trump in the first place. The selection of Trump was then no anomaly. It was no aberration. The idea that the Trump years amounts to an anomaly, an aberration is simply a fiction drummed up by the Press, to once again hoodwink Americans into believing that the years prior to Trump, under his immediate predecessors were normal when in fact they were not.Trump may be perceived as a spoiler by some. But, if so, he was a spoiler that the electorate wanted; that the electorate demanded; that the Nation required: a man who had turned our trajectory back toward its sacred roots, back to normalcy and normality, not away from that, contrary to what the seditious Press, incessantly propagandizing to the masses, has continually pumped into the public’s mind.If Trump loses this election, whether by hook or by crook, what may America expect from Biden and Harris once they take over the Executive Branch of our Government?We provide a glimpse of this, and it illustrates the enormity of our loss; demonstrating, irrefutably, that, what these two and their puppet-master have in mind for our Country is dangerous, poisonous to the security of a free State and one that, despite what some Republican Senators and Representatives have to say, will not be capable of undoing.A few months of the horror of what has befallen our Country is only a foretaste of what Americans can expect. Below, we recite a few more of the changes that a Biden/Harris Administration would bring:

• A flurry of executive orders reversing Trump’s policies
• Rapprochement with China, clinching China’s geopolitical, economic, and military superiority over the United States
• Open Borders. Millions of migrants will flood into our Nation, looking for and expecting, even demanding America welfare assistance
• Trafficking in drugs and sex will grow frequent and uncontrolled
• Crime will run rampant and unchecked through our States, Cities, and towns as prosecutors refuse to prosecute crimes, and the prisons around the Country are emptied of inmates. Riots will not decrease. They will increase. The public will be in a constant state of agitation and fear. This will all be by design.
• The New York Times 1619 Project, to undercut our history, traditions, and core values will become part of the core curriculum in our Nation’s schools.
• Laws enabling Abortion on demand, up to the very moment of birth, will be lawful throughout the Nation. The U.S. Supreme Court will not be able to handle the caseload.
• We will see a resumption of hostilities in the Middle East, along with new escapades in Africa. Defense Contractors will have a field day. Trump’s foreign policy successes will be erased.
• Debilitating tax hikes will be levied on all Americans regardless of income level to cover the resumption of extraordinarily large payments to support NATO; and to support free public college; and to support Medicare for all; and to support the costs of the “Green New Deal,” among other costly Government programs
• Robert Reich’s “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” will be established
• The Right of free speech will be severely curtailed
• The Right of the people to keep and bear arms will be further whittled away to enlarge the number of banned firearms; and to enlarge the domain of individuals who are forbidden to own and possess them; and to place further draconian restrictions on those individuals whom the Government does permit to own and to possess firearms
• Likely a Commission will be established to consider ways to degrade the Electoral College; and to consider statutory changes that impact the import and purport of the Constitution as written
• Resumption of Globalization efforts with the signing of the TPP and other treaties that benefit the multinational corporations but that harm small business and our workers
• Citizenship will be granted to all individuals who come under the purview of DACA, and naturalization laws will be rewritten to allow anyone who seeks to immigrate to the U.S. to be allowed to do so
• The Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations will be implemented, paving the way for a Socialism
• Attempts “to pack” the U.S. Supreme Court
• Expand voting rights in federal elections to younger Americans, to convicted felons, and to illegal aliens
• Attempts at Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
• Many State and local police departments will continue to be defunded; federal regulations will be promulgated to override State control over their own police departments
• The Durham Investigation Report will never see the light of day, and high-ranking Government officials that should be indicted and would likely be indicted if Trump served a second term in Office, will never be brought to justice
• The FBI and Intelligence apparatuses will continue to be politicized.
• Political Dissent will be crushed under the auspices of governing “hate speech”
• The U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be disbanded or otherwise severely curtailed, leaving our Nation open to millions of people, including dangerous criminals
• A new Joseph McCarthy era will spring up, this one directed to attacks against and ostracization political and social conservatives

A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC PRESERVED OR A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC WELL LOST?

Biden is incapable of rational decision-making. Both he and the Press refer to him as this political “moderate.” But in truth he is neither a political moderate nor political liberal. No political leaning can be ascribed to him both given his nature and his present infirmities.Biden has neither the intellect nor the fortitude for occupying the seat of the Chief Executive of the Nation. Americans must resist this last gambit of the forces that would crush our Nation and its people into submission.Congress has failed us; and many Americans have been hoodwinked. Don’t believe for a minute that a Republican Senate majority will be able to withstand the rabid forces unleashed by a Biden/Harris Presidency and a House of Representatives still in the hands of Pelosi. And there is no assurance that Mitch McConnel will still be the Senate Majority Leader. As of this writing, the Senate is still up for grabs.The Third Branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court, is our last refuge; our best hope to set matters aright. That may very well be the best and most sustainable of Trump’s legacy. But the Biden/Harris Administration and a sympathetic and compliant Congress may negate the ability of the Third Branch of Government to preserve a free Constitutional Republic and the fundamental rights of the American people.We fervently hope and pray that Trump’s legal challenges will prove successful and his Presidency saved. For that will ensure a critically important reprieve for our people, our Constitution, our sacred rights and liberties, and our free Republic. Trump is a fighter. And, we, who support him, in defense of our free Republic, must be prepared to be fighters, too.With a full complement of Justices on the High Court, and, hopefully, with enough Justices who truly seek to render decisions consistent with the Constitution as written, as the framers clearly intended, our Nation may just yet be spared the  worst threat to its existence since its birth on July 4, 1776. But we fear that won’t be enough. The Globalist and Marxist Counterrevolution may have already succeeded to wipe away our Nation.One is reminded of the 1939 Classic Film, “Gone with the Wind.”The Confederacy died but the Union survived. Yet, the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites and the Marxist Globalists and Anarchists seek an end to the Union as well. They have made that plain enough. It isn't National unity they seek; that is another bald-faced lie. What they promise is what they have been delivering: further strife, disorder, chaos. They mean to destroy those of us who do not bow to the new transnational order.Perhaps the salient question to ask as we head into 2021 is this: Will there be enough patriots around to keep the vision of our founders true? Dare we say that Americans keep their firearms close at hand and their ammunition at the ready. Be ever vigilant in these ominous, harrowing times, for “Here, There, Everywhere, There Be Tygers, Lurking and Ready to Pounce on the Unwary!” _________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

PRESIDENT TRUMP OVERSTEPPED HIS AUTHORITY IN BANNING BUMP STOCKS.

PART ONE

THE PRETEXT FOR TRUMP’S CALL FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES.

Following the devastating, unconscionable attack by the maniac, Stephen Paddock, on innocent concertgoers, attending a concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the evening of October 1, 2017, the gun grabbers wasted little time in turning their attention on what they depicted as the salient culprit of the carnage: a little device called a “bump stock.” It is a device that investigators found attached to semiautomatic rifles Paddock used in his murderous assault.

Antigun groups and antigun politicians immediately called for a ban on the device. But, oddly and sadly, it is President Donald Trump, the seemingly indefatigable champion of the Second Amendment—not the Democratic Party leadership—who gave the gun grabbers what they want: a ban on “bump stocks.”

DONALD TRUMP MAY ACT RASHLY ON SOME MATTERS AND AVOID REPERCUSSIONS; NOT SO, WHEN HE BLATANTLY ATTACKS THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been an early and avid supporter of Trump’s bid for the U.S. Presidency—first during his campaign for the Republican Party nomination, and then during the turbulent first two years in Office, as he was buffeted and roiled on all sides by various factions that sought and still seek to destroy his Presidency. It is alarming, though, when Trump seems to disregard those who support him. Trump had made several promises to the American electorate. Among the most important he promised to build “a wall,” an effective physical structure to keep the multitude of illegal aliens from cavalierly crossing our Nation’s borders, and audaciously claiming the same rights, liberties, and protections that accrue only to American citizens. Trump realizes now, a bit late in the day, that his thoughts of a second term in Office, in 2020, will be undone if he fails to deliver on that oft repeated promise. Just as importantly, Trump made abundantly clear, during his campaign, that he is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. But, what has Trump done to merit his supporters’ continued devotion? So far, two years into his four-year term in Office, we see nothing concrete.

Trump normally “trumpets” his actions, consistent with the importance of, and his belief in, Governmental transparency. That’s a good thing and to be applauded. It is something his predecessor in Office, Barack Obama, said he would do but rarely if ever did, preferring to cloak his own actions in secrecy. The insidious, reprehensible “Operation Fast and Furious” is a case in point; an oblique attempt to undermine the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. But, as for the architects of the policy, neither the Attorney General—at the time, Eric Halder—nor President Obama, was ever called to account for it. Yet, it is Donald Trump now, not Barack Obama, who has deviously and insidiously undermined the Second Amendment, and he is doing so through an aggressive, unconscionable, unconstitutional, unilateral executive act.

Remember what Trump said about national concealed handgun carry?

“The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.” ~ Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Were these just vacuous words, delivered merely to appease supporters at a singular moment in time, and then to be dispensed with once the U.S. Presidency had been secured and when political expediency seemingly required? Apparently, so. After the Parkland, Florida tragedy, the Washington Examiner reported that,

“President Trump told Republicans on Wednesday they should not include a measure that allows people with concealed carry permits in one state to carry across state lines in a comprehensive gun bill.

‘I think that maybe that bill will one day pass, but it should pass separate,’ Trump said during a bipartisan meeting at the White House. “If you’re going to put concealed carry between states into this bill, we’re talking about a whole new ball game. I’m with you, but let it be a separate bill.”

The President weaseled, giving only lukewarm support for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Obviously this wasn’t a high priority for him. Is it, then, any surprise that, apart from a push by the Republican controlled House in 2017—evidently in spite of the President, not because of him—Congressional action ultimately failed to deliver? Congress got the message. Since preservation and strengthening of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is apparently a low priority for the U.S. President, it was a low priority for Congress—certainly for the Republican-controlled Senate.

A full Roll-Call vote on the Senate Floor was necessary even if the Senate failed to secure 60 votes necessary for passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation since the American public would know who, among both Democrats and Republicans, voted in favor of the measure and those who did not; those Senators, then, who support our sacred Second Amendment right and those who, clearly, do not. 

But, Mitch McConnell never called for a Floor vote, though he could have done so. We will remember McConnell’s disservice to the American people for failing to hold a full Senate Floor vote. And we will remember Trump for failing to make national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation a priority goal. Republicans controlled the Congress—both Houses—along with the U.S. Presidency, from 2016 through 2018. Republicans have now lost the U.S. House of Representatives. The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms took a backseat to both health care and taxes. It should not have, but it did. 

We face a Democratic Party majority-controlled House whose leadership has a decidedly and decisively different, and ominous agenda in store for the American people. It is a safe bet that Gun control and the general weakening of the Second Amendment will not be secondary issues for the Democratic Party leadership once they assume control of the House on January 3, 2019—unlike strengthening the Second Amendment was, obviously and unfortunately, a secondary issue for Republicans.*

The Arbalest Quarrel has written several articles on this critical matter, posting those articles on our website; and on Ammoland Shooting Sports News; and on “The Truth About Guns.” Ammoland posted our latest one, titled, “National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity – Last Chance to Act,” on November 27, 2018. In that article, we urged Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to call for a Senate Floor vote on the House he could have done so. There was time before the year-end adjournment. If the Senate did clear the 60 vote threshold, the bill could have been sent immediately to President Trump for his signature. And Trump would have had to sign it even if he were reluctant to do so. For, it would have been, as he insisted, in his remarks to Republicans, that it must be “a separate bill,” subsumed in no other Congressional bill, as it was a separate bill. But, now, we will never know. The bill that passed the House, the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38, will automatically die—as unfinished business of the old Congress—once the new Congress commences work on January 3, 2019.

___________________________________________________________

PART TWO

TRUMP IGNORES HIS PLEDGE TO THOSE OF US WHO SUPPORTED HIM; CAPITULATING COMPLETELY TO THE ANTIGUN CROWD, ONCE HE CALLED FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCKS.

As if the Republican controlled Senate’s failure to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation and President Trump’s failure to push forward a pro-Second Amendment agenda during his first two years in Office weren’t bad enough—a serious failure of omission on the part of both the U.S. Senate and the President—Trump’s ban on “bump stocks”—an act of commission—is even worse. By foolishly, impetuously, acting to ban “bump stocks,” the President demonstrates a dangerous naïvety and ineptitude, along with a disturbingly blithe lack of concern for the well-being of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, inviolate right of the American  people to keep and bear arms. Trump is obviously oblivious to the deleterious impact his unilateral action shall have—not simply may have—on the Second Amendment itself.

President Trump’s failure to cajole Congress to action, to strengthen our most cherished and important right, is unacceptable. That failure deserves our condemnation. But undermining our most cherished right is alarming and unforgivable. That deserves our lasting contempt. With the radical Left urging Democratic Party House members to impeach Trump, upon issuance of the Special Counsel’s, Robert Mueller’s, report that is due out at any time now, the President can ill afford to antagonize his own base; but Trump has done just that with his flagrant attack on the Second Amendment.

Trump should have left the matter of bump stocks to Congress. Congress, acting through its Article 1 legislative power, can, conceivably, lawfully, take such action to ban them, if it sought to do so, assuming—a big “if”—that the law, depending on the matter of its statutory construction, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But it is not for the President to take that action upon himself under any set of circumstances. We have a system of checks and balances in our Country, and for good reason.

Congress makes the law. That power is within the province of Congress, not the President. The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. Under our Constitution, the President has no authority to make binding law, in lieu of Congress. Unlike Great Britain and Australia, the Chief Executive has no authority to self-execute laws. The President does not serve as both Chief Executive and "Legislator in Chief."

We have seen how Obama has shown a marked, carefree proclivity to ignore the federal Government’s system of “checks and balances” that the founders of our Republic wisely conceived of and assiduously placed into our Constitution. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, makes crystal clear, it is the province of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Obama, as President, and, no less a lawyer and academician, knows this. Yet, that did not prevent him from unlawfully promulgating and implementing his infamous, illegal “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA), policy, along with the concomitant mess it left for his successor, President Trump. 

What was Obama’s motive for DACA? As he says, as reported to the Leftist media echo chamber, CNN:  “. . . for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill. That bill never came. . . . “Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question.” Obama proselytizes to Americans, talking down to us as if we were children, suggesting that it is he, Obama,“the Great Father,” who shall teach us all what we ostensibly need to know about law, politics, and morality too, audaciously exclaiming that, as Congress didn’t give Obama what he wants—he—Barack Obama, will make law himself!

Obama’s remarks are a textbook example of propaganda, disseminated to the public by an insincere Press. It is bombastic, simplistic, perfunctory rhetoric; absolute drivel. Obama certainly knows it; but so should the Press. This smug, duplicitous attitude on the part of both Obama and the Press serves to make Obama’s remarks and the mainstream media’s reporting of them all the more diabolical and reprehensible.

One salient, critical duty of the Chief Executive of the Nation, set down in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The laws the President is duty-bound to faithfully execute are the laws Congress enacts. The President has no power to issue personal edicts, suggesting they have the force of Congressional law when in fact they don’t; and cannot ever have. As Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes abundantly and absolutely clear: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is nothing in Article 1 or in any other Article of the U.S. Constitution reciting that legislative powers, of some sort or another, also vest in the President. Such powers do not invest in the President; only in Congress.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION CONSISTS OF FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS; NOT SIMPLE PLATITUDES.

Trump, as with Obama before him, has begun to demonstrate a disturbing propensity to ignore precepts of the U.S. Constitution, when he wishes to do so, unmoved by the dictates of either the Constitution or his conscience. His unilateral action banning bump stocks was a calculated move. It is obvious why he took this action. He evidently felt the general public supported it—more of those in favor of it than not. He caved to public pressure to deliver something to the public, because of the worst mass shooting ever to occur in our Nation and an unthinkable tragedy that happened to occur on his watch. That may appear as reason enough to act, by some, but Trump should not have fallen prey to the frenzy of the moment, and with such apparent alacrity, abandon, and smug self-assurance.

The continued existence of the natural, fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not properly to be left to public whim, anyway, and never have been. Public opinion is easily manipulated and ever changeable. The founders of our Republic didn’t intend for the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people to be weakened by mere heat and rancor of a given moment in time. That ought to be clear enough to most Americans if they stop to consider this. It should be clear enough to Congress. And it should be clear enough to the President, too; but apparently it wasn’t. And, having taken the action to ban bump stocks devices, President Trump did nothing to make this Nation safer. Having bowed to political pressure--something he is, often and admirably enough, not ordinarily inclined to do, but did so in this instance--he reneged on a salient campaign promise he made to millions of Americans, namely that he, like they, fervently and reverently hold the Nation’s Second Amendment in the highest regard, and that he will do his best to preserve and strengthen it. Yet, a ban on bump stock devices does no such thing. Rather, it makes a mockery of Trump’s promise to the American people. Worse, taking the action he did to usurp Congressional authority and prerogative to make law, Trump did much more than simply undermine a campaign pledge; he undermined the very Constitution he swore an oath to preserve and to protect. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes plain that,

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Trump does not faithfully execute the office of President of the United States by making up his own law as he goes. He doesn’t preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States when he takes upon himself--as did his predecessor Barack Obama--the role the framers of the Constitution reserved alone to Congress, namely the authority to make law. And, Trump certainly doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, when he undermines the fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people as codified in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. 

Whether operating through grandiose self-delusion or blatant deceit, a Chief Executive, who fails to adhere to the limitations on his authority, as our Constitution dictates and mandates, significantly threatens the continued well-being of a free Republic. Under no set of circumstances can suspension or abrogation of our Constitution ever be justified. 

_______________________________________________________________________

PART THREE

TRUMP’S UNILATERAL ACTION, BANNING BUMP STOCKS, IS UNLAWFUL.

Although Trump could have and should have left the matter of “bump stocks” to Congress, Trump’s unilateral action, banning civilian ownership and possession of bump stocks is unlawful. That isn’t an open question. The answer to that question, under Constitutional law, is clear and categorical. Trump cannot lawfully do so. But, he took that action anyway. The danger we now face, given Trump’s rash action, goes well beyond the relative merit or utility of bump stocks, themselves.

Trump’s action calls into immediate question the import of Congressional legislation and the weight to be given to U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements on matters of law. If Trump’s action withstands legal challenge and scrutiny—and David Codrea’s article posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News points to several formal complaints that have been recently been filed contesting the constitutionality of the ban—the ‘rule of law’ becomes mere shallow and hollow rhetoric; legislation becomes mere ad hoc artifice, subject to the vicissitudes of fate; and the Bill of Rights loses its inviolability and immutability.

THE DOJ-ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” IS PATENTLY UNLAWFUL.

Two major websites, Ammoland Shooting Sports News and The Truth About Guns, have posted several fine articles on the issue of bump stocks. The Arbalest Quarrel provides its own take on this subject, including an analysis of the law regarding administrative decision-making.

We reach a disturbing but irrefutable conclusion: if the Courts do not strike down Trump’s action, we will continue to see the inexorable whittling away of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, leading inevitably to the demise of civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic firearms, not simply to the demise of firearms pejoratively called “assault weapons.”

We begin our analysis with the language of Trump’s Memorandum, issued on February 20, 2018. The Memorandum is titled “Application of the Definition of Machine gun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” 3 CFR Memorandum of 2/20/18. This Executive Office Memorandum placed the Justice Department on notice of the President’s intent to promulgate a rule criminalizing possession of bump stock devices--all of them, regardless of the nature of operation of any one manufacturer's version of the device--and further ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to promulgate a rule, banning those devices. The Memorandum directed to the Attorney General, and signed by Donald Trump, reads:

“After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices.

Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns.

Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of ‘machine gun’ under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments.

Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.

Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes. Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.”

[signed] Donald Trump

____________________________________

There are four points to ponder here. First, through this Memorandum, Trump attempts to make law, not simply execute laws Congress enacted because Congress hasn’t enacted a law banning bump stocks. So there is no law for the President to faithfully execute under Article 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. His remark—“I remain committed to the rule of law”—is what we hear all the time from Democrats. It is a remark he expects the public to accept on blind faith. Politicians make use of it often enough. But, the remark invariably comes across as hollow, flaccid, and pathetic; a useless appendage, demonstrating a lack of conviction at its very utterance, as the action taken belies the seeming veracity of the sentiment underlying it. 

The fact remains: absent express Congressional authorization the Executive Branch of Government cannot lawfully promulgate rules to effectuate the will of Congress if there is no will of Congress to effectuate. And, there is none here.Trump has blatantly exceeded his authority under the Constitution.

Second, the Memorandum—a directive to the DOJ—is logically inconsistent. Trump says, at the outset, he simply seeks “further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns,” but then makes clear that it isn’t mere clarification he seeks at all. He tells the DOJ “to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.”  Trump is kidding no one. He is illegally attempting to promulgate law.

Third, the Memorandum calls for a drastic measure. There is nothing in the Memorandum allowing for the grandfathering of bump stocks in the hands of American citizens. Consider: even the infamous federal assault weapons ban act of 1994 (that expired in 2004) made abundantly clear it did not apply to possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon a citizen happened to lawfully possess before enactment of the Congressional legislation.

The new ATF Rule, though, is far more ambitious than even Congressional legislation that banned new purchases of “assault weapons.” For, under the ATF Rule, Americans who fail to surrender bump stocks or who otherwise fail to render them inoperable are subject to criminal prosecution. There is no exception, and no grandfathering of devices that, before implementation of the Rule, had been lawfully purchased.

Fourth, Trump takes the position—as is clear from the language of the Memorandum—that he can get around the Statutory legal hurdle by claiming to operate within  it; but he does so by tortuously toying with the definition of ‘machine gun’ to include ‘bump stocks.’ Trump does not succeed and he is wrong in his endeavor in attempting to do so. He is unlawfully expanding upon and redefining the clear, concise and precise definition of 'machine gun' as codified by Congress in Federal Statute. Further, Trump's attempt to get around the hurdle of a clear concept of ‘machine gun’ is unnerving. It would have been better—although still legally indefensible--had he simply sought to ban “bump stocks” outright, without the semantic convolutions, gyrations, and machinations.

Trump attempts to convince the public that "bump stock devices" do convert semiautomatic firearms into machine guns. Trump simply pretends to be on a sound legal, logical, and grammatical footing. He isn't. The reason Trump contrives to win over the public is plain. Congress has specifically defined the expression, 'machine gun,'  in Statute; and it has defined the expression explicitly and unambiguously.

In 26 USCS § 5845, titled "definitions," “the term ‘machine gun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 

If ever the language of a Congressional Statute were straightforward and readily understood by a firearm's expert or by a lay person, 26 USCS § 5845 is such a Statute. If an agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government can undermine Federal law so blatantly, as Trump attempts to do so here, then no Federal Statute is safe from abrogation by Executive edict by those in Government who would dare trifle with our Nation's Constitution and laws.

Unless, the concept of ‘bump stock’ falls within the meaning of ‘machine gun,’—and it doesn’t—the Justice Department cannot lawfully promulgate a rule that extends the legal definition beyond the parameters mandated by Congressional Statute. Yet, it has dared to do just that, even as it insists that it has not. Trump has audaciously ordered DOJ to promulgate an illegal rule, and the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has obliged.

THE NEW ATF RULE: A CATEGORICAL BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES

In the Federal Register, 83 FR 13442, the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has proposed a rule change to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically, 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479.

The proposed Rule, reads: “The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that ‘bump fire’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are "machine guns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machine guns if this Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.”

The ATF has now finalized the proposed rule, amending the first sentence to read:

“The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). . . .”

As a final Agency Rule, it is ripe for judicial review, if challenged; and it is rightfully being challenged.

THE ATF’S REASONING ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES IS FLAWED.

The critical problem with the ATF Rule is this: bump stocks are not machine guns; nor are they accessories for machine guns; and saying they are machine guns, as the ATF categorically and brazenly does say, doesn’t make them so. The rule seemingly complies with federal Statute by iterating the critical point that “. . . such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger." But, the assertion is false, and the Rule must be struck down on that ground alone. The Rule is also a noxious affront to the natural, fundamental, and unalienable right etched in stone in the Second Amendment. The ATF Rule cannot be allowed to stand without doing a disservice to the purport of our Nation’s Bill of Rights.

Without amnesty for those who lawfully possessed bump stock devices, prior to implementation of the new DOJ-ATF Rule, 83 FR 13442, a wholesale ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess the devices in clear legal jeopardy. Keep in mind the last line of the Rule: Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.” This retrospective application to existing lawful owners of bump stock devices is outrageous, and, apart from other serious Constitutional issues attendant to 83 FR 13442, the Rule may also amount to a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which says clearly and succinctly: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”  The Arbalest Quarrel will look into a possible violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 in a future article.

_______________________________________________________

PART FOUR

THE ATF’S ASSERTION THAT BUMP STOCKS CONVERT SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS IS BOTH LOGICALLY AND LEGALLY FAULTY.

Let’s take a moment to reassess.

What is a ‘bump stock,’ really? Who invented it? How long has it been on the market? Why the uproar over it? Is it really the awful object that antigun zealots and the President, too, claim it is? And, most importantly, does a ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess semiautomatic weapons--millions of law-abiding American citizens--in legal jeopardy?

A LITTLE HISTORY ON BUMP STOCKS—

Who Invented the “Bump Stock?”

Four days, after the Las Vegas concert tragedy, The New York Times looked into this mechanical device called a “bump stock,” reporting, with typical tabloid flourish:

“Gun enthusiasts looking for an extra thrill have long found makeshift ways to replicate the exhilaration of using an automatic weapon — the thrill of the noise and the jolt of rapid-fire rounds — while bypassing the legal hassle and expense of getting one.

They contrived devices using pieces of wood, belt loops and sometimes even rubber bands, to mimic the speed of a fully automatic weapon — even if it meant sacrificing accuracy.

Then came Jeremiah Cottle with an answer. A Texas farm boy turned Air Force veteran, he figured he could do better. He sank $120,000 of his savings into the development of a high-end bump stock, a device that harnessed a rifle’s recoil to fire hundreds of rounds a minute.

He began selling bump stocks in 2010 with the help of his wife and grandparents in Moran, Tex., his small hometown of fewer than 300 residents. His company, Slide Fire Solutions, won approval from federal firearms regulators, and the business moved from a portable building that had once been a dog kennel into a much larger space on the Cottle family farm. Sales exceeded $10 million and 35,000 units in the first year.”

HOW DOES A BUMP STOCK OPERATE?

Antigun groups, along with the Press provide their impressions of “bump stocks”—offering descriptions from the deceptive and simplistic to the florid and patently absurd.

Following up on the October 2017 story, the NY Times, on February 18, 2018 said this says about the device’s operation:

“A ‘bump stock’ replaces a rifle’s standard stock, which is the part held against the shoulder. It frees the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy from the kickback shooters feel when the weapon fires. The stock “bumps” back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger, causing the rifle to rapidly fire again and again. The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing.”

The NY Times' animation aptly illustrates that one shot, and one shot only, is fired through a single  pull of the trigger. A successive pull of the trigger is required each time in order to initiate an additional shot. 

The Progressive weblog “Trace,” says, “A bump stock is a foot-long piece of plastic capable of transforming a semiautomatic rifle into a weapon functionally indistinguishable from a machine gun. That means a gun fitted with a bump stock can fire up to 800 rounds per minute.” 

This is more than simple hyperbole. The problem with the remark is that the expression, 'machine gun' is defined in federal statute by manner of operation, and not, as the weblog Trace, argues, by rate of fire. Antigun proponents do not, however, appear to concern themselves over, or allow themselves to be constrained by, niceties of law. They are only interested in political results. 

Not to be outdone the NY Times or by the weblog, Trace, Gabby Gifford’s antigun group chimed,  

“In the absence of immediate action by Congress, I urge ATF to finalize its proposed rule clarifying that bump fire stocks, along with other “conversion devices” that enable semiautomatic weapons to mimic automatic fire, qualify as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act. And then Congress must act as well—to ensure that manufacturers cannot continue to endanger public safety by designing devices that imitate machine guns and subvert the law. The continued presence of these dangerous devices puts all of our communities at risk, and both Congress and ATF must take action quickly to address this threat."

Whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves "to mimic automatic fire" is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots.

These remarks by Gifford’s organization are purposely incendiary and patently ridiculous. Indeed, even the progressive website, “Vox,” citing an AP News report—albeit claiming that bump stocks offer a "way around the law [pertaining to machine guns]"—felt compelled to admit, if only reluctantly, that bump stock modifications to semiautomatic rifles do not convert those rifles into machine guns.

“The device basically replaces the gun’s shoulder rest, with a “support step” that covers the trigger opening. By holding the pistol grip with one hand and pushing forward on the barrel with the other, the shooter’s finger comes in contact with the trigger. The recoil causes the gun to buck back and forth, “bumping” the trigger.

Technically, that means the finger is pulling the trigger for each round fired, keeping the weapon a legal semi-automatic.”

One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots. So, whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves to "mimic" automatic fire, as Gifford's antigun group, and others like it, claim, is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. And, there’s the rub!

EXPERT OPINION EXISTS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT BUMP STOCKS MODIFICATIONS TO SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES DO NOT CONVERT THOSE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 OR THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

One individual or Company (name and address redacted) contacted the ATF, requesting a formal opinion on whether its device, an “AR-15 Type ‘Bump Fire Stock,’” fell within the federal legal definition of a ‘machine gun’, that “would be regulated by the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) or the National Firearms Act (NFA).”

A firearms’ expert, Michael R. Curtis, Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch, reviewed the device. He responded, on April 17, 2017, to the query (about six months before Paddock went on his rampage in Las Vegas). In principal part, Michael Curtis said this,

“Your bump fire grip device consists of the following:

One AR-style pistol grip that it attached to and adjustable butt stock by a flat metal bar bent to contour to the buttstock. The pistol grip has two plastic pieces attached by small screws, one is the extension for resting your finger on while firing and the other is a shield to prevent the pistol grip from pinching  the  grip  fingers  of  the  firing  hand.

Your stock is designed to allow an AR-type semiautomatic rifle mounted to it to reciprocate back and forth in a linear motion. The absence of an accelerator spring or similar component in the submitted device prevents it from operating automatically.  When operated, forward pressure must be applied with the support hand to the forward hand guard fore-end of the AR-type rifle mounted to  your stock, bringing  the  receiver assembly  forward  to  a  point  where  the  trigger  can be pulled by the firing hand. If sufficient forward pressure is not applied to the hand guard with the support hand, the rifle can be fired in a conventional, semiautomatic manner since the reciprocation of the receiver assembly is eliminated.

The  FTISB  examination of the  submitted device indicates that if as a shot is fired   and a suU/dent[?] amount of pressure is applied to the hand guard/gripping surface with the shooter's support hand—the AR-type rifle assembly will come forward until the trigger re-contacts the Shooter’s stationary firing-hand trigger finger: Re-contacting allows the firing of a subsequent shot. In this manner, the shooter pulls the receiver assembly forward to fire each shot, each succeeding shot firing with a  single trigger function. . . .

Moreover; we should point out that the addition of an accelerator spring or any other non-manual source of energy which allows this device to operate automatically will result in the manufacture of a ‘machine gun’ as defined in the NFA, 5845(b).”

_____________________________________________

The juxtaposition of an expert’s opinion on bump stock devices and the wording of the ATF Rule stipulating an outright ban on “bump stock” devices, aptly illustrates the critical differences between well-reasoned opinion on the one hand written by a firearms’ expert, Michael Curtis, and, on the other hand, simplistic verbiage, reflected in the new ATF Rule, crafted, no doubt, by people who are not firearms’ experts. Further, the opinion of Michael Curtis is facially neutral; the ATF Rule, politically motivated as it obviously is, is only seemingly facially neutral.

Michael Curtis considers the technical attributes of and operation of bump stocks, calmly and rationally. His findings demonstrate his technical knowledge, and he draws a conclusion as to the legality of the particular device submitted to him, on the basis of the law, as enacted. In the law, as enacted, Congress defines the expression, ‘machine gun.’ That definition happens to accord with industry use of the expression. There is no embellishment. But that is not what we see in the language of the ATF Rule, as promulgated. The drafters of the Rule were only interested in giving the President what he asked for; what he wanted; what he demanded from them; and they did so.

Those who drafted the ATF Rule clearly did not bother to consider the technical intricacies of “bump stock” operation. The Rule is nothing more than a simplistic, ill-informed, technically deficient, politically motivated and mandated edict, posing as a well-reasoned administrative pronouncement, ostensibly having the force of agency law. It is not. Those who crafted the ATF Rule on bump stock devices made no attempt to distinguish among any of them. Their mandate was to create a Rule to ban them—all of them; anything that might conceivably resemble them. The drafters of this agency Rule, insidiously contrived to craft a rule that, by outward appearance—to those who nothing about firearms’ operation—may seem impressive. But, as is often the case, appearances are deceptive, and that is the case here. Those who crafted this Rule had their "marching orders."  They conspired to give President Trump what he wanted; what he asked for; what he demanded of them. They connived, and contrived, and conspired, when crafting their Rule, to place bump stock devices within the orbit of a firearm's accessory that converts a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. If the deception succeeds politically, that is all that matters to the President, and to them; but, as the Rule is logically and legally flawed, it cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny by the Judiciary, and must be struck down.

Were this Rule to escape Judicial inquiry unscathed, it will invite misuse of Congressional Statute at every turn—merely to achieve a political end, desired by some. Those who crafted this ludicrous Rule meant to deceive the public. Hopefully, the Courts will not allow themselves to be similarly deceived.       

_______________________________________________________________

PART FIVE

APART FROM TRUMP’S RASH, INCORRIGIBLE ACTION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAS CONGRESS DONE TO CURB POSSESSION OF “BUMP STOCKS?”

Curiously, Congress did attempt action to ban “bump stocks,” albeit unsuccessfully. On October 31, 2017, about one month after Paddock’s murderous assault on innocent Americans, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), sponsored a bill, called, “Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168.

The bill had co-sponsors among both Republicans and Democrats. The stated purpose of the bill was “. . . to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat in the same manner as a machine gun any bump fire stock, or any other devices designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.”

The bill, if enacted into law would amend Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States Code (USCS) of 1986:

IN GENERAL. Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking "and (8)" and inserting the following: "(8) a reciprocating stock, or any other device which is designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon; and (9)".

(b)  Semiautomatic Weapon.—and  Section 5845 [26 USCS § 5845] of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(n) Semiautomatic Weapon.— The term 'semiautomatic weapon' means any repeating weapon that—

"(1); utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and

"(2);requires a separate function of the trigger to fire each cartridge."

The bill went nowhere. But, interestingly, the bill, if enacted, would not have redefined or expanded upon the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in 26 USCS § 5845—something the ATF Rule rashly does—but instead would include a definition for ‘semiautomatic weapon,’ which 26 USCS § 5845, at present, doesn’t have. The bill would then ban devices “. . . designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.” It would treat bump stocks, “in the same manner as a machine gun,” true, as the language of the bill so states; but that isn’t the same thing as saying that “bump stocks” are “machine guns.” That is an important difference, as the definition of ‘machine gun’ is codified in federal statute. There was nothing in the proposed bill to suggest a Congressional intention to amend or to expand upon the statutory [26 USCS § 5845] definition of ‘machine gun.’

Congress itself obviously had a marked reluctance “to play” with its own definitions, and avoided doing so—a reservation that Trump obviously doesn’t have, when he wholeheartedly took upon himself, the role of both Chief Executive and “Legislator in Chief.”

Still, the Congressional bill was a bad idea at the get-go. Had it passed, antigun zealots could have, and likely would have, used the new law to argue that any new development in semiautomatic weapon technology, as a matter of efficiency, accelerates substantially the rate of fire of the semiautomatic weapon and, so, must be banned. After all, Antigun proponents see little if any difference between semiautomatic firearm on the one hand and machine guns, submachine guns, and selective fire weapons on the other, anyway. To these zealots all semiautomatic firearms are “weapons of war,” having no practical civilian use, asserting they—ultimately all of them—should be banned outright.

Antigun proponents have worked for decades to make their goal a reality; and they continue to work toward this end—all with the avid monetary and organizational assistance of wealthy globalists who seek to subordinate our Constitution, our system of laws, and our jurisprudence to a “one-size fits all” set of international norms. If they succeed in that endeavor, the independence and sovereignty of individual nation states will come to a screeching, halt and catastrophic end. All Western nations will all be corralled into a single, centralized and uniform political, social, cultural, economic, and financial system of governance. The EU is the test bed and the basic framework for this system. Even as the citizenry of the individual nations within the EU, realizing that their nations are moving inexorably to dissolution and are beginning to resist that effort, it may be too late for them. But, it isn’t, as yet, too late for us—so long as our Bill of Rights, and, especially, are Second Amendment remains intact. The DOJ-ATF “Bump Stock” Rule is not a neutral rule. If allowed to stand, unchallenged, it can and will have a devastating impact on the continued well-being of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

THE ATF “BUMP STOCK” RULE THAT WE NOW HAVE IS WORSE THAN THE CONGRESSIONAL BILL WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN.

As bad as Representative Fitzpatrick’s bill  [“Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168], was, if enacted, the new ATF Rule, as now finalized, is far worse. Indeed, even Congress was reluctant to subsume the concept of ‘semiautomatic weapon’ into the concept of ‘machine gun.’ President Trump has no such reservations. Trump’s Memo to the DOJ suggests that either he has given little thought to the matter or couldn’t care less about the legal consequences of his actions had he thought about the matter at all. The ATF filled with antigun fanatics, delivered for Trump, with unsurprising, characteristic exuberance.

The ATF has laid the groundwork for subsuming semiautomatic weaponry into the category of ‘machine guns,’ even though a clear bright line between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms exists in Congressional Statute. It is a line that Congress has carefully delineated, and it is one which Congress is loath to tinker with. Yet this sharp, distinction between semiautomatic firearms on the one hand and machine guns on the other is one that Trump has cavalierly, and literally, at the stroke of a pen, erased.

This ATF Rule, if allowed to stand, would severely weaken the Second Amendment. Hopefully, the Gun owners of America, that is challenging the constitutionality of the ATF Rule will prevail. GOA must prevail for the good of the Nation; for the sake of the American citizenry; and for the continued well-being of our Nation’s inviolate rights and liberties.

______________________________________________________

PART SIX

THE ATF BUMP STOCK RULE DEMONSTRATES THE DANGERS INHERENT IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.

AGENCY RULES MUST BE SCRUTINIZED CAREFULLY BY THE COURTS FOR THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.

The American public has historically given little thought to the relationship between Congressional legislation and Administrative action. That must change. The new ATF Rule makes clear that the public must become aware of the intricacies of Governmental action lest the American people lose their sacred fundamental rights and liberties. The American people should have learned long ago of the danger posed to a free Republic through the insinuation of so-called “elites” into the political process. What ensues is oft, appropriately referred to, as “the tyranny of experts.”

How has this come about? It has come about due, paradoxically, to the manner in which our Federal Government operates. The only true “checks and balances” in our Nation are those that rest in the enumerated rights and liberties of the American people, and singularly in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If we lose that basic, inherent right, we have lost everything. That is not hyperbole. That is fact.

Congress makes law, yes. But, in faithfully executing Congressional statute, the Executive Branch must turn Congressional legislation into operational rules. That is the job of Executive agencies.

Congressional legislation provides the mandate through which agencies act. Agencies promulgate rules, allowing for implementation of law. However, that mandate isn’t open-ended. Congressional legislation establishes the parameters beyond which the Executive Branch must not venture. Yet, with disturbing regularity, we see the President, through the Executive agencies he presides over, overstepping his Constitutional authority.

In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard of Court review of agency interpretation of statute. The case is abstruse. The majority of Americans probably never heard of it. Yet, among legal scholars, the U.S Supreme Court Chevron case is likely the most often cited case. Hundreds of academic articles have been written about it. Hundreds more will probably be written. And our case law is legion with references to it.

In Chevron, the high Court wrestled with the amount of discretion that federal Courts—the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government—should give to administrative agencies when those agencies interpret law to promulgate operational rules through which Congressional acts are effectuated. The question for the Courts turns on whether statutory language is ambiguous. If the language is ambiguous, Courts will defer to the agencies—the experts—to resolve the ambiguity, unless the Courts determine the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable. But, then, the Court is itself interpreting statute: hence the conundrum for the Courts.

But that is not the case here, with the ATF Bump Stock Rule, and that is because the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in Congressional Statute, is clear and unambiguous, certainly as unambiguous as our common language, English, can be. The ATF Rule is particularly exasperating as it blatantly ignores the Congressional Statutory dictate in order to promulgate a rule to cohere to a political goal—thereby making a mockery of our system of laws and the very concept of the “Rule of Law” that politicians love to cite but rarely, if ever, actually adhere to.

The ATF Rule, as promulgated, sets forth that bump stock modifications of semiautomatic rifles convert semiautomatic rifles into machine guns because only one pull of the trigger is required to initiate multiple firing of the weapon. But, that statement is either true or it is false.

If true, then the semiautomatic firearm is, in fact, a machine gun. If not, then, the semiautomatic firearm remains a semiautomatic firearm because it is semiautomatic in operation. Rate of fire is irrelevant. Michael Curtis, supra, points out that, in the absence of an “accelerator spring,” a bump stock device—in its usual form (and keep in mind that the ATF Rule fails to consider and appreciate that bump stocks may have different configurations and operate in different ways)—requires one trigger pull for each successive shot. Performance is not a factor, as NRA clearly and correctly points out; the manner of operation is the only factor that comes into play.

Thus, unless Congress enacts legislation to redefine the expression, ‘machine gun,’—redefining it in a way that is contrary to industry use—the President of the United States, through the DOJ-ATF is not lawfully permitted to do redefine 'machine gun' on its own, which, it audaciously has done, even as the language in the Rule says otherwise. The DOJ-ATF action amounts to ad hoc rule-making; ad hoc rule-making, subject to the whims of political pressure, but presumptuously finalized as enforceable law. The DOJ-ATF Rule is nothing more than illegal Executive Branch edict. Its presence makes a mockery of law. It is a travesty. If allowed to stand, it amounts to the usurpation of our entire system of laws and justice, and legal jurisprudence.

____________________________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

THE NEW ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” PORTENDS A TOTAL BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

If allowed to stand, this ATF Rule dangerously undermines the Second Amendment because the Rule unlawfully conflates semiautomatic firearms and machine guns. If rapidity of fire becomes the de facto if tacit but clearly salient factor and new rule-made—as opposed to Congressional enacted—definition of ‘machine gun,’ which presently defines the expression,' machine gun,' in terms of manner of operation, not performance, then all semiautomatic firearms will inevitably and invariably be subsumed into the nomenclature of ‘machine gun.’ Indeed, the mainstream media—comprising stooges and political hacks posing as journalists who know nothing about firearms’ operations and who have no desire to gain such knowledge—merely echoes the sentiments of antigun zealots. The mainstream media routinely argues that no appreciable difference exists between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms, anyway. The running narrative of these organizations is directed to motivating the public to demand, of Congress, the annihilation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose of these “news” organizations has nothing whatsoever to do with news reporting. The Press, today, delivers propaganda masked as news. There is no appreciable distinction anymore between what appears in the Op-Ed sections of these “news” publications or in  what is purportedly presented as “real” news, neutrally presented.

We have seen how antigun zealots create, through the artifice of the ‘assault weapon,’ a useful fiction through which semiautomatic firearms can be ostensibly lawfully banned. President Trump has, consciously or not, but certainly ill-advisedly and uncritically, created, through the DOJ-ATF Bump Stock Rule, a re-branding of semiautomatic firearm as machine gun based, essentially, on performance, albeit deliberately creating vagueness as to whether "bump stocks" necessitate one-trigger pull for every shot or multiple shots with one trigger pull in an attempt to "get around" the lack of any vagueness or ambiguity in the statutory definition of 'machine gun.'

If Trump and the DOJ-ATF are allowed to get away with this subterfuge, then it is but a small step from a total ban on “bump stocks” to a total ban on all semiautomatic firearms, since rate of fire—utilized as the salient and subjective basis for elimination of firearms in the hands of civilians—will now provide the “ammunition” antigun zealots can and will latch onto in their unyielding zeal to continue to weaken the Second Amendment.And it is Trump, now, not Schumer or Pelosi, who has given them a vehicle they can and will use to destroy at once the citizen’s best means of self-defense and destroy, as well, the one truly capable defense in the citizen’s possession, to prevent or at least deter the onset of tyranny.

__________________________________________

*As reported in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, John Crump, NRA instructor, has launched a petition drive to urge President Trump to reverse his position on Bump Stocks. A reversal of Trump’s position requires the rescission of the ATF Bump Stock Rule, which Trump should be able to accomplish. As Chief Executive, the President is sole head of all Departments, bureaus, and agencies of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Trump ordered creation of the rule banning bump stocks. He should be able to demand the rescission of it. Trump can and should assert that, after further consideration, he realizes his Memorandum to the DOJ, requesting a Rule banning bump stocks, was issued in error with little foresight; that the Memorandum he issued is administratively ill-advised, logically flawed, and legally unsupportable, and that, upon reflection, the President realizes the DOJ-ATF Rule does not serve the best interests of the American public, and, further, that the President realizes the Rule is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Arbalest Quarrel supports John Crump’s worthy effort. The founders of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog have added their names to the petition. We urge all Americans who, like us, cherish and exalt our Bill of Rights, and especially our Second Amendment, to do the same. At the moment only a few thousand individuals have signed the petition. That is unacceptable. The petition calls for 100,000 signatures. There are tens of millions of guns owners. Where are their voices? They have not been heard.

Remember this: Nothing serves better to destroy our sacred rights and liberties than public apathy. If those among the public—deluded though they be—are encouraged to yell louder for ever more “gun control” measures than do those who continue to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then Congress will deliver the head of the Second Amendment, on a platter, to the destroyers of our sacred rights. And, the framers of our Constitution and founders of our Free Republic will have given their blood in vain. It is up to you!

Let us avoid the ill-fated national concealed handgun carry reciprocity measure. With the Democrats reclaiming control of the House of Representatives on January 3, 2019, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Democratic Party leadership will be doing everything in its power to weaken the Second Amendment; and we can expect a flurry of anti-Second Amendment bills in the first few months when Congress commences business. We don’t need President Trump assisting them in this effort, whether he is doing so consciously or not.

Once you sign the petition, we also urge you contact the White House. Contact phone numbers are:

1-202-456-1414; (Switchboard)

1-202-456-1111; (Comments)

You may also write to the President. Information may be found at the White House website:

________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONNIVE TO DOWNPLAY IMPORT OF NUNEZ MEMO

PART TEN

A NATION UNDER SIEGE

Once President Trump declassified the House Intelligence Committee “Nunez Memo”, over spurious objections of the FBI, the mainstream media’s propaganda mill, conspiring with Congressional Democrats, went to work, in their wrongful, hurtful, spiteful attempt to make short shrift of it, downplaying the Memo’s significance, and attacking specific portions of the Memo, in minute detail.Minority House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—never one to be lost for words and always giving her “two cents,” if her words were ever worth that much—denounced the Nunez Memo, too, asserting the Memo is “false,” “horrible,” and a “release of distorted intelligence.” The American public can dismiss outright Pelosi’s use of the adjective, ‘horrible,’ since the word is nothing more than a pejorative, devoid of rational significance. Pelosi’s claim that the Memo is “false” and that it amounts to “distorted intelligence” is more problematic and requires clarification. Is Pelosi saying the entirety of the Memo is false or just portions of it? And, if she is claiming that portions of the Memo are false, then which portions is she referring to? And, as for her claim that the Memo amounts to “distorted intelligence,” the American public has a right to ask Pelosi to explain in what way the Nunez Memo distorts intelligence? For all that she has to say about a myriad of subjects, Pelosi has, apparently, nothing noteworthy to say about the Nunez Memo apart from making presumptuous and impertinent claims about it. The mainstream media Press of course, does not ask Pelosi to explicate her remarks. It never does. It simply wishes to give Pelosi a platform for airing them.The New York Times does provide an account of purported failings of the Nunez Memo. But, does The New York Times’ analysis of the Nunez Memo buttress Pelosi’s bald claims? Or, does it simply add to burgeoning media obfuscation to defeat the import and impact of the Memo?

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WRONGLY CRITICIZE CHAIRMAN DEVIN NUNEZ FOR FAILING TO REVIEW THE UNDERLYING FBI APPLICATION UPON WHICH THE MEMO IS BASED.

Before, the Arbalest Quarrel begins with its critique of the NY Times’ criticism of the Nunez Memo, we wish to make abundantly clear that Chairman Nunez and other Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee who took part in the drafting of the Memo were assiduous and meticulous in their preparation of it. Further, while Congressional Democrats and the mainstream Press are quick to point out that Chairman Nunez did not himself review the underlying FBI Application upon which the Memo is based, this is but one more lame attempt to discredit the Memo. For, the fact remains that the FBI would not permit every member of the Committee to view the Application through which the FISC issued the warrant permitting surveillance of Carter Page. The Mainstream Press obscures this point.Chairman Nunez appointed Trey Gowdy (R-SC)—a licensed attorney and former Prosecutor, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee and who, as with all the members of the Committee—to review the Application, and to report back to Chairman Nunez. Thus, Representative Gowdy’s review of the underlying FISA Application serves as the basis for the Memo.

THE NUNEZ MEMO WAS PREPARED WITH GREAT CARE: TRUTH AND ACCURACY; CLARITY AND COGENCY; FORTHRIGHTNESS; CANDOR; TERSENESS; AND RECITATION OF SALIENT, CRITICAL POINTS, ARE THE KEY FEATURES OF IT.

Before we begin with our analysis of the NY Times’ criticism of the Nunez Memo, keep in mind that Chairman Nunez and other Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee who took part in the drafting of the Memo were assiduous and meticulous in their preparation of it. The DOJ/FBI would not permit every member of the Committee to view the Application upon which the FISC issued the warrant permitting FBI surveillance on Carter Page and which served as the basis for the Nunez Memo.

TREY GOWDY IS LEAVING CONGRESS.

Curiously, Representative Gowdy, an individual, demonstrating both abundant intelligence and integrity, has, inexplicably, announced his retirement from Congress at the end of his term, and that he will be setting up a private law practice. Even more inexplicably, Fox News reported that President Trump offered Gowdy a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, but the Congressman turned the offer down.Federal Judgeships are lifetime, prestigious, coveted appointments. Seats on the United States Appellate Courts are especially rare, prestigious appointments, second only to appointments on the United States Supreme Court. No attorney or jurist turns down an opportunity for a federal Court appointment, especially an opportunity to serve on a United States Circuit Court of Appeals, but Trey Gowdy did so.One cannot but wonder as to Trey Gowdy’s motive or motives: first, for announcing his departure from Congress; and, second, for turning down a U.S. Circuit Court judgeship.On “Face the Nation,” that aired on Sunday, February 4, 2018, Representative Gowdy said that he is a “pretty lousy politician.” That self-deprecating statement is certainly untrue. There are lousy politicians in Congress to be sure, and from both Political Parties. The laundry list is long. But, Trey Gowdy is not one of them. Contrary to this acutely odd, self-effacing statement, Trey Gowdy is one of the best Congressional Representatives this Nation has. The Arbalest Quarrel suspects that much more is going on here. What has Gowdy learned about Government that disturbs him? What does he know and isn’t telling? We may speculate on this, but this much we do know: a war—a secretive war—to gain control over the minds of the American citizenry and, in fact, to gain control over the minds of the populations of Western Nation States generally has been waged at least since—or has been gaining speed since the end of World War II. We may trace this to the first meeting of the so-called “Bilderberg Group” in 1954, which coincided, likely not coincidentally, with the Treaty of Rome in 1957—a singularly critical Treaty that created the European Economic Community (EEC). We can readily infer that the EEC, that, today, we know as the Union (EU), is the master-plan, under the guise of promoting Economic unity. It is the mechanism through which the trans-national, international globalist “elites” intend to control the political processes over all the Nations of Europe and, not incidentally, eventually over the U.S. as well. The European Union is also the vehicle through which these abjectly ruthless, immensely powerful, exorbitantly wealthy, and inherently insidious, secretive forces intend to compromise the Governments of Europe; to compromise the constitutions, and institutions, and social fabric of those Nations; to subvert the core values and culture of the Nations of Europe; to create discord in those Nations through infusion of unassimilable, diffuse races; to disassemble moral, ethical underpinnings of the Nations of Europe; and to belittle the import and purport of the concepts of 'patriotism,' and 'national identity,' and 'citizenship.' The rapacious forces that control the EU intend to exert their control over the United States as well; and we are seeing their influence through the insinuation of the Deep State and Shadow Government into our political processes and through a massive disinformation and misinformation campaign carried out by the mainstream Press.

THE ISSUE OVER THE NUNEZ MEMO AND ITS DETAILING OF MASSIVE CORRUPTION IN THE UPPER ECHELONS OF THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY WILL NOT GO AWAY, EVEN THOUGH REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF, THE RANKING DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBER ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND HOUSE MINORITY SPEAKER, NANCY PELOSI, AND SENATE MINORITY LEADER, CHUCK SCHUMER, AND RANK AND FILE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS, ALONG WITH CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS' FELLOW TRAVELERS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, WOULD LIKE IT TO GO AWAY.

The battle over the minds of the American citizenry is now being fought in the public square. It is being waged through the liberal social media, and by the liberal “tech” Companies, and through the mainstream Press. And it is being waged in the Halls of Congress. The Nunez Memo, important as it is, serves an even greater need. For the message it conveys to the American citizenry is that this Nation is under siege. The institutions, comprising the federal law enforcement community and the intelligence Community—that Congressional Democrats claim the public must continue to have faith in at all costs—have contemptuously betrayed the trust of the American people. They have betrayed their oath to serve this Nation. They have betrayed their oath to preserve this Nation’s Constitution. So, what ought the American citizenry place their faith in? First and foremost, Americans should place faith in themselves, for it is within the American citizenry that true authority and power exists and has always existed. Second, the American citizenry should place their faith in their sacred rights and liberties as etched in stone in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, by the Nation’s Founders. For, the Bill of Rights long predates the creation of both the FBI and DOJ and long predates the creation of the agencies that comprise the vast, secretive intelligence community, all of which are of relatively recent vintage, and a few of which are of very recent vintage. In the great scheme of things, the Americans’ faith in themselves must not falter; all else is fair game.The Arbalest Quarrel begins its assessment of the NY Times analysis of the Nunez Memo in the next article of this multipart series.

ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS

Tell your Congressional Representatives to investigate corruption in the law enforcement and intelligence communities and to bring corrupt officials to justice. Phone: 202-224-3121.______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

MAINSTREAM “PRESS” AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS COORDINATE BRAZEN ATTACK AGAINST NUNEZ MEMO

PART NINE

One would think the publishers, editors, and reporters who work for the mainstream Press—all those who claim to prize and champion the principles of civil libertarianism—would have applauded efforts of the Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence to bring, to the attention, of Americans the devious, insidious malfeasance of senior DOJ/FBI Officials, and that they would do so vociferously.  Not so! Instead, major news organizations like The New York Times remained, for several weeks, abjectly, painfully quiet, hoping the matter would just go away and that the public would lose interest. But the matter wouldn't go away. Not by a long shot! So, in recent days, when it was no longer possible for the mainstream Press to remain quiet, it entered the fray, but did so only to echo the sentiments of Congressional Democrats on the Committee.These Congressional Democrats not only condoned the malfeasance of top DOJ/FBI Officials, but actively encouraged it. You would think Congressional Democrats would work hand-in-hand with their Congressional Republican counterparts on the Committee to provide much needed oversight of DOJ and FBI abuses. After all, the purpose of the House Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence is to provide oversight of the powerful DOJ/FBI and of the vast intelligence apparatuses, consistent with the Committee's mandate as set forth on the Committee's website:The United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) is a committee of the United States House of Representatives, currently chaired by Congressman Devin Nunes (California). Created in 1977, HPSCI is charged with oversight of the United States Intelligence Community—which includes the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the following seventeen elements of the U.S. Government—and the Military Intelligence Program. The key word here is "oversight." The job of the House Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence is to provide watchful care of singularly powerful, secretive federal Government departments, agencies, and bureaus on behalf of the American people. The Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee seek to perform their duty, while the Democrats who sit on the Committee, shirk that duty. Congressional Democrats should have supported their fellow Committee Members. Instead they castigate them, and, in so doing, have forsworn their duty as Committee members and as Representatives of the people.Congressional Democrats who sit on this powerful House Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence Committee, do not, apparently, recognize that their job is one of oversight, or maybe they have forgotten this, or otherwise they don't care, or, perhaps--worst of all--they have capitulated. This means they are taking their marching orders from the individuals in the Deep State and Shadow Government. They are, then, deliberately undermining the work of the House Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence to engage in a duplicitous, reprehensible attack on the United States President, Donald Trump. And that means they are engaging in an insidious, outrageous, reprehensible attack on the American electorate and on the United States Constitution. This is their ultimate betrayal. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democratic member on the Committee and his ilk, including, most notoriously, Eric Swawell (D-CA), Schiff’s close compatriot on the House Intelligence Committee, have literally given the “Green Light” to those individuals who work in the DOJ/FBI who have abused their authority, who have betrayed their Oath, and who have betrayed this Nation and the American people. By facilitating wrongdoing in Government, Congressional Democrats who sit on the House Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence have conveyed the message to the DOJ/FBI and to those who work in the intelligence community that these people can do whatever they want; that Congressional Democrats, like Adam Schiff, Eric Swawell and others, will cover for them. Congressional Democrats have thus become mere toadies of senior Officials of the DOJ/FBI and of the vast intelligence apparatuses. They cloak abuse in Government, rather than bringing abuse to light, and, in masking serious abuse in Government, these Congressional Democrats compound malfeasance with malfeasance of their own.They are all mere toadies of the senior Officials of the DOJ/FBI and of the intelligence apparatuses. These toadies allow the hidden Deep State and Shadow Government, within the external Government we see, to exist and, in fact, to flourish. The Clintons and Barack Obama, along with Congressional Democrats, and several Republican Centrists, and the mainstream media, and their trans-nationalist, internationalist globalist billionaire benefactors, are enablers of the Deep State and of the Shadow Government and always have been. Even now, behind the scenes, they are all quietly, incessantly working to undercut the U.S. President. In so doing, they are working to undercut the will of the people; they are working to undercut the sovereignty and independence of the United States; they are working to undercut the supremacy of our Constitution and our system of laws; they are working to destroy the rights and liberties etched in stone in the Bill of Rights.Unchecked, abuse of power invariably continues unabated, and, in fact, worsens incrementally over time. Lack of Congressional oversight, coupled with a compliant, mainstream Press that operates merely as an echo chamber of and for an effete Congress encourages malfeasance in the Bureaucracy of the Federal Government. Lack of strong Congressional oversight allows senior Officials in the labyrinth of the Deep State and Shadow Government to operate with impunity. Congressional Republicans must protect President Trump so that the President may do the job the American electorate expects of him,  which is to strengthen this Country and revitalize it; to strengthen the rights and liberties of the American citizenry; to make clear to trans-nationalist, internationalist globalists that the United States belongs to the American citizenry, and to no one else; to make clear that Americans have a right to take pride in their history, in their core values, in their history, in their Christian heritage and that there is no reason to feel guilty about any of this. Of course, Congressional Democrats and the mainstream media want none of this. Their vision for this Country marks the end of it. They wish to turn this Country over to the weak, the effete, the effeminate--making it ripe for takeover. So it is that the American citizenry cannot depend on either Congressional Democrats or upon the mainstream Press to investigate and curb abuses and excesses in Government. Rather, these Congressional Democrats, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the publishers, editors, reporters, news anchors and commentators of left-wing networks, namely and particularly, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and even PBS, that comprise the bloated mainstream Press, are all complicit in hiding evidence of gross malfeasance in the Federal Government. But, they go further; much further. Congressional Democrats and the mainstream Press not only hide evidence of malfeasance in the high ranks of the DOJ and FBI, and in other Federal Government departments, bureaus, and agencies, they actively abet Federal Government malfeasance.The mainstream media, in particular—this Press that prides itself as the protector of liberty is anything but that. The mainstream Press has devolved into a mere mouthpiece for the machinery that comprises the Deep State and the Shadow Government. This mainstream Press is now merely an organ of propaganda. This Press does not strive to preserve the sacred rights and liberties of the American citizenry but, rather, works methodically, inexorably to undermine those rights and liberties—the very rights and liberties upon which a free Republic rests.The New York Times wasted little time and expended much effort in attacking the House Intelligence Committee “Nunez” Memo, devoting considerable newsprint in that effort, as is clear from a perusal of the Saturday, February 3, 2018 edition of the newspaper.On page A13 of the print edition of the newspaper, the Times published the entirety of the Nunez Memo, including the cover letter, authored by the President’s personal attorney Donald F. McGahn II. The Arbalest Quarrel feels it worthwhile to analyze the NY Times’ analysis of the Memo and Cover letter so that the American public can see, firsthand, how a major newspaper employs propaganda in a continuing campaign of disinformation and misinformation, to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of Americans as to what to believe.In our next article of this multi-part series, we explore the NY Times’ deeply flawed analysis—analysis so obviously flawed that it adds credence to the conclusion that the NY Times is, indeed, complicit in protecting malfeasance in the senior ranks of the DOJ/FBI, and, in that act, shredding the U.S. Constitution and undermining the very rights and liberties of the American people it pretends to protect.The American citizenry should be appalled by the extravagant misuse of Government power and authority. Please contact your House and Senate Congressional Representatives. Tell them you support the work of Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Senator Chuck Grassley in unmasking corruption in the Federal Government and in bringing to justice those who presently work in or who have worked in the FBI and DOJ, or in the intelligence community, or in the Department of State, who have betrayed the trust that the American people have placed in them. The phone number to call is: 202-224-3121._____________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DECLASSIFICATION AND RELEASE OF THE NUNEZ MEMO PRESAGE FOR THE NATION?

PART EIGHT

As anyone who keeps abreast of the news knows, the “Nunez Memo,” prepared by Congressional Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by order of the Committee’s Chairman, Representative Devin Nunez (R-CA), documenting DOJ/FBI abuse of the FISA Court is now out. President Trump declassified it, as is his Presidential prerogative, and authorized its release to American public. The Memo illustrates clear wrongdoing of the DOJ and FBI in the way Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI obtained a warrant to conduct secret surveillance of an American citizen, Carter Page, a one-time bit player in Donald Trump’s campaign. Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI likely violated Carter Page’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and likely violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well. And, they certainly violated several Federal Statutes. To his credit, President Trump did not redact the names of those DOJ and FBI Officials.Congressional Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media wasted no time excoriating both the release of the Memo and the contents of it. More memos from Congressman Devin Nunez, will be forthcoming. This isn’t something that Congressional Democrats and those whom they protect within the Deep State and Shadow Government want. They aren’t pleased with the light that is beginning to shine on them all, and they have orchestrated plans to deal with it, now that the Nunez Memo is in the public domain. One tactic involves preparation of a Memo supposedly rebutting the Nunez Memo. That “Schiff” Memo has been drafted and voted upon by the entire the House Intelligence Committee. The Committee has voted to release the Memo. As with the Nunez Memo, the Schiff Memo will be submitted for President Trump’s review and action.Congressional Democrats along with reporters and editors of mainstream newspapers, prominently and particularly, The New York Times, and news commentators and news anchors in mainstream cable news networks—like ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC—berated Congressional Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee for releasing the Memo, claiming it constitutes a threat to our National Security, and, in the same breath asserting, incongruously and inconsistently, that the Memo failed to live up to its hype. So, which is it? Does release of the “Nunez Memo” constitute a danger to the security of our Nation, or is it nothing more than a tempest in a teapot?Through deliberate mixed messaging Congressional Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media “screw with” the American psyche, to confound, disorient the American public so that the public doesn’t know what to believe concerning the Nunez Memo. Hence, Congressional Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media offer to the American public two primary, but inconsistent accounts. Yet, they are wrong on both scores.The Nunez Memo is critically important. It is hardly “hype.” President Trump’s declassification of the Memo and release of the Memo to the American public alerts Americans to the presence of rogue elements in the highest ranks of the DOJ and FBI who have betrayed their Nation. That is information Americans have a right to know and need to know. So, release of the Memo neither threatens the security of our Nation, nor is it hype. Indeed, far from amounting to a threat to the security of our Nation, the Memo’s release serves to safeguard it.The Nunez Memo serves as the most important information of serious criminal abuse in the Federal Government to come to the attention of the American electorate in the last several decades. It is an earth-shattering exposé of FISA Court abuse by the DOJ and FBI. Granted, the language of the Memo is dry and pedantic, but Republicans on the House Committee of Intelligence aren’t writing a novel. No colorful verbiage exists in the Memo because the Memo’s authors do not wish to entertain Americans, but, rather, to educate and inform them. And, they did that.The Memo exposes the dangers of secrecy in a free Republic, where high-ranking Federal Government bureaucrats operating in the spheres of intelligence, police, and law, wielding immense power, render decisions and take action on those decisions, based on their own personal philosophical and political beliefs, whims, and predilections, caring not one whit whether those decisions and actions tread on the rights and liberties of the citizenry as laid out in the Bill of Rights, and caring not one whit whether those decisions and actions extend well beyond the parameters set by Federal Statute. Indeed, it is abundantly clear, from a perusal of the Nunez Memo, that senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI act in extravagant defiance of the U.S. Constitution and Federal Statute.What can the American citizenry do to correct this abuse in high Government Office? Very little it seems. The American citizenry has no recourse, except for the oversight that Congress provides. It is curious, then, that Congressional Democrats would object to Congressional Republicans’ bringing to light Federal Government abuses. But, Congressional Democrats do object to release of the Memo. Among their other purported concerns, they claim that the Memo would cause the American citizenry to lose faith in the DOJ and FBI. But, then, that is the point. The public should be concerned.One must ask: Does it serve Americans’ best interests to doubt the integrity of the DOJ and FBI when sufficient cause exists to doubt that integrity? Or does it serve Americans’ best interests to live under the illusion that senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI operate within the bounds and constraints of the U.S. Constitution and Federal Statute, when, in fact, they do not, and have betrayed the American citizenry’s trust?Apparently, Congressional Democrats, such as Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Eric Swalwell (D-CA), members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence believe it better for Americans to live under illusion. Congressional Republicans clearly do not, and it is fortunate that Americans have individuals such as Representative Devin Nunez (R-CA), Chairman of that Committee, who, along with other Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence realize their responsibility to inform the American citizenry of serious abuses in the DOJ and FBI when serious criminal abuses come to light. Americans obviously cannot rely on Congressional Democrats, nor can they rely on the mainstream media Press, to keep Americans informed of betrayal of the public trust by high ranking Officials in the most powerful and secretive police, intelligence, and legal institutions of this Country.The public should keep in mind that, if the Democrats gain control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections, Representative Schiff will gain the chairmanship of the powerful House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This is a man who, recently, in his continuing diatribe against release of the Nunez Memo, seemingly inexplicably brought up, as an aside, that Russians now support the right of the American people to keep and bear arms? From what bizarre realm of horror and fantasy did Representative Schiff pull that idea? And what was the point of it: that Russians, according to Schiff, suddenly have reverence for our sacred Second Amendment, so we should not; or, perhaps, that Russians hope that Americans around the Country will suddenly go on a massive shooting spree, killing each other?This man, Adam Schiff, is a menace to all that is holy. What he is doing in Government has nothing to do with protecting this Nation and its people and upholding the U.S. Constitution. It has everything to do with tearing down this Nation under the guise of protecting it; destroying the rights and liberties of its people under the cloak of strengthening them; subverting the Constitution behind the mask of preserving it. He seeks, through his position as Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee, just below Representative Nunez, Chairman of the Committee, to undermine the will of the American electorate through his constant, pertinacious, presumptuous, indefensible, intolerable and singularly bizarre attacks on the Chief Executive of this Nation, President Trump.President Trump, to his credit—unlike Representative Schiff and his fellow Congressional Democrats—holds the American citizenry in high regard. Through declassification of the Nunez Memo and its subsequent release to the American citizenry, President Trump has opened a window to the machinations of  high-ranking Officials of the Deep State and Shadow Government, operating beyond the bounds of law. The American public bears witness to the contempt by which those who should be serving the public, have rebelled against it, and seek to oppress it.We continue with articles, bringing to light the game plan of those who have engineered a silent, insidious coup d’etat of the Government of the United States. The betrayers of the Nation haven’t yet lost. The American public is just now beginning to gain a glimmer of insight of the power wielded by insidious forces within the bowels of the Federal Government. Americans must remain vigilant.______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TRUMP AUTHORIZES RELEASE OF HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMO: THE TREACHERY OF SENIOR DOJ/FBI OFFICIALS, AND OF THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS WHO PROTECTED AND ENABLED THEM, WILL BE EXPOSED.

PART SEVEN

THE DISAMBIGUATION OF ‘TRUTH,’ ‘FACT,’ AND ‘OPINION’

Americans often hear the refrain that, “everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” The quip, recited with some variation, is attributed to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). Senator Moynihan, who died in 2003, served in the U.S. Senate from January 1971 through January 2001, and served, as well, as an advisor to the Republican President, Richard M. Nixon.As with many quips, Moynihan’s, too, has become, through time, an ivy-covered adage—an adage that one is expected to accept on faith as a weighty, profound truth. That would explain its continuing popularity, especially among Congressional Democrats. They recite it to refute statements of Congressional Republicans or of the U.S. President, Donald Trump. Moynihan’s quip then serves as a convenient “sound bite,” a shorthand denunciation of any statement coming from a Congressional Republican or from the U.S. President that they happen to take exception with as if the falsehood of any statement coming from those that Democrats disagree with is so obvious that no evidence is required to support their denunciation of it.The problem is that “facts”—if there are such things at all—tend to be pliable, flexible things, no less so than opinions. Facts are represented colloquially as kinds of entities that are “out there” in the aether, and, so, do not emanate from or exist in a person. Supposedly, people make assertions about facts, and those assertions are either true or false, predicated on whether, according to a couple of epistemological theories, the assertions “cohere with” or “correspond to” particular “facts.” The presumption is, then, that facts are infallible as they do not rest on one’s belief or opinion about them. That is the point of Moynihan’s quip. The problem is that, if “facts” are “out there,” a person really cannot ever retrieve them, for a person can never pierce the veil of his or her own perceptions. Facts, if there are such things, are not, generally the sort of things we can get to. The best that can be hoped for is that corroborating evidence—which are really nothing more than beliefs and opinions ostensibly resting on another fact or set of facts, and so on ad infinitum—serves to establish the truth or falsity of a person’s statement and that, through such corroboration, a consensus is reached, at some point, among the language speakers of a given community, as to convincing truth or falsity of a given statement.Sometimes consensus is readily achieved. At other times it is not.Consider the statement, “Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate, among other things, ‘any links and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump.’” That is a statement, the truth or falsity of which is determinative to the extent the statement coheres with or corresponds to or correlates with or, let us say, “mirrors” a “fact” about the world—namely whether there exists a person named Rod Rosenstein, who is, at the moment at least, a Deputy Attorney General within the Department of Justice, and that he appointed a person, Robert S. Mueller III, as Special Counsel to head a team to investigate certain matters pertaining to the Presidential campaign of Donald Trump.We say the statement is true, if it is the case that the statement coheres with or corresponds with or--let us say--correlates with or mirrors a particular “fact” or "set of facts" about the world. Well, an astute person, who has been keeping abreast of news reports knows that Rod Rosenstein does exist and that he is the Deputy Attorney General and that he did appoint a person, Robert Mueller, as Special Counsel, and that Robert Mueller has been given his appointment and specific instructions through “Order Number 3915-2017.”  So, we would say that the statement is, first of all, the kind of thing that is a truth bearer--that is to say--it is the kind of thing that can be ascertained to be either true or false. Since the statement does correspond to or cohere with or mirror a particular set of facts about the world, we say that the statement is true, and there is certainly public consensus on that. So far, no problem. But ostensible matters of fact and statements purporting to be about matters of fact get interesting and out of whack very quickly.Consider, for example, the statement, “the Mueller appointment as Special Counsel was justified.”  In asserting a justification for something, one is moving away from statements about facts. One is moving away from descriptive statements or accounts about the world—statements subject to corroboration. We are, instead, making prescriptive statements about the way the world ought to be. Counterfactual statements, as the term, ‘counterfactual,’ suggests, do not purport to say anything about the world at all. This is where Moynihan’s quip loses efficacy and poignancy, where it loses steam. For, statements about the way the world ought to be do not lend themselves to corroboration. There is no readily obtainable fact or set of facts to turn to ascertain the truth or falsity of the statement.The problem is that politicians, as with most people, do not distinguish between descriptive accounts about the world--the way the word is--and prescriptive or normative assertions about the way the world  is supposed to or ought to be. They believe, wrongly, that descriptive statements about the way the world is and prescriptive or normative statements about the way the world ought to be or should be are both factual—subject to corroboration, verification in the world.The public begins to ask questions, for example: "was the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Donald Trump justified? If not, then what lay behind the appointment?" And, "if appointment of Special Counsel was justified, was Robert Mueller the best person for the job?" But, the answers obtained, and the conclusions drawn, are muddied through one’s personal biases and predilections—those things internal to the person. This is where truth or falsity of statements, grounded in  purported “facts,” becomes fuzzy.Now, going back to Moynihan’s clever remark, we find that a person who believes the quip has efficacy might say that there are indeed, "hard, cold concrete facts" “out there” concerning the appointment of Robert Mueller and concerning various other matters, interrelated, going all the way back to the FBI handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton for serious crimes against the Nation and against the American people and that, once a person gets to the bottom of it all, the truth can be ascertained and sorted out because there is only one fact or set of facts in the world for each and every proposition about the world. Well, if one sets forth descriptive statements about these matters, then, there would reasonably be a consensus about them as this would simply amount to an exercise of lining up, one-by-one, each descriptive statement with a concrete "fact" existent in the world upon which the truth of the statement is based.But, sorting out the propositions—a very large number of them and associating each of them in a one-to-one correspondence with or coherence with a specific fact—is exceedingly difficult, no less so because the American citizenry doesn’t have and cannot gain access to all the underlying  information.Unfortunately, many politicians don’t want the American people to have access to the underlying information nor, for that matter, to any information about the inner workings of the Federal Government, upon which their lives may be deleteriously impacted because that would shed light on the machinations of senior officials in Government who have likely engaged in illegal actions. What are the illegal actions of these senior officials? Well, we suspect that they used the power of their Office to give Hillary Clinton an edge or boost against Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election, and we suspect that they have engaged in illegal actions to oust Donald Trump from Office upon his prevailing in the U.S. Presidential election against Clinton. Politicians give seemingly plausible reasons for precluding the average American citizen from gaining access to such information. They raise issues of national security. They talk about the need to protect confidential sources and to safeguard intelligence gathering methodology. Sometimes these seemingly plausible reasons are sound. Often, as in the matter of release of the House Intelligence Committee Memo, they are not. They are simply clichés offered up to hide the real reason for keeping the Memo hidden: to prevent the American citizenry from learning of illegal machinations behind the scene that upend the entire Democratic election process. They suggest that, due to Russian meddling, which they insist Americans  accept without proffering any proof to support the assertion, Clinton would have won the election--a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise that the Russians did interfere with our elections, even if the underlying premise is true. But, that conclusion, apparently, provides the impetus for and drives the action on multiple fronts to oust Trump from Office. Now, one may demur, arguing that the assertions set forth in this article are themselves mere unsubstantiated opinion. But are they? Are they not declarative assertions that can be substantiated, through release of the House Intelligence Committee Memo? Surely, the truth--or falsity for that matter--of the assertions made here can be substantiated at least in part through release of the Memo. But, that isn't something the supporters of Clinton want, even if the public would finally be privy to the underlying basis for the Mueller investigation. No one on either of the political spectrum would refute that point, which explains why, on the one hand, Congressional Democrats and senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI, and those who supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy, among others, including publishers, editors and reporters of the mainstream media and left-wing news anchors and commentators, don't want the Memo released to the American public, and why, on the other hand, Congressional Republicans, and many rank and file FBI agents and rank and file DOJ attorneys, and American citizens who supported Trump, along with conservative news reporters and commentators do want the Memo released to the American public and unredacted.* They evidently know that the information set forth is true, and it is the truth that they cannot and will not abide. It is the truth that they are afraid of. For, it is the truth that illustrates for the American citizenry to see, indeed for the entire world to see--when that truth is held up to the light of day--that these individuals, these senior Officials of the FBI and DOJ, and these Congressional Democrats, such as Adam Schiff and Dianne Feinstein, are scoundrels, not deserving of respect of the people whom they claim to serve; whom they deign to serve, but whom they serve up as slaves to the lords whom they really serve--the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist "elites" who seek to subordinate this Nation and its people to a new pan-world Order.If the Mueller investigation is a sham, then, presumptively, the motive behind the investigation operates, not to find evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Donald Trump or on the part of Trump Campaign Officials or members of Trump's Administration, but operates, rather, as a critical step leading up to impeachment. And, once again, no one would seriously contest the accuracy of that point either, which would explain why it is that, having failed to find evidence of a criminal conspiracy between anyone connected with Trump and the Russians--if ever there were grounds for surmising such conspiracy in the first place--Mueller and his team are not wrapping up the investigation but are exploring other avenues of investigation, namely obstruction of justice--to keep the sham going. Obstruction is, for Mueller and his team, a convenient "peg to hang a hat on," because "[i]n a broad sense, any offense negatively affecting government functions can be viewed as an obstruction against the administration of justice. For example, treason, sedition, perjury, bribery, escape, contempt, false personation, destruction of government property, and assault of a public official are crimes against the government. Moreover, as the number of governmental functions has increased throughout time, the number of statutory offenses penalizing obstructions of those functions likewise has increased. Many of these crimes have been clearly and distinctly set apart as separate offenses. . . ." "The Varying Parameters of Obstruction of Justice in American Criminal Law," 65 La. L. Rev. 49 (Fall 2004), by John F. Decker. Obstruction of Justice charges are, by their nature, open-ended matters--broad domains into which almost any wrongdoing or semblance of wrongdoing can be dropped. Of course if an obstruction of justice charge could ostensibly be lodged against Donald Trump or of any one or more people in his Campaign or in his Administration, one could certainly make the case that an obstruction of justice charge, among many others, could, reasonably, certainly, have been lodged against Hillary Clinton and against individuals who worked for her Campaign. And, if obstruction of justice charges were not lodged against Hillary Clinton and others who worked for or on behalf of her when, notwithstanding that all of the elements of multiple obstruction of justice charges were met, then why wasn't Clinton and any of her people charged with obstruction of justice? If those members of the FBI who were involved in the investigation of Hillary Clinton on multivarious federal charges did not bring charges against her specifically because they did not wish to disrupt her campaign for the U.S. Presidency, then, one might well ask whether those investigators of the FBI involved had not themselves obstructed justice. But, who would charge them? And, imagine for a moment that Hillary Clinton did prevail in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election against Donald Trump. Imagine a likely criminal occupying the highest Office in the Land. Imagine a system of laws in this Nation turned on its head. Imagine Harlequin Justice and a Harlequin U.S. President: Hillary Clinton. The conclusion we draw is that an attempted coup of our Constitutional Republic is underway. The contents of the House Intelligence Committee Memo will certainly lend credence to that conclusion. That is why there has been considerable push-back against release of the Memo to the public. The Conspirators don't want an accounting. They don't want a reckoning. Thus, they come up with specious reasons to waylay release of the Memo. What the American public is witness to is a deliberate and reprehensible attempt--assembled by actors in Congress, in the Federal Bureaucracy, and in the Mainstream Media, with likely assistance from Billionaire globalists both here at home and abroad to undermine the Trump Presidency.Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA), House Intelligence Committee Chairman, seeks to redress this horrific situation that bad actors have inflicted on our Country and continue to inflict on our County and that is why he ordered preparation of a Memorandum detailing DOJ and FBI surveillance abuse and misuse of the FISA Court by senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI. These abuses involve presenting the FISA Court with an application for issuance of a warrant to enable the FBI to conduct surveillance of American citizens. If the application were submitted with evil intent, with knowledge that the presenters had that the content of the application was patently false or that the content had not been corroborated for veracity and if those presenters of the FBI and DOJ represented to the FISA Court that the content of the application for a FISA warrant was true, then those presenters of the FBI and DOJ perpetrated a fraud on the Court. That is reprehensible. That is unforgivable. And that, apparently, is precisely what happened. That is what prompted Representative Nunes to order preparation of the Memo, for release to the American citizenry. The legal authority for him to do so is based on the Committee’s function and job:“The United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) is a committee of the United States House of Representatives, currently chaired by Congressman Devin Nunes (California). Created in 1977, HPSCI is charged with oversight of the United States Intelligence Community—which includes the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the following seventeen elements of the U.S. Government—and the Military Intelligence Program.”The HPSCI is tasked with oversight of powerful institutions—seventeen institutions that, in a free Republic, cannot be trusted to police themselves. Representative Nunes became frustrated, and rightfully so, by DOJ and FBI recalcitrance in responding to Committee concerns.The DOJ and FBI must answer to the American people through their Representatives in Congress. Apparently, the DOJ and FBI don’t see it that way. Congressional Democrats, like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein—who have been most vocal in their denunciation of the House Intelligence Committee Memo—don’t see it that way either. You would think that all members of Congress would be aghast at unethical conduct, arising to the level of crimes—serious crimes at that—that senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI, had likely committed against the Nation and against the American people. But, Representatives Schiff and Pelosi and Senator Feinstein don’t want the public to have access to the contents of the Memo. Apparently, neither does the mainstream media that has come out of the shadows itself on the topic, which it had previously ignored, and no longer can do so, and, so, reluctantly reports it.Why is it that Representatives Schiff and Pelosi, and Senator Feinstein don’t want the public to have access to the contents of the Memo? What is it that senior Officials and Congressional Democrats are fearful of? Are they afraid that the contents of the Memo do not correspond with or cohere with facts, as they claim, and that, the public therefore should not gain access to a document that portrays senior Officials of the DOJ and the FBI in a false light, damning them for illegal conduct these senior Officials of the DOJ and the FBI never engaged in? Or, rather, is it because these Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI and these Congressional Democrats are afraid that the contents of the Memo do clearly correspond with or cohere with facts “in the world” and that the contents of the Memo do rightfully damn these individuals for betraying their Oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If the latter, then one need not wonder as to the concern of Congressional Democrats and the concern of high-ranking Officials in the Federal Bureaucracy over the contents of the Memo, and why it is they remonstrate against the Memo’s release. For, these holders of high rank in Government, who wield incredible power, and whom the public is expected to trust, and who are expected to utilize the power of their Office circumspectly, and whom, the public—so it is told—have the utmost integrity, would be exposed for the frauds that they are, and would, themselves, be investigated for crimes against this Nation and against the American people. Moreover, it is clear enough, although no one publicly acknowledges it, that, once President Trump does allow for the release of the House Intelligence Memo to the American public, there will be a ripple effect that calls into question the legitimacy of the entirety of the Mueller investigation. And, the ripple effect does not end there. The public will obtain an inkling as to depth of and complexity of the conspiracy against the U.S. President and, by extension, the depth of and complexity of the conspiracy against the American people. The American public will rightfully demand an accounting of these high-ranking Officials, including a demand for an accounting of Congressional Democrats who protect these Federal Bureaucrats who flagrantly violate the laws of the Land—senior police officials and senior attorneys, whom one would think would have the utmost respect for our laws, but who obviously don't.The reasons Congressional Democrats give for preventing release of the Memo to the American public cloaks a normative argument that is not subject to true/false verification. These Congressional Democrats and the senior Officials who both betray their Nation and its people have a vision for this Nation that cannot be reconciled with the vision that President Trump and much of the American citizenry have for this Country. These Congressional Democrats and senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI and many senior Officials of the Federal Bureaucracy wish to create a Nation that is subordinated to a new pan-World Order; a Nation with open borders; a Nation open to disparate multicultural influences; a Nation suffering the fragmenting of core values; a Nation witnessing the disassembling of fundamental rights and liberties; and a Nation that sees an expansion and consolidation of power in the Federal Government with ultimate transfer of power to international Governing bodies. Clearly, these senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI that wield incredible power have little regard for the American people. And, those members of Congress who protect and enable the  illegal conduct of these Officials are no better. Indeed, they are all complicit in the assault on our Constitution and complicit in the illegal effort to destroy the Trump Presidency. These Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI feel they can spurn our laws because they presume they know what is in the best interests of the American people. They create ad hoc rules of behavior for themselves as they deem themselves to be superior to the public.  They demonstrate contempt for the citizenry. Their behavior amounts to crass, unabashed paternalism. The Founders of our Republic would be appalled. You should be appalled too. The American citizenry must demand an accounting. Perhaps, with release of the House Intelligence Committee Memo, there now will be an accounting.______________________________________________*As this article goes to publication, the Arbalest Quarrel has learned that U.S. President, Donald Trump, has authorized release of the House Intelligence Committee Memo, and, apparently, in unredacted form, which means that Americans should see the names of those high-ranking Officials in the FBI and DOJ, who have betrayed the trust of the citizenry of this Nation. These individuals of "Justice" must be brought to justice themselves. Once the Memo is released to the public, the Arbalest Quarrel will analyze it and post the results of its analysis on this site.______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RELEASE THE MEMO: CAN A CHARGE OF TREASON BE BROUGHT TO BEAR AGAINST DOJ AND FBI OFFICIALS WHO HAVE MISUSED THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THEIR OFFICE TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

PART FOUR

THE CHARGE OF TREASON AGAINST THE DOJ AND FBI OFFICIALS, WHO MAY HAVE UNLAWFULLY CONSPIRED TO TOPPLE THE U.S. PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP, IS UNAVAILABLE, ON THE FACTS, AS WE PRESENTLY KNOW THEM.

One would think that those Government Officials responsible for attempting a coup of the Executive Branch of Government should also be charged with treason--the most serious federal offense--that the founders of our Republic and framers of our Constitution specifically set down in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, and which is one crime the conviction of which does allow for a death penalty sentence upon conviction.Senior officials of the DOJ and FBI committed several heinous acts against this Nation, this Nation’s Constitution and laws, and against this Nation’s institutions.

• REFUSAL OF THE FBI TO RECOMMEND INDICTMENT AND THE REFUSAL OF THE DOJ TO INDICT HILLARY CLINTON ON MULTIPLE COUNTS OF MULTIPLE FELONIES, EVEN THOUGH THERE EXISTS AMPLE EVIDENCE OF CRIME, INCLUDING THE MISHANDLING OF CLASSIFIED DATA, BRIBERY, DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, LYING TO FEDERAL OFFICIALS, MONEY LAUNDERING, RACETEERING, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND PUBLIC CORRUPTION AMONG MANY OTHERS, SO THAT A LIKELY CRIMINAL MAY CONTINUE HER BID FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND, HAD SHE WON THE ELECTION, THIS WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A LIKELY SERIAL FELON OCCUPYING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND, ENABLING A THOROUGHLY DISREPUTABLE INDIVIDUAL, ALONG WITH HER HENCHMEN TO TAKE THIS NATION DOWN TO UTTER AND IRRETRIEVABLE RUINATION;

• CONDUCTING A CLANDESTINE OPERATION AGAINST THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP, TO UNFAIRLY, AND UNETHICALLY, ASSIST A LIKELY SERIAL FELON, HILLARY CLINTON, IN HER BID FOR U.S. PRESIDENT;

• IN FAILING TO INDICT HILLARY CLINTON ON MULTIPLE COUNTS OF MULTIPLE FEDERAL FELONIES, SENIOR FBI AND DOJ OFFICIALS ENABLED HILLARY CLINTON, A RUTHLESS, CUNNING, UNETHICAL, DISREPUTABLE INDIVIDUAL AND LIKELY SERIAL FELON, TO MISUSE THE MACHINERY OF THE DNC TO UNDERCUT THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL BID OF ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC PARTY HOPEFUL, BERNIE SANDERS; AND, AFTER, HILLARY CLINTON SECURED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION FOR U.S. PRESIDENT THROUGH TREACHERY, SHE COMPOUNDED HER IGNOBLE CONDUCT AND MISDEEDS BY ORCHESTRATING OPPOSITION RESEARCH SCHEMES TO OBTAIN FALSE AND SCANDALOUS INFORMATION AGAINST HER REPUBLICAN PARTY OPPONENT, DONALD TRUMP, IN AN UNETHICAL ATTEMPT TO ENHANCE HER CHANCES TO PREVAIL AGAINST HER OPPONENT;

• CLINTON LOST, BUT, ONCE, TRUMP PREVAILED IN THE 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE FBI AND DOJ PRESENTED FALSE DOCUMENTS TO THE FISA COURT IN ORDER TO SECURE, ILLEGALLY, A WARRANT TO INVESTIGATE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS;

• THESE SENIOR FBI AND DOJ OFFICIALS SET IN MOTION THE MACHINERY FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, TO INVESTIGATE FALSE CLAIMS OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION WITH TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS, ALL IN AN EFFORT TO UNDERMINE THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY, WHEN THERE EXISTS NO TENABLE BASIS TO SUPPORT SUCH INVESTIGATION.

The Constitution sets forth:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.The U.S. Supreme Court, in Hanauer v. Doane, 79 U.S. 342, 20 L. Ed. 439, 12 Wall 342 (1879) stated, clearly, succinctly, and categorically: “No crime is greater than that of treason.” The crime of treason is also codified in federal statute, Chapter 115, Treason, Sedition, and subversive activities.Chapter 115 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USCS § 2381 (Treason) states, in total:Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $ 10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court pointed out that the crime of treason comprises two elements: one, adherence to enemy; and two, rendering aid and comfort to him. Cramer vs. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 65 S. Ct. 918, 89 L. Ed. 1441 (1945).The expression, ‘enemy’ is a legal term of art. It has specific meaning in law.In Stephan v. United States, 133 F.2d 87 (1943), cert. den., 318 U.S. 781, 87 L. Ed. 1148, 638 S. Ct. 858 (1943), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said that ‘enemy’ refers to a party who is the subject of a foreign power whom the United States is in open hostility with.  The Arbalest Quarrel has written about the crime of treason in an article, titled, “'Treason'— A Timely Issue in the 2016 Presidential Election.” It would seem at first glance that senior DOJ and FBI Officials’ treacherous conduct should support a charge of treason, but, on close examination, the actions of these senior FBI and DOJ officials do not satisfy the predicate elements to support a charge of treason.Since, there is no evidence—at least as yet—that senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI that have machinated against Donald Trump have done so as the subject of a foreign power, with whom we are at war, these senior Officials of the FBI and DOJ cannot be charged with treason. A charge of treason against these individuals simply cannot gain traction.

IF TREASON IS UNAVAILABLE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY CRIMES THAT SENIOR FBI AND DOJ OFFICIALS CAN FEASIBLY BE CHARGED WITH THAT INVOLVE A DESIGN TO ATTACK THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS COUNTRY, INCLUDING, AND PRIMARILY, THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THIS NATION?

Before we attempt an answer to this question, let us step back for a moment, and take a closer look at two principal defilers of our Nation. One of them is Peter Strzok, a staunch supporter and defender of Hillary Clinton, who once served as Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI, and who is still working for the FBI but has been demoted. Peter Strzok was a principal player in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s criminal activities, pertaining to her mishandling of classified information during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about this and about other crimes that Hillary Clinton likely committed during her tenure as Secretary of State and since then.  See, for example, the article titled, “Pay to Play: The Clinton Foundation’s Open Secret and Silent Purpose.”Strzok was also a member of Special Counsel, Robert Mueller’s team, ostensibly investigating collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian Government, until Mueller was forced to remove him—almost certainly, reluctantly—once evidence of Strzok’s strong bias against Trump came to light, after publication of a series of ominous text messages between Strzok and Strzok’s mistress, Lisa Page. Lisa Page is, for her part, a principal defiler of our Nation, as well. Lisa Page is an FBI attorney, whose animus against Trump is as strong as Strzok’s. The two of them exchanged text messages referring to a “secret society,” apparently composed of high ranking officials in the DOJ and FBI who had conspired to spare Hillary Clinton from felony indictments so that she could continue her bid for U.S. President in the 2016 election.Having lost the election to Trump, the betrayers of our Nation, Strzok and Page and other senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI, conspired to destroy the Trump Presidency.On January 23, 2018, Fox News reported,"Two top FBI officials under fire for exchanging anti-Trump text messages during the 2016 election spoke of a “secret society” the day after President Trump's victory, according to two lawmakers with knowledge of the messages.Peter Strzok—a top counterintelligence official involved in both the Hillary Clinton email probe and FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe—exchanged more than 50,000 messages with senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was romantically involved.House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, said Monday that among the messages the pair exchanged are references to a ‘secret society’ within the Department of Justice and the FBI.‘We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of [Trump’s] election, that there may have been a secret society of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI—to include Page and Strzok—that would be working against him,’ Ratcliffe said Monday on Fox News’ ‘The Story with Martha MacCallum.’”Further, in a New York Post article, posted on the same date, the American public learns that:“. . . each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a “secret society” and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe. If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link.Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.” Congressional Democrats are craven apologists for these individuals, in the DOJ and FBI who have misused the power and authority of their Office to promote their own political biases. It is one thing to hold political viewpoints. That is, of course, every citizen’s right. Under 5 USCS § 7321, “It is the policy of the Congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.” But, under 5 USCS § 7323, the so-called “Hatch Act”: “Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” This is precisely what Senior FBI and DOJ officials did when they used their influence to assist Hillary Clinton in her U.S Presidential; bid. They violated the Hatch Act. But, having failed on that score, they went further, much further, as they sought and even now seek to undermine—and more—to destroy the Trump Presidency. There are many serious national security crimes, apart from treason. A few of them fall into the broad categories of espionage, sabotage, sedition, terrorism, rebellion or insurrection, and advocating overthrow of the Government. When we look at the specific legal elements of each of these horrific crimes against this Nation, we see that none of the actions of Strzok and Page, and other senior officials in the DOJ and the FBI—that at the moment have come to light—serious as they are, constitute the most damning crimes of all, namely, national security crimes falling into the aforementioned categories.Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI clearly misused the power of their Office to enable a likely criminal, Hillary Clinton, to run for President of the United States when she should, instead, have faced indictment on serious felony charges.  Once they failed to seat Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, these senior Officials have continued to misuse the power of their Office to undermine the President. It is clear that national security violations are taking place. Consider: Had Hillary Clinton won the election, we would see, for the first time in our Nation’s history, a person elected to the highest Office in the Land who had likely committed federal felonies—many of them, and, as U.S. President, she would not only have continued to conceal her felonies, she would have continued to commit them. All of this treachery would have remained hidden, buried, if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 general election for U.S. President.Having failed to seat Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, these same betrayers of our Nation are still machinating—this time to undermine the Trump Presidency. Yet, there is no national security crime, codified in Statute, into which the actions of these betrayers of the Nation can be charged. But, there should be.It is deeply troubling that senior officials can so blithely skirt the law, undermining the Office of the U.S. President as clearly and as effectively as would be the case were these individuals actually working for a foreign sponsor.We therefore call on Congress to take a renewed look at our National Security crimes and consider enacting a new Statute or set of Statutes that would allow for indictment, in the future, of those individuals, who, like Strzok, and Page and others, have committed serious national security breaches, tantamount to treason, for having misused their powerful positions in Government to undermine the Office of the President of the United States, grounded on the ludicrous notion that they, alone, know what is best for this Nation, and therefore dare to thwart the will, of the people, and do so, insidiously, surreptitiously, cavalierly, audaciously, under cover of darkness.The American citizenry should be appalled. Please contact your House Representative. Demand release of the House Intelligence Committee Memorandum that Representatives Jordan and Gaetz refer to, at once. The phone number is: 202-224-3121._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RELEASE THE MEMO: SENIOR DOJ AND FBI OFFICIALS LIKELY COMMITTED SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIMES IN THEIR UNLAWFUL ATTEMPT TO TAKE DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP.

PART THREE

THE SWAMP MUST BE DRAINED; CONSPIRATORS’ HEADS MUST ROLL; THE GUILTY MUST BE HELD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE.

As intimated in the account of the contents of the House Intelligence Committee Memo that Representatives Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) have alluded to on Fox News, it is not enough that Senior DOJ and FBI Officials, whose names appear in the House Intelligence Memo, simply lose their jobs (which would allow them to collect retirement benefits). The fact that DOJ and FBI senior officials like Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, and undoubtedly many others, continue to hold onto jobs in the DOJ and FBI, is reason for consternation.Clearly, other senior Officials of the Deep State are protecting them. How high up the Government ladder does this insidious subterfuge extend? The President’s call to drain the swamp now takes on immediate and critical urgency.The “swamp” of the Federal Government is, it is now evident, more than mere metaphor—much more. The expression takes on literal meaning. Why are these senior DOJ and FBI officials still holding positions in the Federal Government? Why are they still receiving paychecks, courtesy of the American taxpayer? Why do they still hold top secret security clearances? These people and others should be fired immediately, and they should be investigated for serious crimes against this Nation and the American people. Why hasn’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions acted against these individuals? After all, Jeff Sessions holds the highest position in the Department of Justice? Why hasn’t Sessions cleaned house? Is he unable to do so, notwithstanding that he holds the top position in the DOJ? If that is the case, then, do high-ranking officials in the DOJ, and in the FBI, and in other Cabinet-level Departments, and in the Military, and in the Intelligence Community, and in Congress too, hold sway over the entirety of the Federal Government. If these high-ranking senior Officials, these Conspirators who have betrayed their oath of Office, who have betrayed the U.S. Constitution, who have betrayed this Nation, and who have betrayed the American people, do hold sway over the Federal Government, then, we must conclude that this Shadow Government—this Deep State within the Federal Government—these Conspirators hold sway over the American people as well. Has a coup d’état of the Government already taken place notwithstanding their failure to seat the shrew and puppet of the trans-nationalist, internationalist, globalist “elite,”—Hillary Clinton?If Attorney General Jeff Sessions does muster the strength to exercise the authority vested in him and hold to account those officials of the DOJ and FBI, who have betrayed this Nation, who have betrayed our Constitution, and who have betrayed the American people, then we should see investigations commencing at once. If the Attorney General does not have the courage to assert his authority, then he should resign; and, if Sessions does not voluntarily step down, then President Trump should demand his resignation, or otherwise, simply fire him, and appoint a person who has the stomach to clean house!In the interim, these Betrayers of our Nation, of our Nation’s Constitution, and of our Nation’s citizenry must be prevented from doing further harm to our Nation, to our Nation’s President, and to our Nation’s people. Accordingly:

• THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DOJ OR FBI SHOULD BE TERMINATED AT ONCE!
• THEIR SALARIES SHOULD BE SUSPENDED!
• THEIR SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD BE REVOKED!
• THEIR MISCONDUCT SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED!

Once evidence of the serious federal crimes--that these senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI committed and are even now still committing--has been systematically collected, collated, and analyzed by prosecutors—and it is certainly clear that a plethora of such evidence exists—then legal action must commence forthwith:

• THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD BE INDICTED!
• THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD THEN BE TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW FOR THEIR CRIMES!
• IF CONVICTED, THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD RECEIVE NO LENIENCY IN THE METING OUT OF THEIR SENTENCES.
• AND, THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD BE DENIED RECEIPT OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS!

IF SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE DOJ AND FBI HAVE COMMITTED SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIMES AGAINST THIS NATION, AGAINST THIS NATION’S CONSTITUTION, AND AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AS IS NOW MANIFEST AND CLEARLY CERTAIN, WHAT WOULD THE NATURE OF THOSE CRIMES BE? WE PERCEIVE AND ANTICIPATE THE FOLLOWING: CONSPIRACY; PERJURY; SUBORNATION OF PERJURY; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW; AND OBSTRUCTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND COMMITTEES.

One serious crime falls under Title 19 of the United States Code: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I, Crimes, Chapter 19, Conspiracy.19 USCS § 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States) sets forth in principal part:  If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. A second serious federal crime falls under Chapter 79 of the United States Code. Chapter 79 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 18 USCS § 1621 (Perjury generally) sets forth in principal part: Whoever—(1)  having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or(2)  in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.Since the Fusion GPS Dossier is a lie, those DOJ Officials who presented it to the FISA Court, swearing to the authenticity of the contents have committed perjury before the Court; and, since they did this to secure a warrant from the FISA Court that would allow Special Counsel Mueller to undertake an investigation of Trump Campaign Officials, predicated on presumptive collusion between Russian officials and Trump, those DOJ Officials who lied before the FISA Court to affect or influence the FISA Court to issue a warrant have committed a third serious federal crime, that these senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI have likely committed is subornation of perjury.A third serious federal crimes falls under Chapter 79 of  Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USCS § 1622 (Subornation of perjury). 18 USCS § 1622  (Subornation of perjury) sets forth in principal part:Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.A fourth serious federal crime falls under Chapter 13 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 18 USCS § 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law). 18 USCS § 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law) sets forth in principal part:Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. . . .By betraying their oath to uphold the laws of this Nation, they have deprived the citizens of this Nation of their rights as they have attempted to subvert election laws by allowing an ignominious individual, Hillary Clinton, to campaign for the highest Office in the Land, when Clinton should, instead, have been indicted on several criminal charges. The Arbalest Quarrel has detailed these crimes at length, in several articles. See for example, “Pay to Play: The Clinton Foundation’s Open Secret and Silent Purpose.” These senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI have compounded their crimes by unlawfully utilizing tools, such as appointment of a Special Counsel—Robert Mueller—to undertake a lengthy, expensive investigation of the U.S. President, Donald Trump, when appointment of Special Counsel and investigation of Donald Trump is altogether unfounded, as the basis for such investigation is grounded on nothing but bald-faced lies, unsubstantiated hearsay, unfounded assumptions, and mere innuendo.Having failed to seat a likely criminal, Hillary Clinton, in Office, these Conspirators—senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI—have now turned their attention to removing the U.S. President, Donald Trump, from Office. They are doing this out of spite and they are doing this because, in their mind, they won’t accept this President’s policy initiatives; and they won’t accept the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump in a fair and lawful election. They arrogantly assert that they know what is best for the American people and thereby subvert the very Constitution and laws of this Country that they have taken an oath to serve.And, a fifth serious federal crime falls under title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USCS § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees) 18 USCS § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees) sets forth in critical part:Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years. . . .News Commentator, Sean Hannity, reported on Fox News, Monday, January 22, 2018, that hundreds of anti-Trump text messages have inexplicably vanished from FBI databases. The website, Sean Hannity "Release the Memo," further elucidates the point raised and expounded upon on Hannity's evening program. If, as almost certainly appears to be the case, senior officials of the DOJ and/or FBI deliberately destroyed messages—amounting to pre-emptive document deletion or shredding—in anticipation of civil or criminal investigation of wrongdoing, this amounts to anticipatory obstruction of justice and they may be subject to criminal liability under the obstruction of proceedings Statute mentioned, supra.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL WON’T REST UNTIL THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMO, COMPLETE, UNABRIDGED, AND UNREDACTED IS DECLASSIFIED FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

In Part Five of our ongoing “Release the Memo” multi-series set of articles, we will look at whether the most serious charge of all, “treason,” can be leveled against these Senior DOJ and FBI Officials who have betrayed their Oath of Office. In Part Six, we will look at the actions of Congressional Democrats who--as with the mainstream news media, that has tacitly assisted the agents of the Deep State by censoring reporting of news pertaining to the House Intelligence Committee Memorandum--are impeding the release of the House Intelligence Committee Memo, and, through their actions are demonstrating, as well, their contempt for the American people. We are speaking here, namely and particularly, of Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) Ranking Democratic Party Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.We are doing our part. Please do your part. Tell Congress to release to the American public the House Intelligence Committee Memo that describes DOJ and FBI FISA Court abuses. The phone number to call is (202) 224-3121. That number will connect you to the U.S. Capitol switchboard. Follow the prompts to connect to U.S. Representatives and to U.S. Senators in your State._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RELEASE THE MEMO: MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWSPAPERS FAIL TO KEEP PUBLIC INFORMED OF THREAT POSED TO THIS COUNTRY FROM WITHIN

PART TWO

WHY AREN'T MAINSTREAM NEWS ORGANIZATIONS COVERING THIS HOTBED MATTER?

MAINSTREAM MEDIA BLACKOUT OF DAMNING HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMO ABETS DOJ/FBI CONSPIRACY TO TAKE DOWN U.S. PRESIDENT

With all the media buzz about the Government shutdown, the more pressing matter, by far, is this: Conspiratorial DOJ and FBI Officials and, perhaps, other high-ranking Obama Administration hold-overs of the Deep State have surreptitiously planned to overthrow Donald Trump. The odd thing is that this silent coup is still unfolding. It is unfolding, like a seemingly radiant—at least as presented to the public by Congressional Democrats—but clearly poisonous and deadly flower—and all of it with the passive, placid consent and connivance of mainstream media news organizations and outlets.The House Intelligence Committee Memo, would, as House Intelligence Committee Republicans make plain, explain clearly the reprehensible, insidious conspiracy afoot, within this Country, to oust Donald Trump from Office.We begin with this: the Fusion GPS Dossier, a work of fiction, concocted by ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, comprising uncorroborated, garbage meant to compromise Donald Trump—commissioned and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, which she controls, and which she had hoped would assure her victory in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and which now serves as the primary force behind Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of collusion between Trump Campaign Officials and the Russian Government.The Fusion GPS Dossier serves as the predicate basis for Special Counsel, Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump and his Campaign Officials. This Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, along with other Deep State Conspirators—whose names undoubtedly appear in the House Intelligence Committee Memo—seek, together, to take down Donald Trump. The Fusion GPS Dossier also serves a complementary purpose for these Conspirators. It serves, at one and the same time to draw attention away from Hillary Clinton and other likely criminals who worked for and who would have had jobs in Clinton’s Administration had she prevailed in the 2016 election. Now that she has lost the election, she remains vulnerable to a new investigation of her many criminal actions when she served as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.Obviously, Hillary Clinton, and the toadies and hangers-on who served her, along with mainstream news media organizations and Congressional Democrats—all of them—are furious that Hillary Clinton lost the election. What does this mean for the Country? Well, apart from the shattering of Clinton’s personal delusions of grandeur, we see, thankfully, an abrupt end to President Barack Obama’s domestic and foreign policy agenda. Hillary Clinton, as with Barack Obama before her, would have taken her cues from the secretive, ruthless, powerful, trans-nationalist, internationalist, globalist “elite” who seek to dismantle this Nation’s Constitution, and who intend to make the U.S. a vassal of a new world order, which the EU gives the American public some intimation of.

WHY DOES CONGRESS ALLOW THE SCAM OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION TO CONTINUE?

To date, after several months of “investigation” of collusion between Trump Campaign Officials and the Russian Government, Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, has come up with nothing, because there is nothing. Congressional Democrats, though, want the investigation to continue. In an obvious and blatant attempt to give the Mueller investigation an aura of respectability and to suggest that the Mueller probe constitutes something more than a rip-off to the American taxpayer, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), “released,” ostensibly on her own, according to the liberal news media website, Politico, “the transcript of congressional investigators’ interview in August 2017 with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, whose firm was behind the controversial dossier alleging ties between President Donald Trump and Russians.” Politico provides a link to the transcript. On perusal the transcript is nothing more than a compilation of bald, hearsay assertions that would not be admissible in a Court of law.It is time to end the illegal farce of the Mueller investigation. Further, the American public should demand a renewed—and this time, true and proper—investigation of Hillary Clinton and of those toadies who have aided and abetted her, along with an investigation of the conspirators who orchestrated and who are even now systematically machinating behind the scenes, blatantly, smugly, continuing to carry out their detailed, despicable, diabolical operation to destroy the Trump Presidency and to undermine the will of the people of this Country.In a renewed investigation of Hillary Clinton and her many henchmen, along with an investigation of those responsible for attempting to undermine the Trump Presidency, the Arbalest Quarrel demands that Attorney General Jeff Sessions appoint a new cadre of FBI agents and officials, and a new cadre of DOJ attorneys and officials—uncorrupted Americans, beyond reproach, unconnected with and untainted with the conspiracy to protect Hillary Clinton and unconnected with the conspiracy to destroy the U.S. President Donald Trump—to conduct these investigations.

SO, THEN, WHY AREN’T THE MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS REPORTING ON THIS FARCE AND DEMANDING, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY, A RELEASE OF THE CLASSIFIED HOUSE INTELLIGENCE MEMO THAT LAYS BARE THE INDIVIDUALS IN GOVERNMENT WHO, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, ARE USING THE POWER OF THEIR OFFICE IN THE DOJ AND FBI, AND, POSSIBLY, IN THE CIA AND NSA AS WELL, TO MACHINATE AND CONSPIRE TO DESTROY THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND, THEREIN, TO UNDERMINE THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ELECTED DONALD TRUMP TO SET THIS COUNTRY ARIGHT: STRENGTHENING THIS COUNTRY’S BILL OF RIGHTS; ENSURING THIS NATION'S SYSTEM OF LAWS, THIS NATION'S CONSTITUTION, AND THAT THIS NATION'S JURISPRUDENCE ARE NEVER SUBORDINATED TO THOSE OF ANY OTHER NATION, PERSONS, OR LEGAL ENTITY; ENSURING THAT OUR CORE VALUES REMAIN IN PLACE AND THAT OUR NATION’S HISTORY IS NOT FORGOTTEN; SECURING OUR NATION’S BORDERS; PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY’S SMALL BUSINESSES AND WORKERS FROM THE EFFECTS OF RAMPANT GLOBALIZATION; PROTECTING THE  SANCTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL; AND KEEPING MEANINGFUL THE CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN’ THAT IS IN DANGER OF BEING ERODED AND DEGRADED THROUGH THE VERY EXISTENCE OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS PRESENT WITHIN OUR BORDERS, ABSURDLY CLAIMING THEY HAVE A "RIGHT" TO REMAIN HERE?

One would think that The mainstream Press would be all over this. It isn’t. The left-wing mainstream New York Times, whose motto is “all the news that’s fit to print,” reports nothing. Of course, The New York Times, debasing the sacred protection afforded the Press, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows itself to be used as a tool of—or, more likely, is itself complicit in—the coup attempt to oust a popularly elected U.S. President. So, the NY Times reports nothing.Non-information—a veritable news blackout of critical events—is even more damaging to the maintenance of a free Republic than news distortion—i.e., reporting “fake” news, consisting of disinformation or misinformation, meant to deceive the public and to turn public attention toward trivial or irrelevant matters. Campaigns of deliberate deception, carried out by the Press through non-information, misinformation, and disinformation destroy a news organization’s credibility. To be sure, an astute reader may glean nuggets of truth even from misinformation or disinformation. But a total news blackout--a complete censoring of news--is a different sort of beast, as there is nothing to glean from a void in the news.We would expect news blackouts in Countries ruled by totalitarian regimes, not in Democratic Republics. News blackouts occurring in a Free Republic, such as the U.S., are heinous. The mainstream news media hides behind the First Amendment, claiming to work on behalf of the American people. Not so! They abet conspirators who seek to overthrow a popularly elected leader of our Nation.This is not the first time that a mainstream news organization, namely and specifically, The New York Times, hides news that is definitely fit to print. Indeed, it is the Times' new policy, now etched in stone, to keep their news reporters on a tight leash. The Arbalest Quarrel has recently written about the Times’ new gag order on its own reporters. See our article, titled, The Mainstream Media New York Times Newspaper’s New “Gag Order” Policy Prevents Its Employees From Exercising Their Right Of Free Speech Under The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution.We guess that no other mainstream newspaper has reported on this apparent diabolical coup attempt—an attempted coup d’état of the Executive Branch of Government that is still unfolding, a matter more dangerous than the Watergate exposé that the Washington Post had written extensively on. Where is the Washington Post now? We see just a smattering of this frightening and provocative news in that news publication. Apparently, neither the Washington Post nor The New York Times, and likely no other mainstream media newspaper considers the overthrow of a legitimate U.S. President—who wishes only to do his job to faithfully execute the laws of this Country in accordance with his Oath of Office and who seeks to strengthen the Bill of Rights—to amount to news that most mainstream media news organizations like The New York Times considers the kind of news that’s fit to bring to the attention of the American citizen.Even conservative leaning Wall Street Journal, too, has nothing to say about the House Intelligence Committee Memo that Republican Congressmen, Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan first brought to the attention of the American public in the last week’s Hannity broadcast. Gatekeepers of information obviously exist on both the “right” and “left” of the political spectrum. The American public is caught in the middle, deceived from this bastion of Democracy—this Fourth Estate—that claims to be the guardian of American Democracy. Instead, the Press, too, betrays the American people.Why is that? Instead of discussing and investigating a despicable coup attempt of the Executive Branch of Government, these mainstream news media organizations dwell on the illicit Obama created programs, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans)—illegal schemes hatched by the Obama Administration to place this Nation in the very situation it faces today: what to do with 180,000 illegal aliens, along with their parents; and, for that matter, what to do with millions of other illegal aliens who do not belong here; never should have been here; should have been prevented from entering here; should have been removed from our Country years ago; and, that removal having been suspended, should certainly be removed from our Nation now as their very existence in this Country amounts to a slap-in-the-face of our naturalization laws and threatens the stability of the social, political, economic, legal and cultural fabric of this Nation.

THE ENDGAME OF OUR NATION IS UPON US

If DOJ and FBI conspirators succeed in this horrific coup attempt to upend the Trump Presidency, we will see further erosion of First Amendment free speech rights and the undermining of the Second Amendment. The Mueller investigation is, itself, in its very existence, an illegal and reprehensible attack on the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment that should shock the conscience of all American citizens.In Part three of this multi-series article, we look at plausible federal crimes these DOJ and FBI conspirators can feasibly be charged with—once their names—all of them—are known to the American people. For, these individuals constitute a far greater and graver threat to the well-being of this Country, and to its citizenry, and to its Constitution, than any threat emanating outside this Country. And, in further articles, we will continue discussing this critical matter until justice is meted out to those who have corrupted their Office, who exhibit disdain for our citizenry, who have stained our Constitution, and who threaten the very existence of our Republic.The Arbalest Quarrel calls on Congress to expose to the light of day, the rot that festers within the bowels of the Federal Government bureaucracy. Release the Memo now!Please do your part. Tell Congress to release to the American public the House Intelligence Committee Memo that describes DOJ and FBI FISA Court abuses. The phone number to call is (202) 224-3121. That number will connect you to the U.S. Capitol switchboard. Follow the prompts to connect to U.S. Representatives and to U.S. Senators in your State._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RELEASE THE MEMO: REPUBLICAN HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHOCKED BY CONTENTS AND CALL FOR ITS RELEASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC

PART ONE

HAVE SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI CONSPIRED TO OVERTHROW PRESIDENT TRUMP? IS THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION PART AND PARCEL OF THIS COUP ATTEMPT?

For those of you who tuned into Hannity’s Fox News program Thursday evening, January 18, and Friday evening, January 19, 2018, you learned that our Government is in the throes of a silent but deadly coup. U.S. House Representatives Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL), appearing on Hannity, Thursday, stated they had reviewed a classified House Intelligence Committee Memorandum that, as they strongly intimate, provide conclusive proof of a deliberate, calculated, categorical, treacherous attempt by senior FBI and Justice Department Officials to topple the Trump Presidency. They describe the Memo as “shocking.” Jordan and Gaetz want this Memo to be released to the public. They are insistent. They say the public has a right to know the contents of the Memo. And, we do.If half of what these House Republican Intelligence Committee members suggest is true—and, keep in mind that House and Senate Intelligence Committee members rarely, if ever, call for release of classified material to the American public—the public not only does have a right to know the contents of this Memorandum; they must know. But, House Democratic Party Intelligence Committee members according to Representatives Jordan and Gaetz, have demurred, claiming national security concerns, even, as they show, incongruously, lack of interest in the material. Very few House Democrats have reviewed the Memorandum and have, curiously, expressed no wish to do so.Government Officials and Legislators routinely cite national security concerns when they do not wish to release the contents of classified material; and, when they do, the contents are generally heavily redacted, and, so, essentially indecipherable. But national security is not at stake when Governmental documents contain content merely content that may be deemed merely embarrassing or humiliating. Worst of all, when Government documents contain evidence of ethical or criminal wrongdoing, transparency, not secrecy, is mandated. Evidence of criminal or ethical misconduct cries out for disclosure. The federal Government is, after all, our Government. It doesn’t belong to Congress and it doesn’t belong to bureaucrats. They are supposed to serve our interests, not their own. In refusing release of this House Intelligence Committee Memorandum to the American citizenry, House Democrats demonstrate complicity in the coup attempt and cover-up.Representatives Jordan and Gaetz, true patriots, having come forward with knowledge of this deeply disturbing Intelligence Committee Memo, have made abundantly clear that, once the American citizenry has access to the contents of it, heads will roll.The American public should not be surprised if, once the Memo is released, hopefully uncensored, some of the names that appear in the Memo happen to include:Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General of the DOJ; Andrew McCabe, acting Attorney General after the U.S. President Donald Trump fired James Comey; Andrew Weissman, Chief of the Criminal Fraud Section of the DOJ, and senior managing official on Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team; Peter Strzok, senior counterintelligence official in the FBI, who served on Mueller’s team until Mueller was compelled to oust him for conspiratorial comments coming to light in his “insurance policy” email to Lisa Page, FBI lawyer; Lisa Page, FBI lawyer who failed to notify her superiors of Strzok’s conspiratorial intentions as she was probably complicit in the conspiracy; Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General to then-President Barack Obama, and acting Attorney General after the departure of Loretta Lynch—the latter of whom served as Attorney General in President Barack Obama’s Administration immediately after the inauguration of Donald Trump to the Office of U.S. President Trump—whom President Trump rightfully fired for insubordination after Yates defiantly refused to defend the U.S. President’s order to close the Nation’s borders against terrorist threats from the Middle East; Bruce Ohr, Associate Deputy Attorney General, demoted, for concealing his secret meetings with Officials of Fusion GPS; James Comey, fired Director of the FBI, who leaked classified documents to The New York Times, through a friend, Daniel Richman, Professor at Columbia Law School. Comey’s documents served as a basis, along with the Fusion GPS Dossier, as the pretext for Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, whose tacit directive is to take down the U.S. President. And, we surmise that Robert Mueller’s name, too, may be one of the names that appears on the memo that Representatives Jordan and Gaetz refers to.Robert Mueller served as FBI Director from 2001 to 2013. As FBI Director, he must have had knowledge of and may have been complicit in approving illegal sale of uranium to the Russians. If true, it would be singularly odd for the DOJ's Robert Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller to head a team to investigate, inter alia--as reported in the letter (Order No. 2915-2017) from Rosenstein to Mueller--“any links and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” We may surmise that Hillary Clinton’s name appears in this classified House Intelligence Committee Memo, too, along with the name of Loretta Lynch, who served as President Barack Obama’s Attorney General, from April 27, 2015 – January 20, 2017. And, is it possible that the name of Barack Obama, too, appears in this Memo? If, Clinton’s name and Obama’s name appears in this House Intelligence Committee Memo, we can well imagine why House Democrats adamantly refuse to release the Memo to the public. For, the entirety of the Democratic Party will be held up to shame. The shameful and likely criminal acts of these individuals are too numerous to mention here, but we have touched on several—especially those that point to serious criminal acts on the part of Hillary Clinton. Imagine a person such as Hillary Clinton in the White House.Senior Federal Government Officials, having failed to achieve their goal of depositing Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office—having hatched and orchestrated a plan, through then-FBI Director James Comey and others, to absolve Democratic Party U.S. Presidential Hillary Clinton of criminal wrongdoing on multiple counts of multiple felonies so that she could continue to run as the Democratic Party choice for U.S. President, hatched their secondary plan. They presented, as is abundantly clear, false and fabricated information, namely the notorious Fusion GPS Dossier—paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)—to the FISA Court. These high-level Officials in the FBI and DOJ, in a plot to topple the U.S. President, Donald Trump, attempted to obtain a warrant that would give these disreputable, and arguably, despicable, Officials legal cover by allowing the FBI to secretly, and ostensibly lawfully, to investigate senior Trump campaign officials on false allegations of having had nefarious dealings with the Russians. If true, this would serve, conceivably, as the principal feasible basis to impeach Trump and, if successful, would lead to his removal from Office.Comey’s own memoranda to The New York Times was instrumental in the appointment of  a Special Counsel in the first instance. The Fusion GPS Dossier, a compilation of damnable lies and uncorroborated, baseless rumor, innuendo, and hearsay, is a manuscript of deception put together by an ex-British spy, Christopher Steele. Steele is an expert on deception and intrigues, who worked for British intelligence, MI-6. The Dossier became the vehicle through which the FISA Court issued a warrant, allowing/authorizing the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, to investigate presumptive collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Government. This Dossier, this lie, this work of fiction, serves as the predicate basis for the Mueller investigation. Therefore, the Mueller investigation is itself grounded on a lie, made worse through misuse of exorbitant taxpayer monies and wasteful Governmental resources. Further, presenting false information to a FISA Court, swearing that it is true to obtain a warrant from the Court that the Court otherwise would not have issued--subornation of perjury--constitutes a fraud on the Court—compounding other serious wrongdoing by senior Officials of Government who have been working secretly and inexorably to bring down Trump and his Administration. These senior FBI and DOJ Officials, who may include senior and mid-level Officials in both the State Department and in the Intelligence Agencies as well—hold-overs from the Obama Administration, have betrayed, through color of law and their Office, their sacred oath to this Nation, to this Nation's Constitution and to this Nation's citizenry. Their weak defense, for their heinous betrayal, which will not operate as a tenable defense at all in a Court of competent jurisdiction, is that it is their belief that Donald Trump will lead this Nation on a path that is at loggerheads with foreign and domestic policies of previous Administrations which they had wish to see continued. This is the height of arrogance, and contrary to the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump to the Office of President of the United States. What these senior and mid-level Officials of the Deep State want, or, what they unwittingly would be working toward if they would only stop to think about the matter, is subordination of our Nation, its Constitution, its Bill of Rights, its system of laws, its jurisprudence, its core values, its system of ethics and morality, to that of a new trans-nationalist, internationalist, globalist world order, as  exemplified in the present undermining of the political, social, and financial fabric, and independence, and sovereignty of the Nations that comprise the EU.Is the Mueller probe, then, nothing more than a monstrous step in a planned, coordinated, coup d’état of the Executive Branch of Government? Does the House Intelligence Committee Memo that Representatives Jordan and Gaetz refer to evidence of that? We think so, as this is the only intelligible inference that can be drawn on the facts so far illuminated. Further facts would, we believe, serve only to  buttress this sound conclusion.In Part two of this multi-series, we look to the mainstream news media organizations. Why does the American citizenry hear so little about this? We will post Part two of this series, on the Arbalest Quarrel website, tomorrow. In Part three, immediately following the posting of Part two of this series, we will look at a few of the specific crimes that senior DOJ and FBI Officials likely committed--serious crimes that these Officials can feasibly be charged with through the contemptible, dishonorable, thoroughly reprehensible hoax they perpetrated on both the FISA Court and the American people, a hoax that is, as of the date of posting of this article, still being played out!_________________________________________________ Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.