AMERICA'S BILL OF RIGHTS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF COLLAPSE

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

PART THREE

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

PART FIVE

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

TYRANNY, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AND THE ARMED CITIZEN

ARMED SELF-DEFENSE AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

PART ONE

Is armed self-defense a basic human right? That is the crux of an ongoing debate for many people in the United States. It shouldn’t be but it is.The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution makes clear that armed self-defense is a fundamental human right. If anyone harbors doubt about that, the United States Supreme Court settled the question in 2008, in the seminal Second Amendment case, Heller vs. District of Columbia.The late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, opined “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”This means armed self-defense is not to be perceived as a thing apart from the broader notion of self-defense, but, rather, is subsumed in it. The sole issue in Heller was “whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”In ruling that an outright ban on the use of a handgun for self-defense in one’s home does violate the core of the Second Amendment right, the majority also held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. This ruling is consistent with and is implied in the Court’s ruling on the salient issue.Moreover, the High Court made patently clear that Government didn’t create the right of armed self-defense but simply codified it, for the right of armed self-defense exists intrinsically in one’s being.The Court said,“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment like the First and Fourth Amendments codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”The recent Kyle Rittenhouse case is a textbook study of the utility of a firearm in effective defense of self against aggressive predatory attack.But this idea doesn’t sit well with Anti-Second Amendment proponents:“Gun rights are not human rights.”So says “democracy and human rights advocate,” Rukmani Bhatia who had served in the Obama Administration.Her assertion is posited not as a thesis to be proved but as an assumption to be accepted as self-evident, true, notwithstanding the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and the High Court’s rulings in Heller.No matter——Bhatia makes the assertion in a “Report” published by the George Soros funding Marxist think tank, “Center for American Progress,” on August 12, 2020.The Report is titled, “Untangling the Gun Lobby’s Web of Self-Defense and Human Rights,” and is subtitled, “Peddling False Rights, Profiting Off Fear.” Bhatia writes, in pertinent part,“Today, alongside this rights-based narrative, a parallel narrative exists that is perpetuated by the U.S. gun industry as part of a multifaceted effort to increase gun sales. This so-called gun-rights narrative manipulates the ideals of human rights to establish not only an inalienable right to life but also an unfettered right to armed self-defense to protect oneself from any perceived threat of harm. This narrative hinges on fear and the need to defend oneself and loved ones from unknown but ever-present threats through whatever means necessary and without regard to the rights of others. It is grounded by the false claim that the most effective means of self-preservation involves using a firearm.”From her remarks, dubious and outlandish as they are, one detects a note of irritation and frustration, borne of a deep-seated ethical or aesthetic abhorrence of guns and of the citizen’s right to keep and bear them. But there is more to be gleaned from this account.The Marxist antagonism directed to armed self-defense, as reflected in Bhatia’s “Report,” hides a sinister agenda.It is an agenda at loggerheads with the sanctity and inviolability of personal selfhood and one inconsistent with the preservation of the United States as a free Constitutional Republic.Grounded on the tenets and precepts of Collectivism (See e.g., Arbalest Quarrel article on the differences between Collectivism and Individualism), the Marxist intends to thrust their vision of reality on the entire Nation. Most Americans find that vision disagreeable if not thoroughly reprehensible and repugnant.The Marxist isn't unaware of this and resorts to artifice and chicanery to seduce the polity. The Marxist relies on the legacy Press and social media to assist in making it palatable to the public policy goals designed to transform a free Republic into a Marxist Dictatorship.Marxists mask their disdain for the dignity of man by disingenuously claiming to venerate it.At the outset of her Center for American Progress Report, Bhatia cites Article 1 of “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (“UDHR”) a document crafted by the United Nations, where, citing Article 1 of the UDHR and then expanding on the sentiments of it, Bhatia writes,“Every human life has inherent value and dignity, and every person has the right to life, liberty, and personal security. These truths are codified in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR was historic, with nations coming together to explicitly recognize the need to protect and preserve these fundamental rights, structuring constitutions to explicitly defend their citizens’ human rights, and particularly their rights to life, freedom, and security. The protection of human rights continues to be a defining pillar to secure a stable, peaceful liberal world order. But in the United States, some groups—such as the gun lobby—are seizing upon this rights-based narrative to justify, dangerously, the right to bear, carry, and use firearms.”The United Nations says this about the development of the UDHR:“Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and. . . is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels. . . .” Extolling the sentiments of the UDHR, as Rukmani Bhatia does in her Center for Progress Report, is all well and good. But how is one expected to effectively confront an aggressive, vicious attack that emanates from the predatory beast, predatory man, or the tyrannical, predatory Government if not through armed self-defense? The Marxist, Bhatia, doesn’t say, which begs the very question at issue in her Report. Is Bhatia not aware of this? Perhaps, she is aware of this but consciously chooses to slither around it, hoping no one perceives the gaping hole that she has left open in her Report.In an attempt to avoid dealing with the question, head-on, Marxists, like Bhatia, simply take the easy way out. They deny the essence of the problem, claiming, as Bhatia does, and as she argues, that the threat of harm isn’t real, was never real, but is and always was grounded in an unwarranted fear of harm.But the threat is real, and the fear isn’t unwarranted, and Americans are witnessing all of it. And it is painfully evident through the inaction and empty posturing of effete and impotent Federal and State Governments to the harm generated.Either the Marxist-controlled Federal Government and similar Marxist-controlled State and local Governments are simply inept and incompetent and, so, wholly unable to deal with the harm, or they welcome, even encourage, the attendant harms to the citizen and society alike. Likely it is a combination of both.The framers of the United States Constitution had the answer to the threat of harm caused by predatory beast, predatory man, or predatory Government, an unwelcome one for these Marxists, to be sure, as they aim to break apart American society and culture so that they can rebuild society in accordance with the strictures of Marxism.The answer rests in the Nation’s Bill of Rights (BOR), specifically in the citizen's exercise of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This, more than anything else, is the answer to the bedlam and mayhem wrought by those that seek the Country’s undoing. Small wonder, then, that these Marxists desire to destroy the Right._______________________________________________

THE UNITED NATIONS IGNORES ARMED SELF-DEFENSE AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT; THE UNITED STATES EMBRACES IT

PART TWO

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations crafted a document, titled “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The document is a litany of 30 Rights (“Articles”) that ostensibly proclaims the dignity of the human being and his right to life, liberty, and security.The Preamble of the United Nations’ UDHR sets forth: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,Now, therefore,The General Assembly,Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.” These are all noble sentiments, as articulated, of course. But there is a major problem the UDHR fails to address: How is a human being supposed to secure these lofty ideals for him or herself? The drafters of the United Nations’ UDHR fail to say.In the litany of over two dozen fundamental rights set forth in the UDHR’s “Articles,” there is no mention whatsoever of a right of armed self-defense. In fact, there is no mention in the UDHR of a right of self-defense, armed or otherwise.By failing to acknowledge self-defense, and its corollary armed self-defense, as basic human rights, the United Nations’ UDHR undercuts “the inherent dignity and . . . equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” that it claims pompously to venerate.The UDHR is intentionally deceptive; a ploy of international Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism. It is designed to seduce nations into forsaking their independence and sovereignty, reducing both nation and population to misery and servitude, all the while claiming to promote the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” But note: even in this seemingly clear, unambiguous exposition, there is a sinister uncurrent. The UDHR speaks of purported inalienable rights to be enjoyed by the human family in a group capacity, that is to say, as a collective. There is no suggestion, no intimation these rights are to be enjoyed by human beings in an individual capacity. 

WHERE ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IS ABSENT, TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT IS UNAVOIDABLE

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”)  mentions, in its Preamble, that “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”The American public hears much about the importance of  “the Rule of Law” from Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists. The EU also makes much use of this phrase, as does the UN in reference to human rights as noted supra.Supposedly Government’s application of “the Rule of Law” operates as a hedge against encroaching tyranny. But does it? Vainglorious are those who make constant reference to it—U.S. politicians in particular. But, what does ‘rule of law’ really mean? The appeal to it is subterfuge, dissembly.In the absence of a useful definition, the expression, ‘Rule of Law’ is vacuous. And, that is just the way politicians want to keep it. Don’t ask them to define the expression. They have no idea what it means and would be thunderstruck if anyone were to ask them to provide a definition. A declaration of human rights that avails itself of the words “Rule of Law” as the primary or sole check against the tyranny of Government is devoid of substance.The UN’s UDHR is deceptive. The claim of sanctifying human rights is belied by the emptiness of the gesture. How are human rights to be actualized or, if need be, how are they to be vindicated? In the “Rule of Law?” Really? How is one to understand this “Rule of Law?” And, from whom is one to receive “Rule of Law” relief from tyranny? From that very Government that imposes tyranny on the populace?Yet, the United Nation’s UDHR relies on the ‘Rule of Law’ as the check on tyranny. That is all one obtains from the UDHR; that is all the UN delivers to “the human family” that it claims to care so deeply about.The United States’ BOR, unlike the UDHR, doesn't expect the citizen to place his reliance on arcane nomenclature to provide a check on the tyranny of Government. A check on the tyranny of Government rests in the physicality of the armed citizenry, not on empty pompous verbiage.The framers of the Constitution wouldn’t waste ink on ‘Rule of Law’ when preparing the Bill of Rights. The framers of the BOR did not expect the ‘Rule of Law’ to protect them from the tyranny of George III of England. They placed their faith in the force of arms, not in arcane, abstruse concepts to release them from tyranny. And they would place the future security of a free Republic in nothing less than dint of arms.The only functional check against the tyranny of Government is the physicality of “armed self-defense.” Armed self-defense is what worries, even terrifies, the Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist, and with good reason. For the aim of these internationalists is to create a top-down autocratic Government, that is to say, “Tyranny.” But Tyranny is not able to gain a foothold in a nation where the citizenry is armed.The Tyrant fears Tyrannicide at the hands of the armed Citizenry and, so, demands that the Citizenry surrender its arms to the Tyrant. The Citizenry fears Democide at the hands of the Tyrant's agents, and, so, refuses to surrender its arms to the Tyrant.The United States, as a free Republic, must never forsake the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment. To do so would be tantamount to the destruction of the Republic and enslavement of the populace.The American people must never for one moment trust the Government or its propagandists who proclaim that for the public harmony, safety, and order it is in the best interests of the polity to surrender its firearms. The day the citizen does so will be the day the citizen should be prepared to sacrifice his autonomy, his dignity, his soul, and his life.___________________________________________

THE CITIZEN MUST BE EVER ON GUARD OF GOVERNMENT THAT PROMISES HARMONY, SAFETY, AND TRANQUILITY IF HE BUT SURRENDER ALL ARMS TO THE STATE

PART THREE

Unlike the United Nations that doesn’t mention a natural right of armed self-defense in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), our Nation embraces it.The States ratified the Nation’s Bill of Rights (BOR) on December 15, 1791.The BOR predates the UDHR by over one hundred and fifty years even as the UN heralds its own UDHR as “a milestone.”  In codifying the right of armed self-defense in the BOR, the Framers of it at once proclaimed the sanctity of Personal Selfhood and provided a rationale for it: the need for the citizen to remain wary of the tyranny of Government.The Second Amendment provides both a stark warning to the Government and a categorical prohibition on Government apropos of it.The people need not and must not abide by the tyranny of Government, and Government is prohibited from tampering with this perfect fail-safe mechanism by which the American people may effectively resist the inception of tyranny.The language of the Second Amendment to thwart tyranny is self-executing. In fact, the clearest indication of the Government’s slide into tyranny is through the unlawful attempt to eradicate the American citizenry’s exercise of the right embodied in it.The only reason the Government would dare to take such action to eradicate the exercise of the right of armed self-defense would be to preclude the citizenry from exercising the means by which it is well capable of repelling the insinuation of tyranny on the citizenry.The danger of ever-present tyranny is manifest in the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment—pointing to “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” And the subsequent independent clause of the Second Amendment provides the ultimate fail-safe mechanism of which the citizen shall avail himself if Government devolves into tyranny: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”The framers of the Bill of Rights recognized that man cannot secure his life, safety, and well-being from the predatory beast, predatory man, or predatory government in the absence of an effective means to do so—as only a firearm provides.Superficially, the United Nations’ UDHR and the BOR may seem similar, as both documents point to and allude, in their language, to the higher aspirations and Rights of man.But, on the crucial matter of self-defense, the principal difference between the two is laid bare.The United Nations doesn’t presume or countenance individuals as having the wherewithal or even the right and responsibility to provide for the defense of Self.The United Nations only makes reference to ‘self-defense’ in its Charter, signed on June 26, 1945. And in its Charter, self-defense is referenced only in one of its Articles, and, then, only in relation to the rights of nations, not in respect to the populations of those nations.Article 51 of the UN Charter says,“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”Self-defense remains a prerogative and responsibility of the UN apropos of nations, whether in an individual or collective capacity. The UN does not recognize “Self-defense” as a right intrinsic to individual human beings, whether in an individual or in a collective capacity.Moreover, the rights promulgated in the UDHR, noble aspirations though they may appear to be, as articulated, are understood by their crafters, to be man-made constructs. Thus, they do not even operate in the UDHR as true fundamental rights. The suggestion is mere pretense. And that is another major failing with the UDHR. Fundamental Rights are Natural preexistent Rights—existing intrinsically in man. They aren’t creations of man.The “Articles” qua Rights, delineated in the UDHR, are considered mutable and limitable. They are not to be perceived as—and were never intended to be perceived as—independent of the dictates of the United Nations, but were, in their creation, considered subordinate to the UN's dictates.This is evident from a perusal of Clauses 2 and 3 of Article 29 of the UDHR:“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”Article 29 demonstrates the vacuity of the entire enterprise.Unlike the Rights codified in the U.S. Constitution’s BOR, the Rights delineated in the UDHR remain subordinate to the crafters of it, who retain ultimate and exclusive authority over it: to keep it, modify it, or erase it, as they wish.Yet, a declaration of purported human rights that cannot stand on its own, independent of the sanctioning authority that created it, is an edifice built on sand.The Bill of Rights, unlike the UDHR, is the genuine article, not a vacuous simulacrum of noble aspirations.The Nation’s Bill of Rights is to be understood as a codification of natural law rights, not man-made conventions. That point is significant.The framers took as axiomatic that natural law rights are fundamental, unalienable, immutable, and illimitable. As such, they are not lawfully subject to modification, abrogation, or abandonment by the Government; nor can Government perfunctorily dismiss them.The implication of this is clear: ultimate power, authority, and sovereignty rest solely in the American people, not in the Federal Government.Any attempt by the Government to limit, abrogate, or deny to the American people the unalienable exercise of their fundamental Rights amounts to an unlawful intrusion on and unlawful usurpation of power belonging solely to the American people, and an unlawful encroachment on the sovereignty of the people over Government.An assault by the Government on the sovereignty of the American people over Government constitutes Tyranny of Government. Tyranny of Government is Treachery of Government. And, Treachery of Government is Treason by Government directed against its own people.Armed self-defense is the best hedge against the most serious danger to a free man: the predatory, tyrannical Government. In dicta, the Heller majority acknowledged this, citing for support, The Federalist 29: “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”Since the Marxist vision of Government and the citizen’s relationship to it requires subordination of the will of the citizen to Government, Marxists abhor the very notion of the “armed citizen.”Not by accident, then, is there any mention of “self-defense,”—armed or otherwise—in the UDHR. A laundry list of Rights (“Articles”) never so much as alludes to one’s unalienable right of armed self-defense or even of a general right of self-defense.But, if a man isn’t allowed the exercise of the fundamental right of armed self-defense—if in fact, the very notion of self-defense is not to be perceived of as a basic human right—wherein, then, shall a man look to secure the “inherent value and dignity” of his life that the UN crafters of the UDHR talk so floridly about? In Government? In the new “liberal world order” qua “new world order” that Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists proclaim to be a good thing? Please!The American people must resist subtle and overt coercion by these Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists who urge them to forsake their elemental right of armed self-defense. To do so will imperil both their own lives and well-being and that of a free Constitutional Republic.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.