WHAT EXPLAINS NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BRUEN DECISION ON CONCEALED CARRY AND HER BELLIGERANCE TOWARD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

MULTIPART ESSAY SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-SIX

QUOTATION FROM NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S OFFICIAL WEBSITE

“This is not about the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers' murky protection of firearms. It's no more absolute than the First Amendment is. Rights have limits; they may be indistinct and subject to interpretation, but they exist, regardless of the braying of absolutists.What this is about is priorities: public safety vs. the right to own any kind of weapon; children's lives vs. the right to carry firearms designed for mass murder. In New York, there is a willingness to take facts into account, while in Texas, the compulsion, apparently irresistible, is to ignore such facts no matter how much blood is spilled or how young the victims.” From a Buffalo News editorial, reposted on Governor Hochul’s Official Website, on May 24, 2022, reflecting where the Governor’s sympathies, rest, apropos of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Note: this editorial appeared one month prior to publication of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)and conceivably in anticipation of it: Hochul’s opening salvo directed against the High Court, taunting the Court and ridiculing, in insulting language, those Americans who support the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.

WHAT EXPLAINS NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BRUEN DECISION ON CONCEALED CARRY AND HER BELLIGERANCE TOWARD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

NEW YORK: THE STANDARD-BEARER FOR THOSE FORCES INTENT ON DESTROYING THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

To say the Bruen rulings directed primarily to New York’s Handgun Law were not to Hochul’s liking, nor to the liking of her friends in the State Legislature in Albany, is an understatement.Hochul was apoplectic with rage—or perhaps not. And, if not, she must, at least, appear so: feigning all sorts of righteous indignation during her Press conferences or when distributing her official Press Releases.Hochul had expected an adverse decision from the High Court, surely, and was undoubtedly prepared for it, but she had to set the stage for what would come after, the imposition of a new set of highly restrictive handgun licensing measures, building on all that came before.Those amendments were already written—the Legislature must have drafted the amendments well in advance of the publication of the Bruen decision, given the breadth of detail in them and the scale of them—well before the Bruen rulings came down. They only needed to be finalized.To that end, Hochul’s temper tantrum directed to the Court upon publication of Bruen was obviously meant to pave the way for legislation designed to cohere with related contemporaneous Anti-Second Amendment legislation, apart from, but complementing, the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA) and operating seamlessly with it.The Press Release, dated June 6, 2022, on the Governor’s website, sports the headline: “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislative Package to Strengthen Gun Laws and Protect New Yorkers.” The “Ten-Bill Package” includes:“Legislation S.9458/A.10503 Bars Purchase of Semiautomatic Rifles by Anyone Under Age 21 by Requiring a LicenseLegislation S.9407-B/A.10497 Prohibits Purchase of Body Armor with Exception of Those in Specified ProfessionsLegislation S.9113-A./A.10502 Expands List of People Who Can File Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Requires Law Enforcement to File ERPOs Under Specified Set of CircumstancesPackage Also Strengthens Crime Reporting; Closes ‘Other Gun’ Loophole; Requires Microstamping of New Semiautomatic Pistols; Eliminates Grandfathering of High-Capacity Feeding Devices; Requires Social Media Companies to Improve Response to and Reporting of Hateful Content.”Approximately one month later, on July 1, 2022, scarcely one week after the publication of the Bruen decision, i.e., on June 23, 2022, and again, on the Governor’s official website, and, under the bold, brash, impertinent headline, “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision,” Hochul lays out a series of amendments to the Handgun Law itself, ostensibly responding to the Bruen rulings:“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting.”Again, given the depth and breadth of these amendments to New York’s Handgun Law, this new package of amendments, “The Concealed Carry Improvement Act” MUST HAVE BEEN DRAFTED WELL IN ADVANCE OF PUBLICATION OF THE COURT’S OPINION IN BRUEN.At most, the Hochul Administration and Albany had merely to tidy up some of the provisions in the CCIA—perhaps striking the words, ‘PROPER CAUSE,’ from the Handgun Law if the High Court were to demand that much from Kathy Hochul’s Government—which Governor Hochul and Albany did. And that assumes, of course, that Hochul didn’t receive an advance copy of the decision from leakers at the Court. Hochul was probably kept apprised about what to expect from Bruen (probably from the same people on the Court that illegally released a draft of the Dobbs decision).On the matter of “PROPER CAUSE,” the Court ruled that, since the words were tied inextricably to the requirement that the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license must demonstrate “EXTRAORDINARY NEED” to carry, apart from and above basic self-defense, when in the public domain, the New York Handgun Law, apropos of concealed carry, was inherently illegal and unconstitutional.This was a mere annoyance. The Hochul Government could dispense with it and concoct ways around it, making the Handgun Law no less severe than before Bruen. Kathy Hochul didn’t try to hide that from the Press or from the Court.After all, Hochul used the phrase in one of her Press Releases, “LANDMARK LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE TO STRENGTHEN GUN LAWS.” See supra. And she rationalized that message of defiance directed at the Court, by adding that her Government had designed these amendments “TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS.”Did Hochul presume the High Court did not wish to protect New Yorkers? The phrase is not only troubling but also insulting. Yet it plays into a running narrative that MORE GUNS ON THE STREET EQUALS MORE CRIME ON THE STREETS—A platitude held by Progressives, but false.How many average, responsible, rational, law-abiding gun owners have turned to crime, and further, how much of this presumed bad seed committed a crime with a gun? Hardly or nary a one, notwithstanding there are millions of Americans who lawfully carry a handgun for self-defense. See the article on Gun Facts.By striking ‘PROPER CAUSE’ from New York’s Handgun Law, and then repurposing the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement along with a host of other ludicrous Anti-Second Amendment laws, the Government could and has accomplished much the same thing: DISCOURAGING AND FRUSTRATING, CONFOUNDING APPLICANTS WHO SEEK A NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE.The Hochul Government had scripted its entire response to Bruen. It would be ready to play out with the official publication of the case. And, on the very day, it was published and through successive days and weeks, Hochul would never miss a beat. She would constantly harangue and berate both the rulings of the Court and, unforgivably, the Justices themselves.The Hochul Government would make the High Court out to be the Antagonist in a play, and the State, with the Government, as Protagonist Hero.Hochul would present herself as the Defender of New York residents, desiring only to protect and serve the residents of New York against an uncaring U.S. Supreme Court.How incredibly presumptuous of Hochul and those behind the scenes, in her Administration, and in Albany, working on her behalf to make the High Court into an Evildoer and “Fall Guy.”Once the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Bruen decision on June 23, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul went to work, wasting no time in publicly slamming both the Court and its decision.But would the public buy it? Could the public be so easily manipulated? Some obviously would, most, from her perspective, hopefully. Hochul knew that, in her messaging, she was addressing not merely New York, but the Country at large, and the Biden Administration, and many in Congress too, her compatriots.But to say her words and conduct toward the Court are disrespectful and that her response to the Bruen rulings amounts to evasion, not compliance, is to trivialize the seriousness of the actions of this Governor.Necessary as it was to set the groundwork for defiance of the High Court, Hochul was playing a dangerous game. She could not do this unless she felt she could rely on powerful interests both seen and unseen that would have her back on this.For, the Governor’s actions border on contempt of Court, and all the worse was it that she would vent with unrestrained, unconscionable fury against the Highest Court of the Land; railing against a Court exercising its own proper, legitimate Article III authority under the U.S. Constitution, to interpret the meaning of the Bill of Rights which was and is within the Court’s prerogative, alone, not that of Congress, nor that of the President, nor that of the Executive or Legislative components of State Governments.Hochul didn’t care, and she didn’t mince words. She called the Court’s rulings not only “reckless” but “reprehensible.” See the article in Spectrum Local News.The word, ‘RECKLESS’ means ‘THOUGHTLESS.’The word, ‘REPREHENSIBLE’ means ‘DISGRACEFUL.’In other words, Kathy Hochul tells the Court that it is worthy of her contempt toward it and she would not abide by the Court’s rulings. At most, she would give lip service to it. And that is what both she and Albany did.Upon the conclusion of the oral argument, on November 3, 2021, in the third landmark Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the New York State Government, under Governor Kathy Hochul, wasted no time in concocting a scheme to waylay the rulings that they knew were coming down the pike. And as a precursor to that she stated in no uncertain terms, in her Press Briefings—clearly directed to the Court—what she intended to do, castigating the Court for daring to involve itself in New York law.The amendments to the State’s Handgun Law (referred to, as a package, as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA)), are the visible manifestation of the disdain she displayed toward the Court, in her Press Releases.On July 1, 2022, about one month after signing the CCIA into law, Governor Hochul, in a provocative move proclaimed the New York Government would not abide by the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, and in fact would defy the Court, continuing the process laid down by her predecessors of eradicating exercise of the right to armed self-defense in New York.The Headline of her Press Release, posted on the Governor’s official website, on that date, set forth in bold San Serif typeface, proclaimed:“Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision.”Hochul’s defiance and contemptuous attitude toward the High Court could not have been on more audacious display. The CCIA exemplifies her brashness and brazenness.These are the highlights of the CCIA that appear on her website that she has reiterated during the period of time since the publication of the case as challenges to the CCIA were filed immediately.“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting”Anticipating the Hochul Government might attempt to turn broad swaths of the State, especially, Manhattan Island, into a massive Gun-Free zone, and to forestall that, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, opined:“Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define ‘sensitive places’ in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a ‘sensitive-place’ law. In their view, ‘sensitive places’ where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all ‘places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.’ It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places,’ and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places. far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. . . . Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.” [Case Documentation omitted]What did Hochul do? She and Albany concocted an elaborate nightmare of new requirements for those individuals applying for a concealed handgun carry license under the CCIA.And, notwithstanding, the High Court’s warning to the Hochul Government, the Governor, and Albany proceeded to transform much of New York into a massive “SENSITIVE PLACE” Jurisdiction anyway—in direct defiance of the High Court’s warning.Manhattan Island, which Justice Thomas specifically warned the Government about, would become a huge “SENSITIVE PLACE” restricted zone anyway.The Government had spent substantial time on this, transforming the State into a confusing patchwork quilt of SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.Most curiously, the very words, SENSITIVE PLACE,’ never before appeared in the Handgun Law prior to Bruen. That would change.Here the New York Government was deliberately using that phrase to antagonize the Court, making the ‘SENSITIVE PLACE’ prohibition a major fixture of the “CONCEALED CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT.”Were Kathy Hochul and Albany taunting the Court by choosing to utilize the very terminology the Court had expressed concern over but had not ruled explicitly against using?Prior to the effective date of September 1, 2022, the date when the CCIA took effect, there was no mention of ‘Sensitive Place’ in Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)), which reads:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”Once the CCIA took effect, the expression, ‘Sensitive Place’ suddenly appears and, for those new holders of “Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses,” and for those renewing their licenses, Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)) presently sets, forth:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”And where are these“Sensitive Place” restricted areas? A new provision of the New York Penal Code, Penal Code, 265.01-e, recites them.NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e(2) provides,“2. For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts;(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;(c) any place of worship, except for those persons responsible for security at such place of worship;(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos, provided that for the purposes of this section a “public park” shall not include (i) any privately held land within a public park not dedicated to public use or (ii) the forest preserve as defined in subdivision six of section 9-0101 of the environmental conservation law;(e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to operate such program has been issued by the department of health and mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York;(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps; provided that for the purposes of this section, nothing shall prohibit the activity permitted under subdivisions seven-c, seven-d, and seven-e of section 265.20 of this article where such activity occurs at a summer camp in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations;(g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities;(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health;(j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health;(m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;(n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;(o) any establishment holding an active license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;(p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;(q) any location being used as a polling place;(r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble;(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.Police officers and other designated categories are exempted.”Failure to abide by the ‘Sensitive Place’ Restriction requirement is a Class E Felony, as specified under NY CLS Penal § 265.01-d (1)”“A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on or in private property where such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or by otherwise giving express consent.”But Note: Subsequent to Plaintiff Appellants’ Motion for a Stay pending Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, granted the Motion in Part. In a short opinion, the Court stated, in pertinent part, in Antonyuk vs. Hochul , 2022 U.S. App LEXIS 36240 (2nd Cir, December 7, 2022): “Appellants request a stay pending appeal of the district court's order dated November 7, 2022 (N.D.N.Y. 22-cv-986, doc. 78), enjoining Appellants from enforcing certain aspects of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (‘CCIA’). Having weighed the applicable factors . . . we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted. . . . To the extent that the district court's order bars enforcement of the CCIA's provisions related to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at places of worship, airports, and private buses, such categories are excepted from this order. Appellees' motion to expedite the resolution of the matter is granted.”Governor Kathy Hochul’s displeasure with the Bruen decision and anger toward the Court Majority was expected, was never a secret, and, so, isn’t at all surprising.  Yet, her hostility toward the Court, amounting to a rabid denunciation of the rulings and of the Justices themselves, is of another order of magnitude, and cannot be condoned, and ought not to be tolerated.The New York Government has detested the idea of civilian citizen possession of firearms for well over a century (actually for substantially longer (see author’s comments supra and infra)).Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Majority Opinion in Bruen, made the point, tacitly, at the outset of the Court’s argument, when discussing the State’s long-standing efforts to constrain, through overzealous regulation, the carrying of handguns.“New York State has regulated the public carry of handguns at least since the early 20th century. In 1905, New York made it a misdemeanor for anyone over the age of 16 to ‘have or carry concealed upon his person in any city or village of [New York], any pistol, revolver or other firearm without a written license . . . issued to him by a police magistrate.’ 1905 N. Y. Laws ch. 92, §2, pp. 129-130; see also 1908 N. Y. Laws ch. 93, §1, pp. 242-243 (allowing justices of the peace to issue licenses). In 1911, New York’s ‘Sullivan Law’ expanded the State’s criminal prohibition to the possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—without a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch. 195, §1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could ‘issue to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol or revolver without regard to employment or place of possessing such weapon’ only if that person proved “good moral character”  and ‘proper cause.’ 1913 N. Y. Laws ch. 608, §1, p. 1629.”

THE SYSTEMATIC EROSION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IN NEW YORK SNOWBALLED THROUGH TIME.

The systematic erosion of a fundamental, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and unalienable right—the most basic of all RIGHTS and NEEDS, that of “SELF PRESERVATION”—commenced, in New York, as a result of a reluctance by the New York Government to acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the State, notwithstanding the State did eventually ratify both the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights component to it, which included a prohibition on the Federal Government to infringe that right.The nascent threat to the civilian citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in New York itself, had always existed, in fact, PRECEDED Ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which would suggest a schizophrenia on the part of the New York Government, concerning its actions toward exercise of the Right.

NEW YORK RATIFIED THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE UNITED STATES BUT ORIGINALLY REJECTED A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR ITSELF; AND IT CONSCIOUSLY AVOIDED ADDING A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TO MIRROR THE RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ONCE THE STATE DECIDED ON INCORPORATING A BILL OF RIGHTS INTO A LATER VERSION OF ITS STATE CONSTITUTION

ALTHOUGH NEW YORK WOULD EVENTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, IT DID SO ONLY STATUTORILY, NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY

Consider:New York is one of only a handful of States that currently does not have a fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in its State Constitution. And it never did.“. . . The states without rights to bear arms enshrined in their state constitutions are: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. Citizens of these states must rely on the federal Constitution and statutory regulation of arms. See, e.g., N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 4 (McKinney 2012) (‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.’).”“Symposium: ‘Gun Control and the Second Amendment: Developments and Controversies in the Wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago’: Article: ‘The (New) New Judicial Federalism: State Constitutions and the Protection of the Individual Right to Bear Arms,’ 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1449, October 2012, Michael B. de Leeuw*See also, “Shocking the Second Amendment: Invalidating States’ Prohibitions On Taser With The District Of Columbia v. Heller,’ 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 159 (2010) By Ron F. Wright.“Ratified in 1909, New York’s right-to-bear arms provision differs from the latter provisions in that it is a statutory rather than constitutional grant. While its language is similar to the Second Amendment, contemporaneous sources carry strong undertones of keeping and bearing arms for strictly militia purposes. Looking first to New York’s treatment of the phrase ‘the people’ in its Civil Rights Law, we note that other than its right-to-bear arms provision the phrase refers to a right only one other time: the individual right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. Furthermore, in the other appearances where the phrase ‘the people’ appears not a single instance refers to an actual right, express or implied.”In fact, in the original iteration of the State Constitution, New York did not incorporate a Bill of Rights. Later renditions did include a State Bill of Rights, but originally, involved procedural matters rather than substantive rights. The Bill of Rights of New York’s Constitution evolved sporadically over time.But New York always intended to whittle away at the natural law right to armed self-defense. Half-heartedly, or grudgingly at best, it eventually placed the right of the people to keep and bear arms in its Civil Rights Statutory scheme.NY CLS Civ R § 4 (Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms), says,“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.” [underlining added]Note, the substitution of the words, ‘SHALL NOT’ as they appear in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, with the word, ‘CANNOT,’ in Section 4 of the Civil Right Law of New York.The word, ‘CANNOT,’ means ‘TO BE UNABLE TO DO OTHERWISE THAN.’ It isn’t a legal term of art. The words, ‘SHALL NOT’ however have a specific meaning in law: “THE ELEMENT OR ACTION IS PROHIBITED.” Is this change of major significance? Surely, the alteration of the language of the Right, in the Consolidated Laws of New York wasn’t an inadvertent oversight but made with intention.The New York Legislature made sure that “CANNOT BE INFRINGED” does not mean the Legislature has no authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. On the contrary, the suggestion is that no person or entity but the New York Government itself can infringe the right for the Government here establishes that it has created the right, i.e., statutorily. The Right, then, is neither something the people of New York create nor that of a Divine Being.Use of a nonlegal word establishes and avoids any foreseeable problem that might arise from a citizen contesting Government infringement of a Right that “CANNOT” be infringed. At least that is the obvious rationale for the change in construction.Providing only statutory recognition of a right to bear arms, the State could not easily be constrained from hobbling the exercise of the right. And both New York State and the State and Federal Courts were complicit in supporting each outrageous Government action, through regulation, of the “RIGHT” THAT “CANNOT BE INFRINGED.”New York's Executive Branch and Legislative Branch constantly invented ways to erode the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and, in so doing, to sever the people’s connection with their fundamental right—ultimately creating a permanent estrangement.Overzealous regulation coupled with a lengthy, industrious campaign of psychological conditioning, affected the mind. “Gun Possession” became identified with and equated with “Gun Violence.” Many New Yorkers didn’t mind this. In fact, they fanatically embraced the viral memes planted in their minds.The latest developments in psychological conditioning and in technology that allows for rapid dissemination of information, affecting millions of people simultaneously, made this possible.Instead of dealing with crime and criminals, the Government would instead go after average Americans, creating a nightmare for those citizens who were not taken in by the contortions and distortions of the New York Government and who insisted on exercising their natural law right to self-defense that the Government was loathed to recognize or allow.What eventually emerged in New York was an elaborate, expensive, time-consuming, and confounding licensing regime that New Yorkers would be required to navigate through. The questions no one in Government dared to consider and that a Press, sympathizing with the Government, would never ask are these:“Why should it be so difficult for me to exercise a fundamental, unalienable right?”“Why should I be compelled to navigate my way through a mass of confusing firearms regulations, and then once failing to gain State permission to defend my life with the most effective means available, I am thrown to the winds and compelled to navigate through a cesspool of criminals and lunatics that dot the landscape of New York?“Why is it the New York Government constrains my right to defend myself against depraved criminals and lunatics, and, at the same time, refuses to use my tax dollars to protect me against those elements that incessantly threaten the life, safety, and well-being of millions of average, rational, law-abiding, responsible citizens like me?”“By what inductive or deductive reasoning does the New York Government and Kathy Hochul presume to reduce the highest denominator of society with the lowest, refusing to allow me to defend myself against predators, arguing that, on the matter of firearms, I can no more be trusted to responsibly keep and bear them than would the common criminal, the psychopathic murderous gang member, or the raving drug-addled lunatic?With the enactment of the Sullivan Act in 1911—a law that introduced handgun licensing to the State—the New York Government would, through the years and decades, enact more laws, aimed at frustrating those Americans residing or working in New York who merely wish to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as is their natural law right to do so?The Sullivan Act of 1911 would serve as the New York Government’s answer, exemplifying their disdain for the average citizen. And the Government did not stop with the enactment of that. Introducing handgun licensing to New York was merely a precursor to and an inkling of what was yet to be.The Sullivan Act of 1911 served, then, merely as a stepping stone in a lengthy inexorable process, whittling away at the citizens’ exercise of their unalienable right to armed self-defense.Whether by conscious intent or by unconscious conditioned reflex, the State had effectively placed a New Yorker on a medieval torture rack, tormenting those individuals who insisted on—dared to—exercise the right that the New York Government did not wish for New Yorkers to exercise.Once on that rack, the State slowly tightened the screws, enacting more constraints on a person’s exercise of the right, through time, frustrating those New Yorkers who demanded that Government not interpose itself between the right of the people to keep and bear arms as bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, not Government, and the exercise of that right that the founders of a free Constitutional Republic recognized and insisted on.And the process of whittling away at the natural law right to armed self-defense gained speed over time, frustrating the desire of anyone who simply wished to exercise his basic right of self-preservation with the most effective means available: A handgun.Hochul’s predecessor, New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, had added extensive amendments to the Handgun Law and to related New York Statutes, affecting all firearms and possession of them. through the enactment of the New York Safe Act of 2013.Cuomo rammed that through the State Senate in the dead of night, and, once it had passed the Senate, he immediately signed it into law, on January 15, 2013.Hochul’s“Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 doesn’t ease the dire impact of the Safe Act on those who seek to keep and bear arms. One might rationally expect that the CCIA would ease the exercise of the fundamental right, consistent with Bruen. Rather, the CCIA builds upon the earlier Act and is part and parcel of several other Anti-Second Amendment laws that Hochul signed into law on or about the same date she signed the CCIA into law.Bruen changed nothing. NY Safe and the CCIA continue a process that began not with the passage of the Sullivan Act of 1911, but over a hundred years earlier—in fact earlier yet—much earlier.In fact, New York’s antipathy toward the natural law right to armed self-defense always existed, going back prior to the founding of the Republic itself, through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on July , 1788.“The first New York Constitution was adopted by the Convention of Representatives of the State of New York on April 20, 1777,” 15 months before ratification of the U.S. Constitution that New York, among other States that existed at the time, agreed to. See Historical Society of the New York Courts and content infra.What began as a concern and annoyance over the exercise ofthe right of the people to keep and bear arms in New York, evolved, over the centuries, into distress and disgust, and anxiety over the citizens’ keeping and bearing of arms.That distress, disquiet, and disgust grew into trepidation and panic, coupled with a rabid abhorrence over the notion a person should possess firearms at all.Today, Governor Hochul proclaims her anger over the Bruen decision. Worse, she articulates a visible contempt for the Court.But, how much of that anger is grounded on true and firm belief and how much is mere political rhetoric, playing to a “woke” audience?A decade ago, Hochul, ever the consummate politician, evinced a different position toward the Second Amendment. See the article in Bearing Arms. What caused a transformation in her thought—a complete 180-degree turn?It matters not. If Hochul is duplicitous and is behaving theatrically, her present words and actions must be taken at face value, not minimized. No one should attempt to explain them away as mere emoting as if to suggest her words are not to be taken seriously. They are TO BE TAKEN MOST SERIOUSLY.Hochul’s words, both their insolent tone and the detrimental impact on those who wish to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense at home or in public, cannot be assigned simply to fabrication or theatrics. The intent behind those words, seen in the legislation enacted, which Hochul has signed into law—a flurry of new restrictive Anti-Second Amendment legislation—has real-world impact and dire consequences for New Yorkers.Regardless of what Hochul the politician really believes the fact remains that New Yorkers, especially the politically progressive denizens of New York City, and Hochul’s wealthy, Neoliberal Globalist benefactors, have long held to a New York tradition antithetical to and wholly destructive of the Second Amendment right. And Hochul, the politician, through her present words and actions, mirrors the predilection of her base, millions of New Yorkers, most of whom reside in NYC.Attuned to her supporters’ beliefs, she rails incessantly against “guns,” “gun owners,” and that thing the Anti-Second Amendment wordsmiths had recently concocted to push their narrative against the right to armed self-defense on the public: “Gun Violence.”Long-standing New York tradition contra recognition of the basic right to armed self-defense overpowers any thought of compliance and obeisance to the dictates of “shall not be infringed,” much less acquiescence and adherence to High Court rulings on the matter.As noted, supra, several years before New York ratified the U.S. Constitution, on July 26, 1788, and, later, when New York ratified the Nation’s Bill of Rights, on March 27, 1790, the Revolutionary Convention of the Representatives of New York (see New York Archives) prepared the groundwork for a State Constitution:“In August 1776, the revolutionary Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York appointed a committee to draft a state constitution and a bill of rights. Despite this command, the constitution eventually produced did not contain a separate bill of rights. Robert Yates, a member of the drafting committee, later explained that advocates of a bill of rights thought in terms of an instrument by which ‘the power of the rulers ought to be circumscribed,’ modeled after the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights. The committee, however, took the view that the American Revolution placed the people ‘in a state of nature’ such that the new fundamental instrument the people themselves created, the constitution ‘would operate as a bill of rights.’ This view was not uncommon in revolutionary America. John Jay, for instance, a principal drafter of the 1777 federal constitution, used the same argument when objecting to the adoption of a federal bill of rights in 1788.  The constitution adopted by the New York Convention in April 1777, did contain certain clauses guaranteeing basic rights, such as might be found in a bill of rights: all power derived from the people, right to counsel in criminal trials, freedom of religion and abolition of religious establishments, and trial by jury and prohibition of attainder (to take effect after the war). In addition, on the motion of Gilbert Livingston (later a radical antifederalist), the Convention added to the constitution a clause guaranteeing due process. In the face of Loyalist threats to the existence of the new government, the Convention refrained, however, from adding to the constitution any further assertions of fundamental rights that would hinder efforts to suppress counter-revolutionary activity.” “New York’s Statutory Bill of Rights: A Constitutional Coelacanth,” 19 Touro L. Rev. 363, 366-367 Winter / Spring, 2003, by  Robert Emery. “The New York legislature adopted the original version of the statutory bill of rights, ‘an Act concerning the rights of the citizens of this State,’ in January 1787.” Id. at 368. There was no mention of a right of the people to keep and bear arms in the first rendition of the New York Constitution, nor would there be any future version of the State Constitution. There certainly was no serious consideration for that.“New York has adopted four constitutions (1777, 1821, 1846, and 1894) and held eight constitutional conventions (1801, 1821, 1846, 1867, 1894, 1915, 1938, and 1967). The Constitution of 1894, revised in 1938 and amended over 200 times, remains in place today. As provided in this document, the state legislature can propose a constitutional convention at any time, subject to approval by the electorate.  However, the state constitution also mandates that the question of whether to hold a convention be submitted to the electorate every twenty years.” In a climate openly hostile to the very thought of relaxation of New York’s Gun Law—having placed more and more restrictions on the exercise of the right to armed self-defense through 112 years of the Sullivan Act—it stands to reason the Hochul Government wouldn’t be dissuaded from continuing its concerted, single-minded march toward achieving the goal of Dissolution of the right to armed self-defense in New York or, if not able to that, grudgingly, at least, getting damned close to attaining it.Notwithstanding the State had recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms at the National level, having ratified the Nation’sBill of Rights in 1790, it felt no compunction to do so at the State level, believing, apparently, that, whatever negative impact the Second Amendment on the Federal Government, its application would pose no hardship on the States and would not limit the State’s ability to do away with the entirety of it if it wished. Was the State Government being disingenuous? Was it holding disparate, inconsistent beliefs that defy rational explanation? Who can say what the State Government's motivations were at the time?Prior to the McDonald decision, and for those theorists who mistakenly held to a “collective rights-only” notion of the Second Amendment, (and many still do), the early New York Government felt it need not worry about the Second Amendment. The State would have its Police Powers and could deny all residents of the State and those who work there the keeping and bearing of arms. And, for a time, it would seem the State could get away with its perfunctory dismissal of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms.And, even with the McDonald decision in 2010 (McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)), New York would continue to evince schizophrenia toward the Second Amendment, as would a few other jurisdictions around the Country. They would all pretend that, whatever McDonald happened to say about a State’s obligation to adhere to and respect the citizenry's exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment, those States could regulate the exercise of the right to an effective nullity. That is what such State Governments presumed to think and that is how they acted.State licensing is the vehicle that drives the impetus for State arrogance toward the natural law right to armed self-defense.Prior to Bruen, Federal and State Courts in New York held an incongruous position, when rubber-stamping what is clearly illegal New York Government action.These Courts acknowledged that, while a person has a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, that person must still obtain a valid State handgun license to exercise his fundamental right.The New York Courts had heretofore preposterously argued that, since having a license to exercise one’s Second Amendment right is, one, a condition precedent to the exercise of one’s fundamental right, and that, two, since the issuance of a handgun license is a prerogative of the State, a completely discretionary act and that, further, since the acquisition of a State issued handgun license is a privilege, not a right, be that right fundamental or not, the State can lawfully deny a person exercise of his fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms. New York Courts’ ruling considered this reasoning as valid and sound law, “black letter law” in New York, and, as expected, especially for those who sought to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license, the acquisition of those coveted licenses to exercise a fundamental right was very few in number. Such was true before Bruen. And now, after? Will there be many more issuances of concealed handgun carry licenses? And of those that are issued, will they truly work as intended by Bruen, to enable the licensee to truly exercise armed self-defense? This all remains to be seen.The Hochul Government did not assert—it felt it wouldn’t have to—that 225 years of refusal to countenance a citizen’s natural law right to armed self-defense as it saw fit was argument enough to continue to constrain the exercise of the right and to require much from those individuals who had the fortitude to demand what they should not have had to demand: an exercise of their unrestrained right to armed self-defense. Long-standing State tradition would circumvent any argument about the purported supremacy of the natural law right to armed self-defense over the State's authority to deny a citizen's exercise of that right.New York’s negative attitude toward the Second Amendment, coupled with a firm belief, taken as self-evident true for well over two hundred years—that New York Government police regulatory authority supersedes an American citizen’s exercise of his fundamental, illimitable, immutable, eternal natural law rights and would always remain so and hold sway over a U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule or hold otherwise, is soon to be tested. It must be tested.Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, together, apparently do not operate, in the mind of the New York Government, as a formidable force, powerful enough to overcome the New York Government’s belief in its own legal and moral invincibility. New York continues to go its own way.How many U.S. Supreme Court decisions must, then, come down the pike before jurisdictions like New York accept the Article III authority of the Third Branch of Government—the authority of the High Court to say what the Law Is? But is it just New York that is rebelling against the authority of the High Court?Clearly, there are dangerous, ominous stirrings afoot, suggesting the actions of shadowy, ruthless forces both here and abroad that have set wheels in motion to destroy a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign American citizenry. It all bespeaks tyranny at the highest levels of Federal and many State Governments. What we are doing here is looking at the manifestation of those wheels set in motion, as pertaining to the incremental, continuous, devastating erosion of the Bill of Rights, and the blatant misuse of authority by Federal and State Governments to control the life, safety, well-being, and personal autonomy of the American citizen.One need only reflect carefully and honestly on the manner in which Governments are shredding the Bill of Rights slowly, methodically, and inexorably to understand the mortal danger facing our free Constitutional RepublicLooking at the New York Government’s actions despicable actions toward the U.S. Supreme Court is explanation enough that something more is afoot than imbecilic behavior by Governor Hochul and the Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany.The New York Government would not have dared to contend against the High Court unless they knew that powerful interests and forces stood behind them to protect them. The New York Government's insolent maneuverings are not emanating solely from the Government. The masterminds of the treachery against our Nation stand well above Government agent toadies. They are merely the faces the public sees; that the public is permitted to see. All we can do here is try to convey to our kind readers the legal, logical, and Constitutional weaknesses of New York’s actions. And we must remain content with accomplishing that. It is more than enough work for us, a small voice supporting our Constitution as the founders of our Republic intended.With this groundwork laid as an explanation for New York’s recalcitrance in obeying a direct High Court ruling, we will, in the next few articles of this series draw our attention to the deceitfulness at work through the operation of the “Good Moral Character” provision of the CCIA the Hochul Government has repurposed to operate like the past “Proper Cause” Requirement, to frustrate the applicant. The New York Government continues on the path it had first set for itself centuries ago, at the dawn of New York's statehood. Hochul and her Government intend to restrict the issuance of New York concealed handgun carry licenses, now, as then, and to constrain the use of those licenses for those individuals who happen to be among the few to acquire them.________________________________________*A decade after this article came out, Iowa amended its Constitution to include “a right to bear arms.” In a news article posted November 8, 2022, The Des Moine Iowa Register reported that,“Iowa voters have adopted an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to add the right ‘to keep and bear arms,’ adding language that goes beyond the protections contained in the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, according to unofficial results.Iowa will become the fourth state with ‘strict scrutiny’ language to protect gun rights in its state constitution, achieving a longtime goal of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature. . . .The language of the amendment states: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.’The amendment described the right to keep and bear arms as ‘a fundamental individual right,’ requiring any restrictions on gun rights to survive ‘strict scrutiny.’Strict scrutiny is the highest legal hurdle for legislation to clear. It requires any restrictions on gun rights to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.”Two weeks after Iowans voted to amend their Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Bruen, and the Court published its decision seven months later. Much of the Majority Opinion clarified the test that Courts must follow in deciding whether State Government action conforms with or offends the core of the Second Amendment when a Government action is challenged.But twelve years before Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down means-test scrutiny, in favor of a historical test. Although the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the Majority, in Heller, had specifically mentioned defects in the lowest standard of means-test scrutiny, “Rational Basis,” it was clear from the decision that the Court had scrapped the entirety of means-test analysis in Second Amendment cases, including, then, “Intermediate” and “Strict” Scrutiny, in favor of historical analysis. The vast majority of Courts failed to get the message or otherwise chose to ignore it. Although many Courts, prior to Bruen may have utilized a historical analysis, in analyzing the constitutionality of State action impinging on the Second Amendment right, they went impermissibly further, unable or unwilling to disavow means-test scrutiny altogether. But nothing in Heller suggests the High Court retained so much as an iota of means-test scrutiny. Moreover, the Majority in Bruen explicitly states that the Court wasn’t creating a new methodology. Bruen merely clarifies what Heller asserts. Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, said this:“Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a ‘two-step’ framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.”This brings us back to Iowa’s amendment to its State Constitution. Since the Amendment refers explicitly to the use of “strict scrutiny,” the Amendment is unconstitutional. The irony is that supporters of the Amendment sought not only to cast in stone the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms for Iowans but to preclude the State Legislature and the State Federal and Appellate Courts from employing any test that might henceforth weaken the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense. The supporters of the Iowan Amendment thought that strict scrutiny in Second Amendment cases would prevent unconstitutional State action from infringing the core of the right. The U.S. Supreme Court had no such illusion, as a Strict Scrutiny means-test methodology suffers from the same defect as all means-test (weight analysis) methodology. There exists a tendency of Courts to find, almost invariably, in favor of a Government’s action, denying a challenge of unconstitutional infringement. This is one reason, and probably the salient one, why the Court struck down means-test scrutiny altogether, in Heller.Can the Iowa Legislature amend the verbiage of the Constitutional amendment to cohere with Heller and Bruen? Probably not since that would involve statutory reconstruction of a Constitutional amendment, which in the action would defeat, even if the intention were honest, the force and efficacy of the State Constitution, either subordinating the State Constitution to State Statute or placing the State’s Constitution on the same footing as State Statute. Neither possibility is acceptable.It appears Iowans will have to undertake another round of voting, first to repeal the unconstitutional amendment, and second to vote on a redraft of the amendment first voted on, that omits the “strict scrutiny” language.The Des Moines Register article, supra, also refers to four other States that have employed the language of strict scrutiny in their own constitutions:“Iowa will become the fourth state with ‘strict scrutiny, language to protect gun rights in its state constitution, achieving a longtime goal of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature.”If true, those States as well must amend their constitutions to cohere to the rulings and reasoning of Heller (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)) and Bruen, (N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)).___________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SHOOTING INCIDENT DIDN’T HAVE TO HAPPEN. HERE'S WHY!

ANOTHER “MASS SHOOTING” BECAUSE THOSE WHO “HATE GUNS” REMAIN PERENNIALLY BLIND TO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THESE TRAGEDIES

MULTISERIES ON THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL SAFETY

PART FOUR

Mass shootings need not happen but continue to happen because of ineffective security measures.Video footage shows the assailant, Anthony McRae, walking through an unlocked door with a handgun.Yet, security officers didn't stop him.  A “mop-up” operation occurred after the fact, much too late to save lives.Mass shooting incidents don’t occur at our airports or in federal courts and office buildings because they are “hardened” against criminal violence.But the Biden Administration and the “woke” community oppose “hardening” schools and universities. Instead, they focus attention on futile gestures, like trying to discern a lunatic’s motive and decrying “guns,” “gun violence,” “far-right extremism,” and the Second Amendment.Such topics satisfy the predilections of some. They also deflect discussion away from solving a root problem and direct it toward reinforcing a narrative—one in service to an agenda. And the agenda is aimed at achieving a long-sought goal: erasing the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.The Country is not served well by this. The MSU tragedy was senseless but, unfortunately, predictable.Places of learning remain both “soft targets” and desirable targets. Sadly, “mass shootings” will recur. That is a dead certainty.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

PRIORITIZING CHILDRENS’ SAFETY WHILE IN SCHOOL SHOULD BE THE AIM OF ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BUT IT ISN’T

CHILDREN ARE PAWNS IN A DANGEROUS GAME PLAYED BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND BY MANY STATE GOVERNMENTS*

MULTISERIES ON THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL SAFETY

PART THREE

SUBPART ONE

The Nation’s public schools exist for one salient purpose: to sharpen logical-thinking skills in our Nation’s youths so they become confident in their abilities and productive members of society.Something hinders the effectuation of that purpose: school shootings.Board members, administrators, teachers, support staff, and children cannot concentrate on the core purpose of education when they fear the next school shooting incident.There were four major, widely reported tragic school shooting incidents (K-12) in the past 20+ years:**Columbine in 1999, Sandy Hook in 2012, Stoneman Douglas in 2018, and, most recently, Robb Elementary in 2022.These incidents were devastating, profoundly affecting both the children and adults directly involved and the Nation.Each incident is unacceptable. Yet, all were preventable.What are the States doing about this? Some States are doing much; many others little to prevent the next school shooting. See the ecs.org report. States generally, but not invariably, delegate the responsibility for developing and implementing school security plans to the school districts and many have enacted statutes dictating policy in that regard. Id.There are 13,349 School Districts in the Country, and 731 are in New York.The largest School District in New York and in the Nation is the New York City School District, and it has an enrollment of 1,007,610 (K-12 Public Schools) as of June 30, 2021. The New York City School District has 1,400 schools, one-third of all the public schools in the State. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is the sole bargaining agent for teachers, non-supervisory educators, and paraprofessionals for the City School District. A rational person would think that given the size of the NYC School District (the City is divided into 32 geographic districts and 2 Citywide districts), and given the severity of violent crime in the City, and a host of related societal problems, the District would be a leader in “hardening,” (fortifying) schools against armed attack. But that isn’t true. See articles in the New York Post, the Washington Times, and the National Review.The UFT, taking its cue from the Biden Administration and from the National Education Association (NEA), adamantly opposes implementing the “hardening” of schools, claiming that it doesn’t work. Yet, this notion is at loggerheads with the position of the New York State Legislature that passed, in 2018, a bill funding schools specifically to use armed personnel “To strengthen security and help keep students safe.” The view of the Huntington School District, on Long Island, aligns with that of the State’s Legislators in Albany. The view of the UFT does not.See the Arbalest Quarrel companion article, posted on January 30, 2023. The Huntington School District has implemented a school safety program that makes use of armed staff to protect children, teachers, and staff. See the article in Newsday, and wshu public radio. The use of armed guards has stoked resistance even though such use of armed guards is authorized “on school grounds” but not “in the school.”  That has done nothing to placate deep-seated antipathy on the part of some parents and teachers who oppose all use of armed guards, notwithstanding that the armed school resource officers (SROs), not police officers.But what explains this strong resistance? There is a reluctance, even a hysterical reaction, to the use of armed police or armed school resource officers (“SROs”) at schools even as their effectiveness in protecting students, teachers, and administrative officials from aggressive armed assault is clear. See the article from the rand corporation.  This is a disturbing trend. And it is illustrated both in the New York City School District, and some of the other largest school districts in other areas of the Country.This reluctance must be attributed to a concerted attack on “guns” generally, by groups always opposed to guns, and a hyped-up fear of armed police and armed school resource personnel, particularly.Although the UFT is adamantly opposed to any armed personnel in the City's schools, apparently the District cannot prohibit NYPD from entering the schools in pursuit of their lawful police functions. This has led the ACLU to provide guidance to students when interacting with the police, suggesting a strained relationship from the get-go. See the article, titled, “How to Interact with the Police in New York City Public Schools.”The Legacy Press, itself, abhorring guns and contemptuous of those who choose to exercise their natural law right to keep and bear them, does nothing to alleviate the public’s phobic reaction toward guns. Instead, the Press exacerbates that irrational fear, exploiting shooting incidents—especially those taking place inside schools or outside, on school grounds, involving harm to children. Stoking fear of and concomitant hatred of guns furthers a political agenda. It is an agenda aimed at weakening and eventually eliminating the fundamental, unalienable, natural law right of the people to armed self-defense. The Press uses the alarmist expression “epidemic of mass shootings” to stoke public anger and rage toward guns, suggesting, falsely, that “mass shootings” are commonplace. They are not. See the article in the City Journal. And the term ‘epidemic’ when tied to shootings falsely alludes to a public health emergency. It is not.Criminal conduct involves public safety, not public health. The implement used by a sociopath, or psychopath, or lunatic to commit mayhem doesn’t define the event.  A sentient agent’s use of a gun to commit a crime does not convert that act, a public safety matter, into a public health matter. Similarly, an epidemic or pandemic, like the outbreak of the Spanish Flu, the Bubonic Plague, or the recent CCP Chinese Coronavirus (COVID-19) doesn’t transform a public health matter into a public safety matter. Society doesn’t place a “virus” on trial for a crime. And Society doesn’t place the “gun” in a hospital because it, “the gun,” is deemed “ill.” That is discordant. Yet, the public doesn’t stop to think about the irrationality of the messaging so caught up it is in the cacophony on display.Publications like Time show no reluctance in treating a criminal matter as a health issue when that criminal matter involves guns. See the article in Time.One would think the medical community wouldn’t fall for this. Not so. Many medical practitioners and medical organizations are happy to shoehorn the misuse of guns, a public safety issue, into a presumptive public health issue, and even a public health epidemic. How can this be? Many in the medical community, apparently, are blinded by their own loathing of guns and therefore fail to perceive the irrationality of the presumption. Still, some medical practitioners, realizing the problem, try to make a case, nonetheless:“Advocates believe a public health approach is warranted not only because of the aggregate numbers of death and injuries, but also because epidemiological analysis suggests gun violence may share features with communicable diseases; exposure to gun violence can predict other incidents, and gun violence often diffuses like a contagion through connected social networks. Physicians also are being asked to step up. Various medical groups including the AMA and the American Academy of Pediatrics have issued policy statements calling for greater physician involvement in combating gun violence.” “Physicians’ Elusive Public Health Duties,” 99 N.C.L. Rev. 923, May, 2021, by Richard S. Saver, Arch T. Allen Distinguished Professor, UNC School of Law; Professor (Secondary Appointment), UNC School of MedicineThis is sophistry. The author of the above article equates “gun violence” with “communicable disease” or “contagion” because he mistakes his metaphor for a literal representation. If “gun violence” were really “like” a “communicable disease,” then this would mean that guns, as “viruses,” or “contagions,” would transform all people who happen to come into contact with a gun as having within them the seed of pathological criminal violence. That’s not only patently false, it’s also nonsensical. But, in fact, many in the medical community ascribe to this. And politicians and the legacy Press run with it. Many in the medical community, therefore, contribute to this hysteria over guns, rather than being a voice of reason. And a half-hearted debate over the matter does nothing to allay the tendency to hysteria. See Tulane University article.The desire to treat “guns” per se as a health matter informs all subsequent discussions on the matter. The result is disastrous public policy decisions. Fortunately, not all members of the medical community have jumped on the bandwagon. They do not treat “gun violence” as a public health matter, let alone a public health emergency. They perceive this notion as wrongheaded and illogical. See the website Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.On the matter of guns, the Press, politicians, and many in the medical community are not serving the best interests of the Nation, least of all the best interests of and safety of our children.Children have become useful pawns, sacrificial lambs, in a high-stakes game, where the survival of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic is at stake.____________________________

A GENERAL ANTIPATHY TOWARDS GUNS MEANS TREATING CRIMINAL USE OF GUNS AND LAWFUL CIVILIAN CITIZEN USE OF GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE AS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE

SUBPART TWO

The refusal of many school districts to consider utilizing police or armed resource officers as a necessary part of an effective school safety plan arises from both an antipathy toward guns, culminating in an outright phobic reaction toward “guns.”   An irrational abhorrence toward guns has pervaded the Country. It has not come about by chance. It is all part of an elaborately conceived and orchestrated campaign aimed at disarming the American public. In this effort to affect the desired outcome, a child is viewed as a useful pawn, whose life is deliberately placed in mortal danger. This says everything an American need to know about the value the legacy Press, and many school districts, including the New York City School District and the Biden Administration place on the life of our Nation’s children. It is just a matter of time before another tragedy that need not occur will occur in a school. The usual cast of characters will piously declare how horrific that is and why it is that civilian citizen possession of guns must be drastically curtailed. This will do nothing to prevent another mass shooting incident to occur in a school or outside it. In fact, the contrary will ensue. A mass shooting incident is guaranteed to occur, demonstrating once again, ever again, that the goal of ending criminal violence with guns is not, and never was about guns.Consider the ubiquity of the hyper-alarmist expression “gun violence.”New York Governor Kathy Hochul incessantly goes on about this thing “gun violence” and “hypes” her package of restrictive gun legislation to “fight gun violence epidemic.” See the article on her website. But few people stop to reflect on her lengthy, convoluted package of gun legislation. They should. The legislation has nothing to do with stopping criminal conduct. It has everything to do with repressing the ability of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding Americans to own and possess a firearm—the only truly effective means available to safeguard one’s life against a violent, vicious aggressor. Such random, unprovoked attacks have increased exponentially in recent years, in New York, as reported by the New York Daily News, and the City Journal Magazine. Violent Crime is surging in major Cities, including New York, as reported by the New York Post. Back in January 2022, New York City Mayor Eric Adams declared, “Gun violence is a public health crisis that continues to threaten every corner of our city” and he claimed to have the plan to deal with it.Do you remember: “The Blueprint to End Gun Violence.”How well is that working? Strange, the Mayor has said little to nothing about it since he rolled it out with great fanfare early last year.The answer to violent crime, as the legacy Press and the politicians explain is to constrain and eventually curtail the natural law right of the citizen to provide for his own defense. That is their answer. That is their only response. And why is that? Apparently, the law-abiding citizen gun owner is an easy target and a useful one. And, the Press and politicians point to the many guns in the hands of the law-abiding citizen. So? So, what?Conflating guns held by law-abiding gun owners with those held by violent criminals, the seditious Press and duplicitous politicians make a pretense of serving society, while stepping all over the Bill of Rights. Gun owners are perceived as “the other”—not representative of true law-abiding Americans.Although not expressly stated, the rationale, is this——Restricting the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense of the former, the average law-abiding citizen, will serve to distract from the problem of misuse of guns by the latter, the rampaging psychopathic and psychotic killer.Through this sleight of hand, the Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic can methodically whittle away at the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment. This, of course, is and was their primary aim all along: erase the natural law right to armed self-defense ostensibly for the well-being of the greater society. It is all a ruse. But, it plays well.Thus, the more often that violent crimes occur—preferably through the use of guns—the more likely the public will be to embrace a policy whose end goal is a “Gun-Free” America. That is to say, the elimination of the lawful possession of firearms by civilian citizens. That, of course, has no impact on the criminal. But, witnessing the casual way in which many City Governments treat crimes and criminals today, tackling crime isn’t a matter of concern for them; disarming the average, honorable, rational, responsible civilian citizen is._____________________

A GENERAL ANTIPATHY TOWARDS GUNS MEANS TREATING CRIMINAL USE OF AND LAWFUL CIVILIAN CITIZEN USE OF GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE AS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE

SUBPART THREE

All this focus on guns has affected the way much of the Country views the discussion of and treatment of guns, including, most despicably, how many school districts treat their charges. A life that has value only as a commodity in service to a higher aim: But the refusal even to consider a school safety policy using armed resource officers may place the lives of children, while in school, in mortal danger. Is not the lack of a truly effective school safety policy stark evidence of the lack of value that the Government, today, places on the life of a child—the lack of value that the Government places on the life of the average American citizen in our Country?But the refusal even to consider a school safety policy using armed resource officers may place the lives of children, while in school, in mortal danger. We had pointed this out in an Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on November 17, 2022, writing about this stubborn attitude of the New York City School District, we said,“The UFT isn’t interested in hardening the City’s schools. And it is particularly resistant to employing trained and armed resource officers in the schools.This stubborn stance is an ominous sign of bad things to come. This lax attitude invites school shooting incidents. It may be only a matter of time before a New York City school suffers this horror.I hope it never happens but, given the sheer size of the NYC school district and given the amount of criminal violence afflicting New York City, coupled with a casual attitude toward crime, demonstrated by New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, and New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, I am fearful that it is just a matter of time before a tragedy, at the hands of an armed lunatic, visits a City school.” Less than two months after we wrote this, our prognostication, unfortunately, came true. A Charter School in New York City, East-Williamsburg in Brooklyn was the site of a shooting incident. The New York Post writes,“Three people — two of them students — were shot outside a Brooklyn high school on Wednesday afternoon, police and law enforcement sources said.Bullets flew just past the 2 p.m. dismissal time after a fight erupted outside the Williamsburg Charter High School at 198 Varet Street, cops said.A 15-year-old girl was shot in the right leg and a 17-year-old boy was shot in the left thigh, cops said. A 37-year-old man — a security guard at the school — suffered a graze wound to the neck, according to police.The students were taken to Bellevue Hospital, and the staffer to Elmhurst General, all in stable condition.This started as a dispute, a physical fight,” down the block from the school, near White Street, NYPD spokesperson Lt. Paul Ng said in a press briefing.About 15 men got into the melee, and one of them whipped out a 2×4 stick — which is when the shooter opened fire, according to Ng.”We would be remiss not to point out that, although Williamsburg Charter High School is located in New York City, it does not come under the purview of the New York City School District and the UFT.The Guide to Charter Schools in New York State, says, in part,“Charter schools are completely independent of district school boards. What allows a charter school to provide education to the public is a “charter,” a type of contract, between the school’s board of trustees and a chartering entity (also known as an authorizer). According to the terms of the charter, a school agrees to meet rigorous academic, operational, financial, and legal standards. The authorizer oversees each charter school to ensure it is meeting the terms of its charter.”Yet, despite their independence from district school boards, “charter schools must follow the same health and safety, ci rights, and student assessment requirements as other public schools, but they are exempt from all other laws and regulations, except for Article 56 of the Education Law. v 6” Id.The Safety program appears to be one-dimensional, though, essentially limited to the use of metal detectors to scan for weapons. And “School Safety Agents” appear to be limited to being versed in the use of scanning techniques. Nonetheless, the school safety program falls under the auspices of the NYPD. But, there is nothing that we can decipher from the material we perused to suggest that NYPD officers or armed safety personnel are utilized.In a document involving “A Collaboration Between the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the New York City Department of Education,” effective July 21, 2016, school safety seems directed to and limited to scanning for weapons coming into the school:“Since the late 1980’s, metal detectors have been used in New York City public schools in order to maintain a safe and secure school environment and prevent weapons from being brought into the schools. The scanning program continues to be a vital security initiative and significant deterrent to weapons and violence. Furthermore, when weapons are found, schools can implement appropriate supports, interventions and follow up measures to reduce the chance of recurrence and address underlying factors that affect the safety and security of the school community. In accordance with established procedures and protocols, including Chancellor’s Regulation A-432 on Search and Seizure and the NYPD Patrol Guide 215-18 on Search Protocols for School Safety Agents, all students and visitors entering a school facility where scanning takes place are subject to scanning. School staff may enter the building at a non- scanning entrance designated by the principal/designee, which is monitored by school safety agents. NYPD personnel who conduct the scanning are trained to respect students’ rights and to ensure that scanning occurs in the least intrusive and most respectful manner possible. A principal or his/her designee must be present whenever scanning occurs. Scanning is only conducted at High Schools or Middle Schools which includes grade levels 6 through 12. When an Elementary School is present in a Middle School or High School where scanning occurs, a separate entrance will be provided for Elementary level students to enter the building without being scanned. . . .The Role of School Safety Agent School Safety Agents are trained to treat all individuals entering a school facility with courtesy, professionalism and respect. School Safety Agents overseeing scanning in a school must: • Properly set up/dismantle equipment and test the scanning equipment daily to ensure it is in proper working condition. • Greet students and provide them with clear, concise instructions in a professional manner • Be aware and alert to the walk-through metal detector signals and correctly utilize the hand-held metal detector while carefully observing, interpreting, and reviewing the x-ray machine screen for any suspicious objects Conduct sweeps (searches) for weapons, contraband, and other prohibited items periodically throughout scanning operations each day on the perimeter of the school site. • Adhere to the established methodology for scanning procedures . . . .”Obviously, the shooting incident that occurred on Wednesday, February 8, 2023, involving multiple shots fired and several individuals being shot, on the school grounds of Williamsburg Charter School, suggests serious deficiencies in security, on many levels. That incident may be replicated in any other school in New York City and could lead to more severe consequences. It is just a matter of time.______________________________

THE VALUE OF THE LIFE OF AN AVERAGE AMERICAN IS NOW REDUCED TO ZERO! WELCOME TO “THE NEW LIBERAL WORLD ORDER”!

SUBPART FOUR

What is evident today in New York City in the mammoth New York City School District and in many School Districts across the Country that develop deficient school safety protocols grounded on the biases of the Biden Administration and the NEA are disasters in the making. The crassness is quite remarkable. We reported on this before, in our AQ article posted on November 17, 2022, and it bears repeating:In a May 2022 Press Briefing, reported in the New York Post, prompted soon after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Biden’s Press Secretary pointedly said:“ ‘I know there’s been conversation about hardening schools, that is not something he [Joe Biden] believes in,’ Jean-Pierre told reporters at a White House press conference. ‘He believes that we should be able to give teachers the resources to be able to do their job.’” This wasn’t a mistake by the Press Secretary. The next month, on June 2, 2022, as reported in Breitbart, Joe Biden, himself, confirmed he doesn’t support hardening school buildings.“President Joe Biden delivered a 20-minute prime-time address about gun violence on Thursday in which he mentioned a litany of gun control policies without mentioning the need for hardening school security . . .” [and] nowhere throughout his speech did he mention the need to place armed security guards on school campuses or bettering school security overall.”Since the Biden Administration is adamantly opposed to the use of armed security officers in public schools and explicitly discourages the application of any steps to harden school buildings to protect children, this serves to dissuade the UFT leadership from pursuing “hardening” as a solution for New York City schools. And, many other school systems across the Country follow the Biden Administration’s policy.One is left to ponder the forces at work in this Country who have little if any regard for the life and well-being of the average American: whether man, woman, or child. The Biden Administration is merely a reflection of the monstrous claim that these shadowy, powerful forces have over our Country and its people.The goal of these forces with their toadies in the Biden Administration and in several State Governments across the Country is control over the Country and over the American citizenry. Gaining control over the Country and its people requires capturing the weaponry of Americans to affect absolute control over the populace. Propaganda plays a critical role in that endeavor. Capturing weaponry in this Country requires first capturing the minds of the majority of the people. The lives of Americans, and especially children, count for nothing to these ruthless forces. Rather, loss of life, through criminal misuse of guns, plays a central part in that effort. Regardless of what the politicians and the organs of the Press and media spout, it is control over thought and control over firearms that is essential to the dissolution of a Sovereign, Independent, Nation-State; essential to the dissolution of our Free Constitutional Republic; and essential to the subjugation of a sovereign and proud people. That is the endgame.The Biden Administration and much of Congress, and many of those in State Governments, have no reason for existing other than to carry out the will of their benefactors. And those benefactors have lavished money and power on their toadies to secure their compliance and their loyalty. And they have served their masters well. And what of we, the commoners, the sovereign people of a once Great Nation? We are destined for the yoke if we don't demand an accounting, long past due, of those scoundrels who have sold us out. For the sake of our children, for the founders of our Republic, the first Patriots, and for the many Americans, down through the years, decades, and centuries, who placed their lives at risk, and for those who paid the ultimate price to secure our freedoms, we owe it to all of them to make a stand. Otherwise, all that came before was in vain.___________________________________*This article updates and complements our article posted on January 30, 2023.____________________________________**AQ has corrected an earlier account of school shooting incidents where we stated that there were four school shooting incidents in the past thirty years. We wish to clarify that remark. An astute reader of this article explained to us, on February 9, 2022, that the assertion is inaccurate. We stand by the salient point but acknowledge its vagueness. Therefore, we add this clarification: There were four major, i.e., widely reported school shooting incidents (K-12), from 1999 through 2022; one from the last decade of the Twentieth Century, then two through the first two decades of the Twenty-First Century, and, at this moment in time, one during the third decade of the Twenty-First. The website, Statista, does report many more “mass shootings,” overall, from the time frame, of 1982 through January 24, 2023. Also, we note that the site Statista does not formally define the phrase, ‘mass shooting,’ saying only that “Mass shootings happen when there are several injuries or deaths from a firearm-related violence.” Id. What, then, is a “mass shooting”? The newspaper, USA Today, which has a clear Anti-Second Amendment left-wing bias, writing about it in an article published on June 11, 2022, and that is upfront concerning its abhorrence of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, calling for the outright repeal of it in a subsequent article, published one month later, on July 11, 2022, allows itself, unbidden, to proffer its own non-legal definition: “There's no single consensus on the definition.The Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are shot or killed, not including the shooter. In contrast, Everytown currently defines it as a shooting in which four or more people are shot and killed, again excluding the shooter – but Burd-Sharps noted that they are moving toward expanding the definition to also include four or more injuries in the future.The Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't have a mass shooting definition. Instead, the FBI defines "mass murder" as an incident where four or more people are killed, which can include gun violence.USA TODAY defines a mass shooting as an incident where at least four people are hit with gunfire, even if there are no fatalities. Mass killing refers is an incident in which at least four people are killed.”The organization, The National Mass Violence Victimization Resource Center (NMVVRC), whose mission, as stated, is directed to serving victims of “mass violence” points to a plethora of definitions for similar expressions, in an article, “Definitions of Mass Violence Crimes.”  AQ refuses to be pigeonholed, focused on terminology cunningly devised by propagandists. The use of argot designed by propagandists ensnares a person, traps him, and compels him to adopt a particular viewpoint, even a philosophy through which to view the world. Expressions, like ‘assault weapon,’ ‘gun violence,’ ‘gun culture,’ and ‘mass shootings,’ to name a few, direct a person to view firearms and anything associated with them, including, and most especially, the fundamental, unalienable, natural law right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to a particular and decidedly peculiar way of thinking, a way of thinking at once antithetical to our Nation's history, heritage,  cultural ethos, national identity, and to the philosophical underpinnings of a free Constitutional Republic.____________________________________**This article updates and complements our article posted on January 30, 2023.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHY DO SOME SCHOOL DISTRICTS EMPLOY ARMED RESOURCE PERSONNEL IN THEIR SCHOOLS WHILE OTHERS DO NOT?

A PSYCHIC DISTURBANCE PERVADES THE THOUGHT PROCESSES OF MANY SCHOOL DISTRICTS: A SINGLE-MINDED, ABERRANT ANTIPATHY TOWARD AND FOCUS ON GUNS PREVENTS THESE DISTRICTS FROM INSTITUTING PROVEN SECURITY MEASURES THAT DO WORK AND, IF IMPLEMENTED, WOULD PROTECT CHILDREN FROM THE DANGER POSED BY VIOLENT ARMED AGGRESSORS

MULTISERIES ON THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL SAFETY

PART TWO

There are 731 School Districts in New York.But how many of these Districts have established an effective security plan?An effective plan incorporates armed resource personnel. The South Huntington School District (SHUFSD) knows this and has designed a plan for school security utilizing armed resource personnel. On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, updated on January 26, 2023, two reporters, John Asbury and Craig Schneider, writing for “Newsday,” a leading news source for Long Island and New York City, discussed this plan. They said, “Armed guards will be stationed outside all South Huntington school buildings by the end of the month, one of several Long Island districts making that choice as school shootings continue to be a terrifying national trend.” The reporters added, that, “[t]he South Huntington school board voted unanimously Wednesday to implement the new security measure.” In a follow-up “Newsday” article, published on January 28, 2023, the reporter, Craig Schneider, cited remarks of Dennis Callahan, who heads the South Huntington Teachers’ Union, writing,“The head of the teachers union for South Huntington schools said Friday that his members have strong but very different opinions on the district's decision Wednesday to use armed guards at schools.‘I have members who are thrilled about it and others who are vehemently opposed,’ said Dennis Callahan, who also teaches AP Spanish at Walt Whitman High School in the district.The South Huntington school board voted unanimously to spend $750,000 to hire an undisclosed number of armed guards, who officials said will be stationed outside the seven school buildings by the end of the month. School Superintendent Vito D'Elia pointed to the long string of shootings in school settings in this country.On Friday, Callahan said teachers supporting the move ‘say we are in an unsafe world, and we need to do everything in our power to ensure that when students come to school in the morning, they get home safe.’Those opposed, he said, worry that ‘bringing weapons into school opens the door to more violence.’”How can the utilization of armed resource officers “open the door to more violence”? The idea is more than a trifle vague. Let’s delve into this.Are teachers who oppose armed resource officers afraid the officers would themselves turn on the students and administrators and staff, developing or harboring violent proclivities and thereupon becoming violent? If so, what evidence is there of any such incident ever before occurring in a school that utilizes armed resource officers? These teachers proffer none because there is none. Nothing like that has happened. And there is no reason to suggest an incident of this sort would ever happen. The idea does not merit serious consideration. It leads one down a blind alley.What then can one make of the claim that utilizing armed resource officers would open the door to more violence? Perhaps, teachers who oppose a school security plan utilizing armed officers simply abhor the idea of guns in the school or on school grounds regardless of the benefits derived from having armed officers in the schools and thereupon conjure up an unlikely scenario. If so, there is, in the assertion, a note of hysteria, grounded on a neurotic phobic reaction to the very thought of “guns” and gun-wielding guards. We explore this idea, infra.Perhaps, as a sop to those teachers who suffer from an irrational fear of firearms, or, otherwise, in spite of that irrational fear of firearms felt by many within the District, the South Huntington Board of Education said armed personnel would be stationed outside school buildings, never inside the buildings.A school district that refuses to utilize armed resource officers cannot effectively “harden” schools against a dangerous armed threat. This should be obvious to everyone. Apparently, it isn’t since many school systems refuse to acknowledge this. A fanciful notion, devoid of demonstrative proof or logical validity, leads one down a blind alley. All the more horrific to consider that irrational feverish beliefs inform a school district’s policy decisions. And it is the children who pay the price.Consider: One of the largest school districts in the Country, the New York City School District (UFT), has opted out of using armed resource personnel.“Too many elected officials, school boards, and teachers’ union leaders propose solutions that don’t work.They aren’t interested in listening to parents who, increasingly, have little voice in the matter of their children’s education and no voice in the matter of their children’s personal safety while in school.Their solution to school shootings proposed boils down to one thing: ‘Get Rid of the Guns.’” See the Arbalest Quarrel article, satirically titled, “How to Guarantee Future School Shootings,” published, on November 17, 2022, by Stephen L. D’Andrilli, CEO and President of Arbalest Group, LLC.The failure of some people to recognize the difference between lawful uses for guns and unlawful criminal misuse points to the evident effectiveness of an elaborate propaganda campaign perpetrated on the public and vociferously and monotonously perpetuated for the last few decades.It is a campaign that involves many actors—news media, pundits, politicians, antigun activists, and powerful health organizations, like the “American Medical Association” (“AMA”) and the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” (“CDC”).These multivarious actors are all focused on and draft narratives around this thing, “Gun Violence.”Well, there are “Guns” in our society and there is “Violence” in our society, too. All that is true enough.But the words ‘Gun’ and ‘Violence’ aren’t synonymous. It is only thinking of the two as inseparably linked that would make it seem so.Conjoin two disparate words ‘Gun’ and ‘Violence’ and, voilà, the propagandist has, in that, a shorthand rhetorical device, ‘Gun Violence,’ a neologism—one in service to an insidious agenda, centered around a nefarious end, injurious to a free Constitutional Republic: the disarming of the American citizenry.The aim is the elimination of the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of self and in defense of innocent others.Americans will not readily sacrifice their Bill of Rights. They must be urged to do so.It takes ingenuity and subterfuge to coax Americans to willingly forsake rights and liberties that no other people of any other nation on Earth possess.The phrase, “Gun Violence,” is a viral meme, infecting the psyche of the public. If the pursuit of public health and safety is the goal, the reduction of “Gun Violence” is the theme played and with little variation to get the public there. Or so the public is told. And many there are who swallow the lie.The American public is presented with the classic “false dilemma” fallacy narrative:TOTAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT AND A PEACEFUL, SAFE, WELL-ORDERED, WELL-ENGINEERED, HARMONIOUS, SOCIETY VERSUS THE WELL-ARMED CITIZEN AND CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED, SAVAGE, RAMPANT GUN VIOLENCE.THIS ONE OR THAT ONE ONLY: THE ONE OR THE OTHER, BUT NOT BOTH, AND NOT NOT EITHERBut the tension isn’t real. The armed citizen, which, in the context of schools, is the armed resource officer, does not aggravate the threat of criminal violence by virtue of being armed. This is contrary to the view of many teachers and board members. The officer mitigates and repels that armed aggressive threat. Similarly, the armed civilian citizen neither causes nor adds to criminal violence, but rather mitigates criminal violence.Many Americans fail to perceive this. Many simply cannot perceive this. But, perversely, many others have the desire not to perceive this.And, the UFT, for one, certainly cannot see this. That says much of the cunning of those who instigate this incendiary narrative of “Gun Violence” while being careful to omit any mention of “Criminal Violence.” There is a method to this madness.The propagandists emphasize the object “The Gun” while, at once, deemphasizing the agents of violence: “the Criminal” and “the Lunatic.”This false narrative has a profound effect on the policy choices that politicians see available to them. The policy choices made, invariably endanger, rather than safeguard, their respective communities.Similarly, this false narrative has a profound effect on the choices that school districts make when designing a security plan for their schools. Some districts eschew the “hardening” of schools altogether, single-mindedly focused, as they are, on their abhorrence of “Guns.” Focusing entirely on guns, they conclude that children cannot be safe until or unless all guns are eliminated from society. That is impossible, a ridiculous demand, and one that would not prevent rampant violence anyway, as long as criminals and lunatics run amok in society. And, they would continue to run amok. The forces that crush western nations and people realize the usefulness of sociopathic and psychopathic elements to destabilize nation-states if allowed to do so, and they are given free rein to do just that in the United States.Such absolutism compels one to believe falsely in the futility of securing schools from harm. But Progressives, who ascribe to this absolutism comprise the majority of these School Boards. They make all kinds of excuses for the behavior of the worst sort of deviant types, placating them, unable to comprehend that these same lunatics and psychopaths have no regard for the hand that feeds it, and will readily bite it off if given the chance. So, these Progressives, these smug do-gooders, vent their wrath on Americans who would dare exercise their right to armed self-defense to thwart the destructive elements allowed to pillage and destroy businesses, homes, people, and institutions, with abandon.  Progressives comprise the majority of these School Boards. They make all kinds of excuses for the behavior of the worst sort of deviant influences, placating them, unable to comprehend that these same lunatics and psychopaths have no regard for the hand that feeds it, and will readily bite it off if given the chance. Instead, these Progressive do-gooders, vent their wrath on Americans who would dare exercise their right to armed self-defense to thwart the destructive elements allowed to pillage and destroy businesses, homes, people, and institutions, with abandon.  These Progressives direct their energy against the average law-abiding, rational, responsible, gun-owners, and against the mechanism of their survival, the firearm, believing firmly, and nonsensically, that disarming the gun owner and destroying guns will safeguard society, secure the public schools, and protect the children. It will do no such thing.  Consistent with that belief system, Progressive members of School Boards believe safeguarding children is impossible where guns are prevalent in society. Knowing that they will not get rid of guns nor that they will be able to defeat the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense, these Progressive school board members, disgruntled, and enraged, but refusing to acknowledge defeat, forsake designing, and implementing any security measures, hoping and trusting or simply desirous that the life of their charges will one day, in a Golden Age, be safeguarded once guns all disappear from the face of the Earth. Till, then, they will do nothing to protect the children in their schools. It is a kind of Nihilism that sweeps through these School Districts, pervading all thought, a sickness hidden in plain sight only because the highest officials and functionaries of Government suffer from the same ailment, a psychic disturbance wrought by those poor sorts that have inculcated the psychotic dogma of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, a dogma incompatible with our Nation's rational historical, political-philosophical creed, embodied in our natural law rights, emanating from the Divine Creator, that the new false secularism repudiates out of hand.These school districts hope the children in their care will be safe but believe they really won't be, and that, since nothing can be done, to prevent, in their mind, harm to their charges, they feel it is senseless to even try. So, they won't.This bizarre position emanates directly from the thinking of the repugnant Biden Administration itself. And, unsurprisingly, but no less unfortunate, many school districts, including the UFT, take their cue from this Federal Government. See June 6, 2022, report in Breitbart.And, since the public psyche is infected with the false notion that the existence of guns invariably threatens the physical and emotional health and safety of children, many public schools around the Country have opted out of employing armed personnel in schools.So it is, that some school districts, apparently so disheartened, disillusioned, and embittered as a result of their obsessive fear over the “proliferation” of guns and this thing, “Gun Violence,” have refrained from undertaking instituting any measures whatsoever. Consider, e.g., a 2007 report from the “National Institutes of Health” (“NIH”), that must bear some responsibility for this.A long-running campaign of psychological conditioning, undertaken by a plethora of organizations over a broad landscape of institutions, often operating in concert, and on an industrial scale, has succeeded in causing psychopathy in the minds of many Americans.And this elaborate propaganda campaign negatively impacts the decisions political leaders make: Governors of States, Mayors of Cities, and Members of School Boards.So powerful is this propaganda campaign that many Americans do not distinguish, indeed cannot distinguish, between criminal use of guns on the one hand, and non-criminal proper, lawful use of guns by average, rational, responsible, law-abiding people, on the other hand.The founders of our free Constitutional Republic would be puzzled indeed to consider that such a failure of reason could gain such wide currency.The founders of our Republic, the framers of our Constitution were acutely aware of the profound importance of firearms to both the creation of and maintenance of a free RepublicThey were certainly aware of the profound importance of firearms to the creation of and maintenance of a free Republic where the common man would stand and must stand sovereign over Government lest tyranny arise, as tyranny must, where good men have neither the will nor the means to prevent it.Guns are only a tool, inanimate objects, but necessary ones. Like any tool, a gun can be utilized for good or ill, dependent upon the nature of the sentient agent who wields it. A “firearm,” being insentient, is incapable of engaging in harm initiated by itself but listening to antigun zealots, one tends to hear them argue otherwise.The founders of our free Constitutional Republic certainly were aware of the importance of firearms as the most effective means to successfully safeguard human life from predatory creatures, predatory men, and predatory Governments. Our Country would not exist without the will and courage of these men, our Founders, and the means required to repel tyranny.Knowing this, one is left to ponder that——The failure of so many Americans to recognize the utility of firearms (“Guns”) as a source of positive good must be by design.The danger to the life, safety, and well-being of innocent Americans, especially children, is palpable.Sadly, there are powerful, ruthless forces machinating against the well-being of our Nation and its people, and they exert that influence on politicians at all levels of Government, and on businesses, media, the Press, and school boards across the Nation—with devastating effect. The felt impact of this, demonstrated by the money and time spent to undermine the natural law right to armed self-defense, is too much in evidence to be reasonably denied.Inducing in the psyche of a person a deep-seated phobia toward “the Gun,” such that a person finds nothing salvageable in it, suggests a dark and sinister intent of powerful forces to disarm the citizenry. That influence manifests in poor policy choices of Government officials, across the board, leading inevitably to rampant crime in our communities, lax security in our public schools, and the collapse of our sacred rights, and liberties, and institutions.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

HOW TO GUARANTEE FUTURE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

AN ESSAY BY STEPHEN L. D'ANDRILLI, CEO AND PRESIDENT OF ARBALEST GROUP, LLC.

MULTISERIES ON THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL SAFETY

PART ONE

The Nation’s public schools exist for one purpose: to educate our children to become productive members of society. Something hinders that: school shootings.But public school shootings need not happen and should not happen. Yet, these incidents do happen. And that says something odd and disturbing about our politicians and prominent groups, like the powerful teachers’ unions, that let these incidents happen.When they happen, our nation suffers, and that suffering extends to every American: man, woman, and child. So, then, why do they happen and who is to blame?There were four major school shootings in the past three decades: Columbine in 1999, Sandy Hook in 2012, Stoneman Douglas in 2018, and, most recently, Robb Elementary in 2022. Each of these incidents is unacceptable. All were preventable. What do these shootings tell us?Too many elected officials, school boards, and teachers’ union leaders propose solutions that don’t work.They aren’t interested in listening to parents who, increasingly, have little voice in the matter of their children’s education and no voice in the matter of their children’s personal safety while in school.Their solution to school shootings proposed boils down to one thing: “Get Rid of the Guns.” A simplistic Democratic Party slogan becomes a societal policy stance, that endangers the most innocent of Americans, our children.“Get Rid of the Guns” is what the public hears. It is the universal solution provided and the solitary message conveyed.It’s a National trend. Federal, State, and affiliated Union officials all espouse it, including the powerful United Federation of Teachers (“UFT’) that represents nearly 200,000 dues-paying members.The UFT publishes a newsletter, called, “New York Teacher,” that keeps its members apprised of union policies, positions, and news.As a dues-paying retired NYC teacher, I receive copies of the newsletter.On May 25, 2022, one day after the Uvalde, Texas incident, the UFT published its “Resolution to stand against gun violence.” In form, this “Resolution” presumes a consensus reached by UFT members.The last sentence of the UFT’s “Resolution” elucidates where the UFT expends its energy —— “RESOLVED, that the union supports Governor Hochul’s measures in New York, reaffirms its longstanding support for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as other gun safety laws, and will work with the American Federation of Teachers at the national level both to overcome the obstacles to these commonsense safety measures and to organize other means of harnessing the power of our local and national organizations to confront and end this ongoing national tragedy.”One month later, on June 16, the UFT published a follow-up article titled, “Delegates decry deadly school shooting,” where it expanded on its “Resolution to end gun violence.”I was both troubled and angered by this one-sided news reporting and pontificating.Reference to “Gun Violence” in the title of the “Resolutions” establishes the theme of the UFT leaders’ sole approach to dealing with school shootings.The word ‘Gun Violence’ is a narrative tool, a Democratic Party establishment talking point, recited and reiterated constantly, and echoed by the legacy Press.The UFT’s leaders buy into this, regurgitating the same tiring refrain. This is deliberate and it isn’t benign.The use of the expression “Gun Violence” promotes a dangerous way of thinking, encouraging bad policy choices.The Nation’s decision-makers divert scarce taxpayer resources away from the implementation of effective measures to secure our public schools and direct those resources into measures that make schools less safe.The UFT leadership has become a useful pawn of the Biden Administration’s bad policy.It has learned nothing from the tragedies that have befallen other school districts around the Country so  caught up as it is in the fiction of “Gun Violence.” Dwelling on that fiction prevents consideration of and implementation of constructive solutions to school shootings.I could not sit idly by, allowing the UFT’s remarks to go unchallenged. I wrote a letter to the editor explaining my concern, suggesting concrete ways it could secure the City’s school system.The UFT published my letter on November 3, 2022, adding the title, “Where is the school security plan?”But the editor made changes to the letter I did not authorize, involving a fundamental idea made, thereby undercutting the import of the salient point I sought to convey:An effective solution to school shootings requires the “hardening” of schools against aggressive armed assault.The editor struck the word, ‘hardening’ from my letter. That was no accident. But why did the editor do this? That single word encapsulates the basic strategy for securing school buildings from armed assault.Hardening physical structures against armed assault isn’t a novel idea. Federal and State Governments have applied it to airport terminals and courthouses around the Country for many years.Security in these buildings is extraordinarily tight. Protocols are assiduously enforced. That explains why shootings in these structures are extremely rare or nonexistent.Hardening structures against aggressive armed attacks do work.Seeing this success, many school districts have adopted hardening protocols to thwart school shootings. Those that do and that see to the enforcement of those protocols, do not experience the tragedies that afflict districts that don’t use them.Why aren’t these protocols universally applied given their obvious effectiveness?How can any rational mind fail to apply them? They should, but don’t. The UFT doesn’t and isn’t about to. Why is that?Both I and my business partner Roger J. Katz, an attorney, and a former public school teacher himself, have written extensively about this, posting our articles on our website, the Arbalest Quarrel.And, Ammoland Shooting Sports News, the web’s leading Shooting Sports News Service for the Second Amendment, Firearms, Shooting, and Hunting and Conservation communities republished five AQ articles: January 25, 2016; June 15, 2016; February 26, 2018; March 17, 2018; and May 26, 2022.By “hardening” our school buildings we protect the life and safety of our children, teachers, and staff.This isn’t difficult. A lot of the work has already been done on this. There is no guesswork for any of it.It takes only the desire to do it and the fortitude to follow through on it.I propose seven measures as basic to securing schools and safeguarding students, teachers, and staff within them, therefore “hardening” them. These include establishing:(1)  A Designated Entrance and Exit,(2)  A Vestibule and Video Surveillance,(3)  Positioning of Metal Detectors at Entry Points,(4)   Photo ID,(5)  Security Desk and Visitor Escorts,(6)  Trained and Armed Personnel (including Plainclothes, and/or Uniformed Personnel), and(7)  Periodic Testing and Strict Adherence to all Policies and Protocols.Implementation of this 7-Point Strategy in New York’s schools would deter an armed assailant from insinuating himself into a school building.The use of trained and armed resource officers is imperative.The UFT isn’t interested in hardening the City’s schools. And it is particularly resistant to employing trained and armed resource officers in the schools.This stubborn stance is an ominous sign of bad things to come. This lax attitude invites school shooting incidents. It may be only a matter of time before a New York City school suffers this horror.I hope it never happens but, given the sheer size of the NYC school district and given the amount of criminal violence afflicting New York City, coupled with a casual attitude toward crime, demonstrated by New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, and New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, I am fearful that it is just a matter of time before a tragedy, at the hands of an armed lunatic, visits a City school. The Biden Administration bears singular responsibility for enabling this violence.In a May 2022 Press Briefing, reported in the New York Post, prompted soon after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Biden’s Press Secretary pointedly said:“ ‘I know there’s been conversation about hardening schools, that is not something he [Joe Biden] believes in,’ Jean-Pierre told reporters at a White House press conference. ‘He believes that we should be able to give teachers the resources to be able to do their job.’” This wasn’t a mistake by the Press Secretary. The next month, on June 2, 2022, as reported in Breitbart, Joe Biden, himself, confirmed he doesn’t support hardening school buildings.“President Joe Biden delivered a 20-minute prime-time address about gun violence on Thursday in which he mentioned a litany of gun control policies without mentioning the need for hardening school security . . .” [and] nowhere throughout his speech did he mention the need to place armed security guards on school campuses or bettering school security overall.”Since the Biden Administration is adamantly opposed to the use of armed security officers in public schools and explicitly discourages the application of any steps to harden school buildings to protect children, this serves to dissuade the UFT leadership from pursuing “hardening” as a solution for New York City schools. And, many other school systems across the Country follow the Biden Administration's policy. Why do you suppose that is?A person might be tempted to conclude the Biden Administration WANTS school shootings to occur. But that can’t be true, can it? No one, in their right mind, would dare use, or even think of using, children as sacrificial lambs simply to gain public sympathy and support for a radical agenda positing the disarming of Americans, would they?After all, to be adamantly opposed to the application of measures that do work to protect children is both irrational and seemingly inexplicable. And no Government agenda can justify sacrificing the life, safety, and well-being of the children to carry out an agenda. Yet, isn't that what we are seeing? Isn't this in fact occurring: a cold, calculated, plan that to be accomplished requires an extraordinary sacrifice: our Nation's children?Nah! Ridiculous!Ridiculous, Indeed! But, hasn't the advent of the brain-addled Biden and his psychopathic Administration demonstrated a proclivity for instituting policy prescriptions illustrating an absolute lack of concern for the life and well-being of Americans? Reflect on the hasty, ill-conceived, and horribly executed withdrawal from Afghanistan that resulted in the needless deaths of thirteen American soldiers. Ponder the infusion into our Land of over five million illegal aliens, none of whom were carefully vetted, and many of whom pose a direct threat to the security of our Nation and its citizenry, and all of whom constitute a substantial monetary burden on the taxpayer, as these "migrants" require housing, food, medical care, and education for their offspring. And consider the dire threat of Global Thermonuclear War posed by the Biden Administration's cavalier attitude toward Russia that his Ukrainian/Russian policy has placed us in.

ALLOWING CRIMINALS AND LUNATICS TO KILL CHILDREN TO DEMONSTRATE A NEED TO GET RID OF GUNS IN CIVILIAN HANDS TO STOP VIOLENCE DOESN'T DEMONSTRATE A CONCERN ABOUT VIOLENCE. NO! IT DEMONSTRATES INSTEAD BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE LIFE AND WELL-BEING OF AMERICANS, TO ACCOMPLISH AN END: ONE THAT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ENHANCING THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF AMERICANS. THE GOAL IS THE SUBJUGATION OF THE COMMONALTY: ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER ALL THOUGHT AND ACTIONS—IN OTHER WORDS—THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF TYRANNY.

A fixation on the notion of guns as the root cause of criminal violence not only diverts precious monetary and manpower resources away from the implementation of effective solutions to school shootings, such fixation goes further. It prevents the very consideration of viable solutions to the specific problem of school shootings. This is unconscionable, but that is precisely the intention of a rogue Federal Government.The expression, ‘Gun Violence,’ like those of ‘Gun Culture’ and ‘Assault Weapon,’ are intentionally designed to focus the public's attention on things the Biden Administration wants the public to focus its attention on. But these expressions are fabrications. These expressions refer to nothing concrete. Yet, the public is led, nonetheless, to believe, erroneously, they denote, real, and negative, things.These fabrications do serve a purpose.Propagandists utilize these expressions to compel a specific response in the target audience: the American public. And the response sought is one of anger and rage toward guns and those who wish to exercise their natural law right to keep and bear them. So the public relinquishes their firearms to Government overseers and then what? Is the public any safer? Of course not. In fact, the public is considerably less safe. The public couldn't be in a worse position: facing danger from predatory criminals and lunatics, which is bad enough, and, worse, facing imminent, danger from a predatory Government.Words, thus, do carry weight. They are often emotionally laden.Propagandists know this. They employ verbiage that sways public opinion in the direction they want, and they refrain from utilizing verbiage that sways public opinion in a direction they don’t want.The public, whipped into a frenzied mob, operates through rabid emotional instinct; their higher faculties of refined, calm, deliberative thought and reflection are anesthetized.With the public intellect effectively hijacked, the propaganda mill persuades the public that “Gun Violence,” a “Gun Culture,” and a Nation “awash” in “Assault Weapons” are the cause of criminal violence. They aren’t. They aren’t even the effect of criminal violence.What are they, then?They are rhetorical flourishes, red herrings, manufactured by propagandists to draw attention away from the true causes of “violent crime”—the criminals and lunatics who commit it, together with the perversity of Biden Administration officials and many State and local Government officials who refuse to deal with the fact of it.Through time, these “red herrings” evolve into viral memes. They get inserted into the public psyche, where they become lodged and difficult to remove.The public obligingly conforms its belief system to Government policy promulgated by Biden officials. And, through ongoing, vociferous broadcasts by the legacy Press, radio, broadcast and cable news, and social media, the public grows amenable to that policy, begins to support it, and eventually becomes enthusiastic about it, even though it is contrary to the public’s interests and needs, and does not address the problems claimed: schools infiltrated by armed lunatics and growing violence in society as a whole.“Getting rid of guns” means, literally, confiscating guns presently in the hands of tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational citizenry.  “Getting rid of guns” is presented as a panacea to armed killers stalking schools, and to violent crime generally—or so the public is told. The policy, “Getting rid of guns,” becomes the “Battle Cry” of the Biden Faithful.The Biden Administration, Congressional Democrats, and State and local governments, along with their friendly travelers in the legacy Press, cable and broadcast news networks, and social media, constantly and consistently utilize verbiage like ‘Guns,’ ‘Gun Violence,’ and ‘Assault Weapons’ to support their narrative to accomplish their objectives, and they assiduously avoid the use of other verbiage that undercuts their running narrative.Expressions like ‘hardening,’ ‘school security, ‘armed resource officers’ and ‘armed self-defense’ are a few of the main ones the propagandists avoid.Such latter expressions reinforce the need for effective security in schools and in the greater society; the former does not. To make the illusion work, the use of expressions like ‘hardening,’ ‘school security, ‘armed resource officers,’ and ‘armed self-defense’ must be scrupulously avoided in Government sponsored messaging. The public too is discouraged from using those expressions in public discourse.What is advantageous to schools and to society as a whole is an anathema to the present Administration and antithetical to the Administration's policy pertaining to firearms and the Second Amendment.A profound quelling of dissent is fostered, unlike anything seen before in America. A fog settles over the public psyche. This is as intended. The First Amendment freedom of speech is severely constrained.Many organizations obey the guidelines for discourse set by the Biden Administration and establish policies of their own consistent with those of the Biden regime, even though Biden's policy directives are contrary to the welfare of the Nation and destructive of the fundamental, unalienable rights of the people protected by the U.S. Constitution.The UFT is in league with Biden Administration policy, and actively and avidly assists the Administration in complying with the Administration's duplicitous schemes. And it wields considerable influence over its members.Many teachers who should be attuned to the dangers of manipulation of public thought become ensnared by it. Worse, what impacts them also affects their charges.This sad result is emblematic of New York City public school education.And, so, the Public school buildings remain unsecured. And, yet, New York Governor Hochul and the UFT would likely disagree with this observation.On June 23, 2022, following the Uvalde, Texas shooting incident, Hochul signed a school security bill, named in honor of a student who was a victim of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglass High School shooting tragedy. An announcement on the Governor's website proclaimed——“Governor Kathy Hochul today signed Alyssa's Law (S.7132B/A.10018), requiring schools to consider the use of silent panic alarm systems when conducting review and development of their school safety plans. . . . ‘I am proud of the work we have done to pass a nation-leading bill package to crack down on the scourge of gun violence, but this is an ongoing fight and we cannot stop there,’ Governor Hochul said. ‘We will continue to take aggressive action until every child in New York is safe to pursue an education without the fear of senseless tragedy. That's why I am proud to put pen to paper on Alyssa's Law, a real and meaningful piece of legislation that will require school districts to evaluate systems that can save precious minutes—and lives—in the event of an active shooter situation.’This bill requires that schools consider their usefulness when developing their district-level school safety plans and expressly authorize their inclusion within building level safety plans. The panic alarm systems themselves can cost just a few thousand dollars to purchase, and can be implemented in the classroom as a smartphone app.”Notably absent from the hoopla surrounding the signing of this law is any mention of the use of armed resource officers to take down an “active shooter” while students, teachers, and staff anxiously await the arrival of police. How much damage can this “active shooter” do and how much harm can he inflict on children during those seconds and minutes before the police arrive? Significant damage; horrific harm!That absence of armed resource officers leaves children vulnerable to and helpless in the face of physical violence, in the precious seconds and minutes they must await the arrival of the NYPD Special Operations Bureau officers. But is it better a child should die, sacrificed for the greater good of society that enshrines the precept that “Guns are Bad” and develops school security policy around that idea?And children themselves—those that survive armed assault—are indoctrinated in the precept that “Guns are Bad.”Consistent with the intent behind that precept is the idea that those who commit violence are simply mentally ill, not inherently evil; ergo they aren't responsible for their acts. Hence, the moral imperative: blame the object, “the Gun,” for the act of “Gun Violence”, and refrain from blaming the agent, the “active shooter,” who happened to use the Gun to commit an unspeakable horror on an innocent child. No less is a child's innocent mind endangered—and by implicit Federal Government commands that many State and local governmental authorities and teacher's unions obey. A child's innocent mind is left open—accessible to, receptive to, and, inevitably, held captive to a slew of corrupting influences. These corrupting influences produce in the child, a phobia towards firearms and a disinterest in or abject hatred toward the Nation's natural law rights, including the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of Self and family, and against the armed predator, and to preserve the security of a free state against the predatory Government. The schools indoctrinate the child at an early age to focus his attention on the object, i.e., the Gun, and not on the sentient agent who misused a gun to harm another. The child is subconsciously infused with the ethical precepts of consequential utilitarianism, eschewing the moral culpability of the sentient agent, and looking at the concepts of good and evil in terms solely of utility: Do the consequences of an act maximize utility for society or reduce utility? As guns are deemed deleterious to the well-ordered society, any act involving them is deemed inherently bad by definition and altogether destructive to the well-being of the well-ordered society. As perceived by the predatory Government, the mere presence of guns in society reduces utility. Therefore the predatory Government must rid society of guns; all guns that are in the hands of the civilian citizenry. The Biden Administration is attempting to do just that, in incremental steps. The attack on so-called “assault weapons,” a.k.a. “weapons of war” is a major step in that direction. “Assault weapon,” refers to any semiautomatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun.  The Biden Administration intends to rid the Country of all of them—this—the most prevalent category of firearms in the Country. Tens of millions of American citizens keep and bear semiautomatic firearms. No matter. The Biden Administration intends to collect all of them. And the citizen should expect as much from a predatory Government.The predatory Government views a well-ordered society in terms of its own well-being, and not in terms of the well-being of the citizen. An armed citizen represents an inherent threat to the predatory Government. Therefore the citizen must be disarmed—this—ostensibly for the benefit of the well-ordered society qua the well-being of the predatory Government.Perpetuating the fiction of “Gun Violence” serves as an effective vehicle to de facto nullify the right codified in the Second Amendment, and eventually dismantle the free Constitutional Republic. A true republic cannot long stand in a land devoid of its armed citizenry. The Biden Administration intends to make it so.Americans bear witness to the inexorable dissolution of their Republic toward authoritarianism, and eventually totalitarianism, and the subordination of the American people to the State. The armed citizen is equated with Gun Violence.” No allowance is made for the law-abiding gun owner. The law-abiding armed citizen and the law-breaking psychopathic criminal and the rampaging lunatic are all subsumed in the same category: illicit gun-toting destructive elements, albeit the criminal and lunatic, serve the predatory Government's purpose to dismantle a free Republic. Criminals and lunatics are therefore allowed to run amok as they accelerate the destabilization of society, allowing authoritarianism to settle in. The predatory Government perceives the law-abiding gun owner as the graver threat, in fact, the gravest  “security” threat to that Government.Apropos of schools, the ill effects of the application of “Gun Violence” policy objectives become too blatant to ignore. Any attempt “to harden” school buildings against armed aggression is met with firm resistance. This is plain from the UFT “Resolution to end gun violence,” as posted in the UFT newsletter, and in the mangling of my letter to the editor in response to the “Resolution to end gun violence,” and to the UFT follow-up article, “Delegates decry deadly school shooting.” The editor deleted my reference to the “hardening” of schools to protect children against armed invasion, while in school. This import of doing this is important. The UFT would does not support the hardening of schools against violent armed assault. This endangers a child's safety. The UFT and the Hochul Government feel this is an acceptable risk, as it is consistent with the philosophy embodied in establishing a “Gun Free” environment. This means the UFT and the Hochul Government forbid schools from utilizing armed resource officers as a security measure to protect children. Thus, a necessary component of school security hardening to thwart infiltration of New York City schools by an armed intruder is unavailable. Why would the UFT and the Hochul Government take this stance?The reason is this——The implementation of school security “hardening” proposals, while of benefit to the child, would be harmful to the Biden Administration's goal of nullifying the natural law right of armed self-defense, as codified in the Second Amendment. The Hochul Government and the UFT will not implement school security strategies that are inconsistent with Biden's anti “Gun Violence” policy directives directed to the eventual de facto nullification of the Second Amendment.Thus, a child's life is effectively subordinate to the dictates of Biden's tacit policy directive. That directive has infected the policies of many school districts, the effects of which are painfully visible.How do the UFT and the Hochul Government respond to this——Through a feat of legerdemain, the Biden Administration, Governor Hochul, and the UFT deflect criticism of deficiencies in school defenses against armed invasion by focusing the public's attention maximally on guns and on those law-abiding citizens who keep and bear them and focusing minimally on the “active shooter.” School shootings serve as a useful pretext to advance the Biden Administration's goal of reducing the impact of the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to a nullity.This failure to effectively harden schools against armed assault is replicated in school districts around the Country. This is sad and profoundly disturbingBut, the ripple effect extends beyond issues pertaining to school security measures.The vehement incessant attack on guns and on the natural law right of armed self-defense compromises: one, the safety, security, and well-being of one's physical self; two, the sanctity and inviolability of one's Spirit and Soul; three, the preservation of the U.S. Constitution along with preservation of a free Constitutional Republic; and four, the sovereignty of the American people over Government. All of this is in danger of rupture—and more so today than ever before in our Nation's history.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHY DO SO MANY AMERICANS BLINDLY ACCEPT GOVERNMENT AND PRESS STORYLINES

AN ESSAY ON THE DANGERS OF ACQUIESCENCE TO TYRANNY*

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTATIONS}“There is no real direction here, neither lines of power nor cooperation. Decisions are never really made – at best they manage to emerge, from a chaos of peeves, whims, hallucinations and all around assholery.” “It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted . . . secretly, it was being dictated instead by the needs of technology . . . by a conspiracy between human beings and techniques, by something that needed the energy-burst of war, crying, “Money be damned, the very life of [insert name of Nation] is at stake, . . . .”“Paranoids are not paranoid because they're paranoid, but because they keep putting themselves, fucking idiots, deliberately into paranoid situations.”~From the Novel, “Gravity’s Rainbow,” published in 1973, by Thomas Pynchon

ARE HISTORICAL OUTCOMES MORE OFTEN A FEATURE OF GOVERNMENTAL KNEEJERK RESPONSES TO CATASTROPHE OR ARE THEY MORE THE PRODUCT OF CALCULATED DESIGN?

Do tragedies in our Country just happen out of the blue or do they happen because someone or something wants them to happen; needs them to happen so they can make a profit off it or to attain some obscure or extravagant goal for themselves but of little benefit to, and more a curse, for everyone else?Take war, or a viral plague, or the wrecking ball of crime in society, and all of the actions of a Government Bureaucrat, or of a Congressional Legislator, or the vacuous words emanating from the mouth of a demented President—burning away all our rights and liberties, and hopes and dreams, in the process, and telling us: “it’s all for a good cause, all for the best;” “we have the solutions to all your problems, and we have your best interests at heart;” “you can trust us; you can trust ME, rely on ME, I have your back.”Does this guy, Joe Biden, mean to placate us? Sure! Does he really expect Americans to believe him? Probably not, certainly not all of us; probably not even most of us. But, so long as he can count on a few of us—a few true believers—that’s all that really matters, doesn’t it?To be sure, some tragedies—in the insurance industry vernacular—are true acts of God. Earthquakes, tidal waves, floods, drought, famine, hurricanes, oh, and the occasional meltdown of a nuclear reactor, and meteor strike. All of these and probably a few more may come to mind. And, yes, some would say that those, too, are by design, if only through indifference.But no sane person could wish for these things to happen. But then, not everyone is sane.There are always a few irrational minds dotting the landscape: a Government Bureaucrat here, a Congressional Legislator there, and a few other sociopaths and psychopaths, here and there, sprinkled and dotted throughout the Land. They are to be found in Press rooms, radio stations, on broadcast and cable news sets, in the halls of academia, in the workplaces of social media and internet companies, in the boardrooms of Commercial and Investment Banks, in the monolithic Federal Reserve Buildings, in the Headquarters of High Finance—all with too much power, and too little moral compunction.But, for most of us, accidents DO happen. And their occurrence cannot be ascribed to, nor ought to be ascribed to, the intentional act of a sentient agent.For, in the happening of these natural catastrophes or technological catastrophes, they are of no discernible benefit to anyone—least of all to those immediately confronted by the full weight of them.But then, there are those tragedies that are manmade—deliberately manufactured or otherwise “allowed to happen,” perhaps with a little nudge, but otherwise with minimum expenditure of money or effort—because, horrible as they are, they do benefit someone or some cabal and that someone or something wants these events to happen, as the tragedy helps speed along their personal agenda.Recall the famous, or infamous, quotation of the acolyte of the silent, secretive “Powers That Be,” Rahm Emmanuel, a former advisor to Bill Clinton, a former Chief of Staff to Barack Obama, and former Mayor of Chicago: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.” See the Youtube video. This wasn't a bit of idle chatter. He meant it. He was deadly serious when he said this. He worked for people in Government who used it, and he likely employed it himself, as Mayor of Chicago.But, what if a fortuitous event, subject to useful exploitation, doesn’t arise?In that case, the agent will set into motion the conditions through which a tragedy or calamity does occur; must occur.And the point of intentionally inflicting pain and horror on innocent people——The point is to evoke an outpouring of grief, followed by anger and resentment, and then rage in the target population. And the sentient agent of the tragedy or calamity proclaims he has a solution—a solution that will deal effectively with it, prevent the recurrence of it, and deal with those responsible for it.Consider the attack on the Nation on September 11, 2000, burnt into the psyche of Americans and referred to by the acronym, 9-11.Some Americans believe this event was engineered from the outside, by the rabid, Islamic Al-Qaeda organization.Others say it emanated from inside the Country by individuals who assisted Al-Qaeda.But whatever the cause, the fact remains that powerful individuals in Government and industry within the Country used the horrific assault on our Country in pursuit of their own selfish, immoral interests and goals, pushing the Nation toward authoritarianism of Government, economic and financial chaos, geopolitical uncertainty, and societal upheaval.How did all these bad things come about? They weren’t accidental.A “Think Tank” comprising a collection of “neoconservatives’ hatched a plan to hurdle the Country back into a perpetual state of war, the details set forth in a paper titled, “The Project for a New American Century.”A war in the Middle East, conceived before the fact of the attack on U.S. soil in A.D. 2000, was sold to the American public as a solution to a national security crisis posed by Radical Islamic Terrorists, after the fact, serving as a useful pretext for the conflagration in the Middle East. The result: turmoil; decades of war, $8 trillion expended, over 7,000 American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen lives lost and hundreds of thousands more innocent lives lost, and a vacuum created.On the home front, Americans saw the enactment of the “Patriot Act”—the short deceptive title of a Congressional Act ostensibly to be utilized only against Islamic Terrorists. The Patriot Act is still very much with us.Those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over, perhaps. The mischief and devastation they caused are not. But the Patriot Act is still very much with us. In the space of twenty years, the Act has been rejiggered for use against Americans deemed by the Biden Administration to be “Domestic Terrorists.”Some Congressional Legislators demurred. In 2001, over five dozen House Representatives voted against its passage but only one U.S. Senator did so: Russ Feingold, the Democrat from Wisconsin. His concerns and those of House Representatives who voted against the Patriot Act were prescient.Looking back on his lone Senate vote, Russ Feingold stated, on the 20^th Anniversary of enactment, in The Nation:“This legislation, rightfully, has long been critiqued for sweeping in unprecedented government surveillance. The anniversary is an opportunity to also reckon with how the Patriot Act distorted our democracy’s checks and balances—and what needs to be done to realign them. . . . The Patriot Act, to me, represented unchecked executive power. Congress was giving authorities to law enforcement that they had long requested, even before 9/11, and was agreeing to do so with minimal oversight built into the system. . . .Suddenly, law enforcement had access to broad swaths of information via roving wiretapping authorities and expanded search warrants. The law also expanded the definition of terrorism, enabling law enforcement to use its new authorities in more instances, including in drug enforcement and to surveil political activists.Compounding the expansion of executive authority, Congress simultaneously agreed to restrict the judicial branch’s oversight of the executive’s use of these new authorities. The provision in the Patriot Act that expanded the government’s ability to access personal records did so in part by creating incredibly broad criteria for doing so. This left judges with little avenue for stopping law enforcement from accessing our library records, medical records, and other private information.” ~Feingold’s article published in the NationThe war on Iraq and the enactment of the Patriot Act did not benefit Americans. And, now decades too late, most Americans see that the proffered solutions to the attack on New York City were unnecessary, counterproductive, and, worst of all, massively injurious to the Nation, the American people, and to the U.S. Constitution.But so wrapped up in the horrific tragedy of the moment were most Americans, including most of Congress, that they allowed their lizard brain to dictate their reaction to a monumental tragedy.It should by now be evident to most Americans that the proffered solutions to tragedies and calamities that strike our Nation negatively also impact our basic rights and liberties, and THAT, undoubtedly, is by design.Thus, even if the tragedy and calamity were accidental, the proposed solution was not. The solution was intended not to benefit the public but to harm it. The tragedy or calamity and the solution to it were both harnessed to achieve the end goal: the subjugation of the American people.The propagandists went to work on the people. They contrived to induce in the populace the false belief that the shedding of and shredding of their natural law rights and liberties benefit them. This could not be easy and would take substantial time. For on some level, Americans would understand the enormity of the assault on their basic rights and liberties, and they would abhor it. The Government propagandists and psychologists and their agents understand this. Thus, the messaging must be subtle, and it must be persuasive.The public must believe in the message. Drastic as the solution is, the public must internalize it, come to understand the need for it—accept it wholeheartedly, unconditionally, heedless of the negative impact of it on their life, on their culture, on the concept of what it means to be an American, to have an American identity. The public must not have second thoughts about any of this. The public must forsake the application of their higher critical faculties, which would compel them to doubt the onslaught of messaging assaulting their brains, mandating the need for the proposed, and recommended solution, the absolute necessity, and propriety of it. But the messaging would not so much as hint at the detrimental impact the proposed solution would have on their life, well-being, and welfare, and that of the Nation.These draconian solutions ostensibly directed at dealing head-on with the Nation’s ills and tragedies and calamities do no such thing. Rather, they strike at the heart of our most sacred rights:

• The First Amendment Freedom of Speech
• The Second Amendment Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
• The Fourth Amendment Right to be free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

That is the aim of these purported solutions. And, on reflection, one sees that this was the intention all along. This was the Grand Design.“Solutions” to claims of this thing, “Domestic Terrorism,” take the form of censorship of ideas and beliefs that do not conform to Government- sponsored narratives. These are false stories. These are the Government's fairy tales that are projected onto the mind of the target population. It is a Psyops on an industrial scale, in blatant defiance of the Smith-Mundt Act. But did Congress ever formally, and effectively repeal the Act? Some scholars say Congress did just that. See, e.g., the article by Weston R. Sager. But no one doubts that Congress did tinker with the Act. No one can reasonably doubt that Congress, in its infinite wisdom, intended to weaken the Act, thus opening up the American people to Government propaganda, the creation of and manipulation of public opinion, and now it is all nice and legal. And the Government itself handles this but it also operates through private party proxies: the massive social media companies. And other major companies develop policies to cohere with the Government program to control public thought and speech. Recall the Government's creation of the DHS Disinformation Board, designed, so we are told to protect free speech. Really? See the article in Forbes. How does that work—protecting free speech by curbing free speech?The public wasn't amused. Neither were at least a few members of Congress. The Board was quickly and quietly disbanded, at least officially. But the Creation of the Board and its overt presentation to the public is disconcerting, quite apart from the reason for the ostensible reason for it. The Federal Government demonstrates its overt intention to control the psyche of the American public. And the audaciousness of the action demonstrates the Federal Government's contempt for the public. And the Government's action also demonstrates the troubling power and authority the Government now wields over the public; the usurpation of that power, and the growing consolidation of power, in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and its only true reason for existence: to serve the American people. One must wonder if this Disinformation Governance Board is still operating, albeit quietly, in the shadows, underground, as a black program, or an extensive secret Government Office, such as the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) once was. How many other secret programs has the Government created, say, in the last ten or twenty years, alone? How many of these programs or agencies, offices, or bureaus are directing their energies toward, or were specifically created to target the American citizenry? Is this the stuff of paranoid ideation? But, if so, is this paranoid ideation itself deliberately fostered by the Government and by its proxies to keep the public off balance; in a constant state of confusion, fear, and mental exhaustion?Censoring of dissent, mass surveillance, electronic data collection, and the creation of dossiers on every American, violate the natural law rights codified in the First and Fourth Amendments of the Nation’s Bill of Rights.  But the public is told this is necessary to protect the public from “right-wing extremists,” “white supremacists,” and “Christian Nationalists,”—all of whom are potential “Domestic Terrorists.” The idea is ludicrous on its face. Yet many Americans believe this. And, through an insidious psychological conditioning campaign targeting “whites,” many Americans find it easy to accept the boogeyman amongst us—in part by way of viewing it as an aspect of themselves.The propagandists subconsciously induce self-hatred in any member of the Caucasian race for the audacity of having been born “white,” with the baggage of “white privilege” that such birth ostensibly delivers. It is bizarre, but the mind can be conditioned to accept absurdities, casting aside his intellect and faculty for self-reflection. The idea also presumes the notion that so-called colored people are all victims, but that it is somehow good and moral to be born “colored.” Thus, the purveyors of this nonsense offend all races, alluding to all white people as members of a noble, superior white race but one that must be chastized for that presumed nobility and superiority, and, at once, extolling the virtue of being a black or colored person for being born ignoble and inferior.  Piggybacking off this, the propagandist induces the public into the false belief that only these “right-wing white extremists” would want to possess a firearm. The subliminal message is that guns, as an invention of white people, are an emblem of suppression of black and colored people. Thus, the propagandist equates and encapsulates in the mind of the target audience, three “bad things”—one, right-wing extremist thought directed at blacks and the“goodness and benevolence of Government” that seeks to protect the oppressed black and colored races from their oppressor; two, firearms, and the ownership and possession of them by white men and sine qua non of the oppressor; and, three, the white race and all things white. All these ideas are taken as axiomatic true, and co-extensive. This in a nutshell is the myth created and generated by those forces both here and abroad, and the vehicle through which they intend to: dismantle a free Constitutional Republic, erase the U.S. Constitution, dissolve the United States as an independent, sovereign nation-state, and reduce a sovereign American people to subjugation, penury, and dependency on the largess of Government. Thus many Americans blindly accept more and more constraints on self-expression and blindly accede to conformity and uniformity in all thought and conduct; and willingly, even cheerfully allow Government to constrain their ownership, possession, and use of firearms even as all of these constraints clearly violate the sanctity and inviolability of individuality of the human will, soul, and spirit, and clearly violate the fundamental and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms in their own defense against the predatory animal, the predatory man, and the predatory Government. BUT IT IS THE PREDATORY GOVERNMENT THAT THIS “PREDATORY GOVERNMENT” intends to protect. An armed citizenry with the will and fortitude to resist the enslavement of mind and body is antithetical to tyranny. But, the public isn’t supposed to acknowledge this or even to perceive the extent to which the Government has taken over their dignity and their strength. Thus, they blithely forsake the right of dissent, the right to think for themselves. They lose the resolve to resist encroachment on the sanctity and inviolability of their Selfhood by the Government and they lose the resolve to resist those forces that dare take from them the only tenable physical means to resist the tyranny of Government close upon them: their firearms. Many Americans don't have an inkling of this program to usurp the sovereignty of the American people over the Government; the meticulousness and constancy of it; the insidiousness and scope of the assault on their very Soul by a tyrannical Government and its agents. And this elaborate program of mind control is effective. The will to resist Government control over the mind, the body, and the personal property rights of the individual is dead. One is left an empty husk, the property of the Government to do with it as it will. That is the goal. But many Americans DO RESIST. They are inured to or immune to the propagandists' trickery. It is imperative that a Tyrannical Government take control over the vast stockpiles of weaponry in the hands of the citizenry. The TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT concocts a SOLUTION for the real their very real PERSONAL PROBLEM, THE ARMED CITIZENRY, by FABRICATING A PROBLEM they then thrust on the public: GUN VIOLENCE.This TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT, through their propaganda arm, CONVEYS TO THE PUBLIC  that the CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS is the PERFECT SOLUTION to THE SCOURGE OF “GUN VIOLENCE.” IT IS ALL A LIE AND IT IS A LIE ON TWO GROUNDS:First, reflect on this idea of “GUN VIOLENCE.”  “GUN VIOLENCE” refers to a violent criminal act committed with a firearm. Seen in that light, a gun is merely an implement. And in fact, that is all a GUN IS. It’s an implement. It’s a tool that can be utilized for good or naught. Consider: The propagandists never talk of “KNIFE VIOLENCE,” “VEHICULAR VIOLENCE,” “HATCHET VIOLENCE,” or HAMMER VIOLENCE.” That is discordant. Sure those implements can be used in the commission of violence, and they have been so utilized. But, one would be puzzled by the assertion. For, these implements do have utility for non-violent purposes. One doesn't perceive criminal use of these implements by the psychopathic common criminal, or a raving lunatic as an argument for constraining lawful use of them by others. The aforesaid phrases are misnomers. Similarly, talk of “GUN VIOLENCE” is a misnomer. But, through the consistency and constancy of mass messaging, a person begins to see what the propagandists what a person to see, namely that guns have no redeeming attributes. So no civilian citizen should have access to them. The use of the phrase “GUN VIOLENCE” by the Press, social media, and other propagandists is discordant. But so attuned is the public to it, having heard it incessantly and vehemently, that the public doesn’t realize the singular oddity of the expression. If the desire is to curtail “GUN VIOLENCE,” the solution to that is to remove the perpetrators of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, not remove, or attempt to remove, a firearm from the hands of tens of millions of Americans who are not the cause of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE. In fact, doing so denies the innocent person the means to protect him or herself against a serious threat.Yet, the propagandist asserts that this thing “GUN VIOLENCE,” would be drastically reduced by reducing the number of guns in the hands of everyone. Yet, firearms in the hands of tens of millions of average law-abiding, rational, responsible Americans isn’t the cause of violence in America. The problem of criminal violence rests with the criminal, not the implement utilized.The merging of “VIOLENT CRIME” or “CRIMINAL VIOLENCE” into “GUN VIOLENCE” serves to draw attention away from the agent of violence and onto the object of violence. That is the purpose of using it, as a propagandist phrase.Consider: This is analogous to the conflating of LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. No one is against LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Our Nation’s laws specifically provide for it and posit it as a good thing. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is a different matter entirely. ILLEGAL ENTRY into our Country is a crime, and rightfully so. The integrity of our Nation’s borders and the security of our citizenry are sacrificed illegal entry is made into our Country. The Government pretends there is no such thing as “ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.” But such is the power of propaganda and psychological conditioning that the public fails to recognize the logical absurdity in this and the impossibility of it, and blithely holds in one’s mind a logical inconsistency. THERE IS LEGAL IMMIGRATION and there is ILLEGAL ENTRY. IMMIGRATION CAN'T BE BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL. To avoid a logical contradiction, one has to deny the idea of illegal entry into the Country. But that presents its own problems. Our statutes specifically discuss the crime of illegal entry into our Country. The laws are clear and comprehensive. They haven't been repealed. And if Congress were to repeal those laws, that would be tantamount to denying the existence of the United States as an independent, sovereign Nation with clearly delineated borders. But, the destruction of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation-State is the agenda of the Biden Administration and, in its actions, it operates as if the Country is indeed nothing more than a geographical landmass, not a sovereign Nation-State.The Biden Administration has sought to strike the words, “ILLEGAL ALIEN” from statute, thereby embracing the idea that illegal entry into the Country isn’t a crime, and certainly not a serious one. But isn't it? The Democrats prefer to embrace the euphemism and legally dubious expression, “UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT.” But such is the power of propaganda and psychological conditioning that the public fails to recognize the absurdity in this holding in one’s mind a logical contradiction.The Press, on behalf of the Government, assists one in promoting this cognitive misdirection sleight of hand and linguistic incongruity by substituting the verbiage “UNDOCUMENTED PERSON” for “ILLEGAL ALIEN.”Second, the use of the phrase “GUN VIOLENCE” in lieu of “CRIMINAL VIOLENCE” or “VIOLENT CRIME” or “VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTS” serves as a smokescreen. The intent here is to direct attention away from the exercise of the fundamental right of armed self-defense, which the Press and the Government don’t accept as either a NATURAL LAW RIGHT or a legitimate MORAL ACT anyway even though the right of armed self-defense is grounded on the self-evident truth of the survival of SELF. This is embedded in the codification of that natural law right in the Constitution.The insidiousness of the Government’s position is that violent crime—and evidence of the growth of violent crime in the United States—is not important, and, unsurprisingly, there is no real attempt to deal with it. Violent crime, especially in our major urban areas, under the control of Democrats and Soros-sanctioned “Prosecutors,” cavalierly ignore all species of violent crime. It stands to reason, then, that, if the right of self-defense, armed or not, isn’t recognized, then the Government's indulgence in criminal violence would result, and that, in fact, is what has happened and this is what the public sees, and what it suffers under the present Democrat Party-dominated Federal Government and Democrat Party-controlled States and Cities around the Country.Since the exercise of one’s natural law right to armed self-defense is the most obvious SOLUTION to crime in the streets and tyranny of Government, why isn’t this recognized? It isn't recognized because the  SOLUTION to VIOLENT CRIME AGAINST SELF BY PREDATORY MAN is also the SOLUTION TO TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT.The present Federal Government. It will not abide an armed citizenry because THE ARMED CITIZENRY need not and ought not to have to suffer TYRANNY.  VIOLENT CRIME, however, is a PROBLEM, but it is not a PROBLEM for a tyrannical Government. So it tolerates the presence of VIOLENT CRIME. Consider the way “Criminal Justice” is handled in the Democrat Party-controlled Cities and States. The SOLUTION for VIOLENT CRIME is easy: deal harshly with it.A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT CONCERNED OVER THE ARMED CRIMINAL WHO PREYS ON  INNOCENT AMERICANS. THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCERN IS DIRECTED TO THE ARMED CITIZEN WHO MIGHT DEFEND THEMSELVES NOT ONLY AGAINST THAT ARMED CRIMINAL BUT AGAINST THE TYRANT GOVERNMENT. THE FORMER MATTER IS IRRELEVANT TO THE TYRANT, BUT THE LATTER MATTER IS OF GRAVE CONCERN TO THE TYRANT.GOVERNMENT perceives the ARMED CITIZEN to be the problem. It does not perceive the common CRIMINAL and occasional lunatic as a problem for it. Indeed, THE VIOLENT CRIMINAL and THE RAVING LUNATIC are serving if unconsciously the goal of the TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT—the breakdown of law and order to effectuate the demise of a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.Thus a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT sees the PROBLEM TO BE THE ARMED CITIZEN, who presents a potential if not an imminent threat to the TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT. THE ARMED CITIZEN IS THEN THE SOLE SOURCE AND CAUSE OF THIS THING “GUN VIOLENCE.”Thus, the TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT sees that the SOLUTION to the problem THAT IS the ARMED CITIZEN IS THE CONFISCATION OF HIS FIREARMS.But the Government cannot say this. And the Propagandists would never directly assert it even as it is difficult for the Propagandists to avoid alluding to it. But, one need only look to the City of New York, under Mayor Eric Adams, and to the State as a whole, under present Governor Kathy Hochul, to see that their aim is not to curtail criminal violence, but to make damn sure that the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible, American citizen residing and/or working in the City or in upper State New York finds it difficult to impossible to exercise his or her right to armed self-defense.THE REAL TRAGEDY OF CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, CONFLATED WITH “GUN VIOLENCE,” SERVES AS THE PRETEXT FOR THE TRUE GOAL SOUGHT: DISARMING THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY.That is what these Democrat Party-controlled Governments want, and, in the implementation of their policy—their solution to “GUN VIOLENCE”—CONFISCATION OF THE CITIZEN'S FIREARMS is what many Americans see what the Government is doing, and what its real intention is.But, many Americans go along with THIS CONTRIVED  SOLUTION to a CONTRIVED PROBLEM, “GUN VIOLENCE,” oblivious to the REAL PROBLEM,  perceived by these Government leaders. And that is THE EXISTENCE OF THE ARMED CITIZENRY and the SOLUTION to the ARMED CITIZENRY is the DENIAL OF THE CITIZENS' ACCESS TO FIREARMS.Many Americans understand this. They aren’t fooled by the HOCUS POCUS of the Government and their propagandists. They resist; some vehemently.And for these latter “MALCONTENTS” who refuse to acquiesce to authority, the orchestrators of the CHARADE have an answer for dealing with them too.Those Americans who voice a complaint about the proffered solutions are deemed outcasts. These Americans are ridiculed and reviled by the Government and the Press as “GUN NUTS ” and as proponents of wild “conspiracy theory.” The Federal Government and a compliant, obedient Press have settled on the use of a couple of expressions to describe these perceived malcontents who refuse to go along with the Government agenda. They call them “Far-Right Republicans,” “Ultra-Maga,” and “Mega-Maga Republicans.” One cannot but wonder at the fertile minds of propagandists. But, reference to particular Americans by insulting language is one thing. It is quite another when Government begins to“ WEAPONIZE” its Departments, Offices, Agencies, and Bureaus against Americans that it perceives as DEFIANT, and potential ADVERSARIES to the GOVERNMENT'S USURPATION OF POWER AND AUTHORITY THAT BELONGS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Government is aware of its unlawful, unconstitutional conduct, and it knows that many Americans KNOW the Government KNOWS it is operating illegally against the RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES of the PEOPLE it is supposed to serve and protect in accordance with the dictates of the U.S. CONSTITUTION.The use of the phrase ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY’ is meant to castigate and demonize Americans. But, this phrase too, just like that of ‘GUN VIOLENCE’ is but one more contrivance. And, the phrase, ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY,’ didn’t just pop, of its own accord, into existence. It has been around for quite some time.The expression was “invented by the CIA in order to prevent disbelief in official Government stories.” See the article by Paul Craig Roberts. But it is an odd phrase, to be utilized in the propagandists' lexicon. For the word, ‘conspiracy,’ is a legal term of art. Blacks Law Dictionary defines the crime of conspiracy as:“A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.”There IS, then, the CRIME OF ‘CONSPIRACY.’ But there IS NO crime of ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY.’The latter phrase is utilized by propagandists to encourage Americans to along with the official Government narrative lest they be treated like fools. But who really are the fools here? Those who believe the Government's FAIRY TALES or those who challenge them, pointing to the holes in them?The propagandists know well that many Americans seek to avoid public stigma. Many Americans wish to take the easy way out and proclaim their faith in Government and in their agents, refusing to believe the Government would mean them harm, that Government doesn’t have an ulterior motive, and that, at worst, the Government and its agents only “make mistakes” sometimes. Many Americans play the game out of a sense of caution, acknowledging to themselves, if but tacitly that, "YES, WE AMERICANS DO NOW LIVE IN THE SURVEILLANCE, POLICE STATE," AND BETTER IT IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT FACT.Then there are the true believers, those who, like Lemmings jumping off a cliff, blindly accept the nonsense spouted. And, so, with either weak or firm conviction—and with a dollop of fear—with the incessant and noxious messaging daily pounded into them by the legacy Press, and Social Media, operating at the behest of their Government sponsors and benefactors, many Americans accede to the axiom that the Government can do no wrong, just as, in the past, the subjects of monarchs, acceded to the axiom that “the king can do no wrong” (“rex non potest peccare”), i.e., the king can never be capable of intentional wrongful conduct.With the November 8, 2022 Midterms now just hours away as this article goes to publication——“President Biden warned that a Republican-controlled Congress would seek to impeach him.‘I’m already being told that if they win back the House and Senate, they’re going to impeach me. I don’t know what in the hell they’re going to impeach me for. . . .’” ~ Joe Biden delivered a speech at Mira Costa College in San Diego on Thursday night, bemoaning a GOP-controlled Congress. Reported by the Wall Street Journal.  Thus speaks the Tyrant, oblivious to or uncaring of his Tyranny.___________________________________*This is a major reworking of the article posted yesterday, October 7, 2022___________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH TO PRESERVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT; THE GREATER EFFORT RESTS, AS IT ALWAYS HAS, WITH THE PEOPLE

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 TO DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

MULTISERIES

PART EIGHT (REWORKED)

IT HAS BEEN A LONG HARD BATTLE TO SECURE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND YET MORE BATTLES REMAIN TO BE FOUGHT

Bruen has been an arduous, time-consuming, expensive, uphill battle for New Yorkers who simply wish to exercise their natural law right of armed self-defense. It will continue to be so. Bruen hasn’t changed a damn thing—at least in New York—and matters will remain the same until or unless New Yorkers say they have had enough of the specious nonsense spouted from the New York Governor, Kathy Hochul and others like her. She is cut from the same cloth as her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. They claim they care about the life and well-being of New Yorkers, even as innocent residents fear for their safety and well-being, as they have good reason to do. But they simply don’t care, And New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, is no different. They are on the same page, each a carbon copy of the other, especially in matters involving their singular abhorrence of guns and antipathy toward the civilian citizen owning and possessing them. That fact is engrained in their brains. They won’t change. Those New Yorkers who continue to elect to office the same politicians who continue to harp on the evils of guns, and who continue to defy the plain meaning of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, are doing themselves, and all other residents in New York, a disservice. These politicians, Kathy Hochul and Eric Adams, aren't wise and New York isn't safe. And, unfortunately, New York isn't alone. Politicians and Courts in other jurisdictions will pay lip service to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen, just as they have paid lip service to the rulings in Heller and McDonald, for over a decade.New York politicians, and politicians in several other jurisdictions, with the same mindset, have handcuffed the police. Yet, at one and the same time, they continue to prevent members of the public from obtaining access to the best means available for protecting themselves, a handgun. Yet, all the while, they exclaim, disingenuously, a concern for “gun violence,” that plagues their cities.But “gun violence” is simply a species of general “criminal violence.” New York’s Hochul and Adams deliberately mislead the public into believing that “gun violence” is the only source of violence committed against innocent people, or, otherwise, that “gun violence” is the only kind of violence in the community that matters. They stubbornly refuse to accept the obvious.  Criminals will always find a way to obtain guns illegally or will use other means if guns are not readily available to them, and that guns in the hands of average, innocent, rational, and responsible Americans do a better job of preventing the commission of violent crimes than do fewer guns in the hands of those Americans. And to those Anti-Second Amendment zealots who contend that guns have no place in a civilized society, one need only point out that no society, today, is truly civilized. Predatory animal, and predatory man, and predatory government are ever with us. In a million years man may truly become “civilized.” And, at that point, the presence or absence of firearms will be irrelevant. But, until that time, the innocent man will require effective means to protect his life and well-being. And, to date, only a firearm provides that. Denying the omnipresent need for a firearm in the hands of the innocent man does not make that fact go away. It only welcomes violence against that innocent man by predator animal on four legs, predator animal on two legs, or, worst of all, predatory Government, a monster with multiple heads—the Hydra beast, a thing most tenacious, wildly destructive, and difficult to control, let alone kill.

ABSURD BELIEFS HAVE ODD STAYING POWER WHEN CONSTANTLY REPEATED

Anti-Second Amendment proponents continually go on about how guns are the source of violence and those that possess them are prone to violence, be whoever they are and wherever situated. That is patently ridiculous. Yet that message is stated insistently and emphatically by Anti-Second Amendment politicians. It is echoed loudly and incessantly by a compliant, sympathetic legacy Press. And it is further exploited by many in the medical community. The message is taken as self-evidently true, without need for proof, even though the claim is patently ridiculous.And New Yorkers know it is hopeless to ask for assistance from Governor Hochul or from the police, especially in a situation where the need is both dire and immediate. See, e.g., Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, "Can We, as Individuals, Rely on the Police to Protect Us" and reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News. And, police response to emergencies has only gotten worse in this Post-George Floyd era. Even where refunding of community police departments has displaced the defunding the Police the BLM hysteria, the Neo-Marxist "racism" hysteria remains a potent and debilitating force yet to be reckoned with. Police response times along with the general ineffectiveness of community policing, due in great part to demoralization in the police ranks, understandable and justified, remains. Thus the effectiveness of community policing is worse than in the Pre-George Floyd era. It is especially bad in large Democrat Party run municipalities, like NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, Minneapolis, LA, San Francisco, just to name a few. These City Governments are hopelessly tied to the Neo-Marxist Racism craze or are held hostage to Marxist cultists and/or  derive funding/guidance/control/advice from one or more of a plethora of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) that have direct or indirect connection to the George Soros "Open Society Initiative. See, e.g., a delineation of these organizations on the website "Jellyfish." The tentacles of this "Open Society" takeover of western civilization are in fact worldwide, as readily acknowledged.With all this in mind, it is important for one to keep fervently in mind that the matter of self-defense remains—especially today—a personal responsibility. Police Departments have no legal duty—contrary to what many erroneously believe—to come to the assistance of anyone anyway. And they never did. The impact of this fact has grown acute and is now transparent to any American who will stop to look. The Arbalest Quarrel has published much content about the doctrine of sovereign immunity apropos of the police.See, especially, as noted, supra, AQ article, titled, “Can We, as Individuals, Rely on the Police to Protect Us?”, published on November 21, 2019; AQ article, titled, “The Government Cannot Protect You! You Must Protect Yourself”, published on July 31, 2020; and AQ article, titled “NYC Mayor Eric Adams Has His Own Armed Protection; What About The Rest Of Us?, published on March 30, 2022.New Yorkers are simply asking—in fact, demanding, as they have every right to do—that the Government not deny to the people exercise of the natural law right of personal armed self-defense. But, in New York it is too much to ask of the Government that the people be allowed to arm themselves in their own defense against predators—as if they should be required to ask Government for such permission, when they should not; when Bruen, in fact, says they need not, as the right of armed self-defense is implicit in the Second Amendment guarantee, as a natural law, Divine Right.For, even with the Divine Creator’s own imprimatur on this—the plain words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”—codified in the Second Amendment of our Nation’s Bill of Rights, and even with the U.S. Supreme Court’s strictures, commanding the New York Government, to comply with the fundamental, unalienable natural law right of the people, the NY Government does not acquiesce. It will not relent. It won’t adhere to or even deign to make an iota of concession to the people of New York. This New York Government doubles down on invoking the Sullivan Act. And, with 112 years of existence and further refinement, the Sullivan Act has been cemented in the psyche of the New York Government and in the psyche of the public as well.And so, this emblem of New York Government defiance to God, to the Constitution, and to the people of New York—one Kathy Hochul—declares openly and pompously that the Government of New York, and not the U.S. Supreme Court, will continue to decide what is in the best interests of the people; that the Government not the High Court has the best interests of the people of New York at heart; and that allowing law-abiding, responsible, rational civilian citizens to carry a concealed weapon in New York endangers everyone. This is the height of arrogance and conceit. Thus, the Governor of New York gives carte blanche to psychopaths and lunatics that they may continue to prey on the innocent, with abandon. See recent AQ article on this as posted on our site, and as reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News. But, even in that—allowing law-abiding, responsible, rational civilian citizens to carry a concealed weapon in New York endangers everyone—the Hochul Government is wrong. The Daily Wire blows that myth out of the water. See also article in “Bearing Arms,” and in NSSF. No less than the progressive cable station, CNN, dares mention of a crime wave in Mayor Eric Adams’ New York City. The criminal is, always was, and ever remains the problem. It isn’t “the gun,” and never was “the gun.”  See also article in the NY Post. Bloomberg News tries to spin this massive increase in crime, explaining the crime rates were much worse in the Eighties and early Nineties. But who were the Mayors of NYC at the time? It was the Democrat, Ed Koch, from 1978 through 1989, and it was Democrat David Dinkins, from 1990 until 1993. Crime rates in NYC only began to drop, and to drop dramatically, under Republican Rudy Giuliani, the NYC Mayor from 1994 through December 2001. Giuliani instituted a tough on crime policy, referred to as “Broken Windows.” Crime rates in the Big Apple continued to plummet under the Democrat, Michael Bloomberg, who continued Giuliani’s “Broken Windows” policy. But, once that tough on crime policy was revoked by the Democrat, Bill de Blasio, crime rates began to spike once again and to spiral completely out of control. And, de Blasio, true to form like most politicians, blamed the massive spike in crime in NYC, not on himself and his soft on crime policies, but on the Courts. See NY Post article.The present NYC Mayor, Eric Adams is playing the same “Blame Game” as de Blasio—casting blame on the Courts for crime in the City that continues unchecked.  See CBS News Report here and here, CBS News report. New Yorkers—never a group to exhibit patience—are becoming impatient with Eric Adams. Remember, Eric Adams told the public he wouldn’t continue de Blasio’s lenient on crime policy measures. But, as reported by the Washington Examiner, Adams’ has done just that, notwithstanding the unveiling of his “Blueprint To End Gun Violence,” delivered with great fanfare to the City back in January 2022. But no one hears anything about that anymore. Does anyone really wonder why? Adams “Blueprint to End Gun Violence” was never anything other than a publicity stunt and a poor one at that. And its failure is alluded to in the very title of the Adams’ plan for the City.This thing ‘Gun Violence’ is, like the phrase, ‘assault weapon,’ nothing more than a stratagem, a neologism manufactured for a specific purpose. Leftist propagandists developed it, and the ever obedient and indulgent legacy Press, ran with it. The fabricators of the phrase, ‘Gun Violence,’ have used the phrase to deflect justifiable public criticism, for the massive waves of criminal violence afflicting our Nation, onto “the gun” and away from the Democrats and other Obstructors and Destructors of our free Republic. People like Hochul and Adams attribute the surge of violent crime on “guns” and thereby shift discussion onto an inanimate object and away from themselves. A firearm is a convenient scapegoat. It is incapable of proffering a defense. It cannot point to the fact that it, as an object, not a sentient subject, can neither cause violent crime, nor be the effect of violent crime. But Hochul and Adams attempt, nonetheless, to shunt aside justifiable criticism of them and their administrations. But it is their own incompetence and their own lack of will and foresight to deal with crime head-on, unlike their predecessors Giuliani and Bloomberg had done, that explains the rapidly rising crime rates. But even those Mayors of New York could have gone further to truly bring violent crime to a standstill. They could have taken action to overturn the Sullivan Act. But they would never go so far as that. Disarming the law-abiding New Yorker would never be part of a bold plan to tackle crime at its source: the psychopathic criminal, the violent criminally insane, and the opportunistic hoodlum. See article in “City and State New York.” How these Anti-Second Amendment zealots love to use statistics to deceive the public and to lull it into complacency! Contending with crime, substantively and seriously, won’t happen with the present Administration and Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature in Albany. The main problem with New York is that too many members of the public willingly accept their politicians' manipulation of statistical data, urging the public to deny what they readily observe in day-to-day life in New York. And too many of them have become so enamored with and mesmerized by the new religious dogma of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," along with its ludicrous claim of having a lock hold on morality, i.e., of what is right, and proper, and just, that their rational mind is trapped in a hopeless miasma of confusion, subject to its own nightmarish discordant logic.And so, the State Government is, at present, under the thumb of Governor Kathy Hochul and of a Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature that operates with abandon, against the needs and interests of the people of the State.The New York Governor, along with the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, “who vowed to crack down on crime if elected mayor,” but didn’t, are ever bound to their own dogma and to their own psychological and ideological biases. Add to that the fact that they are held hostage to a Radical Left Marxist internationalist base of voters that despises our Country, and to a shadowy network of Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist "ruling elite" enforcers that intend to destroy our Country, and you have a situation ripe for corruption of Government, and stagnation in society, and ultimate decay and dissolution of the Republic.So wrapped up are these politicians in their dogma and personal lust for power, that they fail to understand, or choose to ignore, that their cardinal duty is to provide for the general safety, security, and well-being of the public.  Saying they care are about the well-being of New York and its denizens, doesn't make it so. It is all just a vacuous exercise—the same verbiage delivered drone-like, hypnotically, unconvincingly. These politicians have done nothing beneficial for New York, and everything that disadvantages New York. Their multiple failures bring discredit and shame to all of them. Time for a change in outlook don't you think? The Governor, the Legislature, the City Mayor adamantly refuse to allow New Yorkers to provide for their own defense. And that is worse than shameful. The conscious refusal to even acknowledge the unalienable, immutable right of armed self-defense is reprehensible, indefensible, and unforgivable. And, with the Soros-funded Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, who operates more like a zealous Public Defender of the criminal element in the City and much less like a zealous Prosecutor of them, on behalf of the populace, as he is supposed to do, New York is on the road to societal disaster at a rapid pace.If change is to come, then, it will have to come from Republicans and Independents. And the best bet for New York is U.S. Congressman, Lee Zeldin, for Governor, in 2022. If Americans are to secure their unalienable right of armed self-defense, it is best they have Government, Federal and State, that work for them, not against them; that honor their natural law rights, rather than attempt to shred those rights. Might Lee Zeldin take steps to dismantle the apparatus of the Sullivan Act? It would be interesting to see. But will the New York voter give him that chance? Better legislation with the right people in Office than spending exorbitant sums of money, time, and aggravation on endless litigation!How much more threat of violence must progressive/liberal-minded New Yorkers suffer before they come to their senses. How many more innocent lives lost for lack of will to try someone new; to try something new?One would think the public would finally come to its senses after the horror of de Blasio as Mayor of NYC and Cuomo as Governor of the State. Too many New Yorkers have not. How much more danger must New Yorkers contend with before they throw people like Hochul and Adams under the bus, instead of positing themselves there, instead? Too many New Yorkers seem willing to accept deception from politicians, even when that deception and the horrific result of that deception is plainly visible and risible.City residents are stuck with Adams for a long while, three more years. But Governor Hochul, who was never elected Mayor, but became Mayor after Cuomo was hounded out of Office by the Democrat Party machinery that had once supported him, will now face her first Gubernatorial race in November 2022.New Yorkers will have a chance as well, to remake the New York State Assembly and Senate. Hopefully, Republicans and Independents and enough intelligent Democrats will turn the tide. They can in November. They can have a safe and secure State if they have the will and do not allow themselves to be hoodwinked by propaganda, flooding the airwaves. It is all up to the people of New York. Give Lee Zeldin and Alison Esposito a chance to turn things around for New York. New York can become a safe, secure, and thriving State once again._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NYPD OFFICER SHOOTINGS DRAW ATTENTION TO MAYOR ERIC ADAMS’ PLANS TO MAKE NYC SAFE: WHAT WILL HE DO?

Five NYPD officers have been shot in the line of duty, only three weeks into the New Year in Eric Adams’ reign as New York City Mayor.Most recently, on January 21, 2022, a psychopath and recidivist criminal with multiple violent felony arrests in New York and other States, Lashawn McNeil, 47, on probation, shot two police officers in New York City. See New York Post article.Officer Jason Rivera, 22, died in the line of duty, and his partner, Officer Wilbert Mora, 27, is clinging to life. The officers had answered a call involving a domestic situation in Harlem.The wife of the slain officer posted a moving tribute to her husband. The killer also shot and wounded a third officer, who returned fire, hitting McNeil in the head and arm. The killer is in critical condition as of Saturday morning. See report in The New York Times.A helluva guy, isn’t he? Let’s wish him well. Maybe the City should erect a statue to him, just like the statue it erected to George Floyd, in Brooklyn—at the same time the City removed the statue of Teddy Roosevelt.George Floyd was a drug addict and small-time crook—another character worth emulating.Just think: If Floyd had not attempted to pass a counterfeit bill off on a grocery store clerk, he would still be alive. But, then, the Neo-Marxist Democrat Party would’ve had to bide its time, awaiting some other pretext to speed the destabilization of society. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes that point clear, for which her own cohorts slammed her—apparently for being too straightforward and literal. 

AMERICA'S NEO-MARXISTS RETAIN STRANGLEHOLD ON NEW YORK CITY

Neo-Marxists retain a nice, firm stranglehold on the City, even after one of their own—Bill de Blasio—has packed up his bags and departed from Gracie Mansion.The new Mayor, Eric Adams, had once served as an NYPD officer, retiring as a Captain.Unlike de Blasio, Eric Adams isn’t a rabid Communist but he is still subject to manipulation by those elements that helped get him elected and who seek the destruction of the City and the Country.This is clear enough from Adams’ own words, following the recent shooting of those two young police officers.And what did NYPD Captain Adams—now NYC Mayor—say to the City and the Country after the most recent shootings? Just this——“ ‘The police department is doing their job taking thousands of guns off the streets, yet each time you take a gun off, there’s a constant flow of new guns coming here. . . .‘And if we don’t coordinate to go after those gun dealers that are supplying large cities in America such as New York, we are losing the battle, and the federal government must step in and play a role in doing so.‘We need Washington to join us and act now to stop the flow of guns in New York City and cities like New York.’” See NY Post article.Later, Adams told Dana Bash, host on ABC’s Good Morning America:“‘We are able to stop terrorism in this city when state, federal and local law enforcement agencies shared information. . . .‘This is a sea of crime that has been fed by many rivers. . . . We have to dam those rivers.’” See report in NY Daily News.Honestly, is this what the City and the Country want or need to hear from the Mayor? Does the City and Country need to hear seemingly glowing, but vague and bland, or tiresome and nonsensical rhetoric, of Anti-Second Amendment zealots who wish to distract and deflect attention away from themselves and from a failed Criminal Justice System they, themselves, coldly, callously, calculatedly thrust on America?Obviously, the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters had scripted Eric Adams’ words for him. And Adams dutifully regurgitated them. The words were contrived; all pretense. His intent was to keep New Yorkers in a perpetual state of passivity, apathy, and mental darkness.If Adams had truly sought to come across as a transformative figure, rather than as a carbon copy of the previous inept, yet smug de Blasio, he might have delivered something to stir the passions; to shake the public from its stupor and naivety. Adams might have said something like the following——

*********

“Criminals take notice: if you kill a ‘Cop,’ you’re going down! I will not tolerate murders and assaults or attempted murders and assaults on Cops on my watch. I am, this day, declaring war on Cop Killers and would-be Cop-killers.For twenty years I served proudly as a New York City Police Officer. My first obligation as Mayor is to the well-being of the people of the City, just as it was when I served as a New York City Police Officer and Captain. An attack on a New York City Police Officers is also an attack on every other good citizen of our community, and I will not tolerate it. Two years ago, after an assassination attempt on a fellow police officer, the Sergeants Benevolent Association wrote to my predecessor:“‘Mayor De Blasio, the members of the NYPD are declaring war on you. . . ! We do not respect you, DO NOT visit us in hospitals. You sold the NYPD to the vile creatures, the 1% who hate cops but vote for you. . . . NYPD cops have been assassinated because of you. . . . This isn’t over, Game on.’” [taken from an article appearing on the website, Right Edition] I am here to tell the Sergeants Benevolent Association that I have burned your words into memory. I am not de Blasio, nor do I choose to be. His days are over. In the next few weeks, I will be implementing my plan for a safe, secure, and thriving New York. That plan will include the following:

• The creation of police intelligence units and quick reaction forces to target organized crime, criminal gangs, and sociopaths that commit violent crimes against police officers and against innocent civilians;

• Encouraging City’s prosecutors to bring criminal charges against all violent offenders and to seek incarceration and, for repeat offenders, lengthy prison sentences;

• Encouraging all Branches of the City Government to swiftly draw up concrete, comprehensive, and robust plans to secure the City from the violence that has plagued it for so many years under the previous Administration;

• The Creation of task forces, mobilizing business and community leaders to assist my Office in developing zero-tolerance policies toward crime, vagrancy, and random violent acts committed by criminals, sociopaths, and psychotics against innocent citizens;

• The Complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division concerning the issuance of firearms and handguns licenses for retired police officers, licensed security guard companies, and civilians.

As a former police officer, I am able to carry a gun. But that doesn’t make me special. I believe all responsible, law-abiding citizens of New York City, no less than I, should be able to carry a handgun for self-defense. That is their fundamental right. That is why I am undertaking a complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division.During my campaign for Mayor, I was asked whether, as a former police officer, I would carry a firearm if I became Mayor. I answered, ‘Yes I will, number one. . . . ‘And number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city is safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’  [from the New York Post]Now that I have been elected Mayor, I stand by those words. Unlike my predecessor, I intend to make our City safe. For far too long this City has had its priorities completely backward. The previous City Administration made its commitments to the wrong people, to the wrong groups, and to the wrong elements of society. This will all change on my watch. I will provide the impetus for a revitalized New York City—A City where people will want to live and feel safe and secure, where people wish to visit rather than avoid, and where businesses can grow and prosper.”

*********

Alas, in his public remarks Mayor Adams didn't say anything to suggest a sea-change from the prior disastrous Administration.During his conversation on ABCs Good Morning America, Mayor Adams did mention he will be rolling out a plan this week to take on the “gun violence.”We can’t know what that plan entails. We would hope whatever it is, it will include our aforesaid recommendations. But we have our doubts.Our concern is that, by Eric Adams’ use of the Neo-Marxists’ buzz-phrase, ‘gun violence,’ and by tying that phrase in with ‘[domestic] terrorism,’ and by constantly exclaiming and reiterating that “the federal government needs to step in and play a role,” Eric Adams is playing directly to the Harris-Biden Administration’s goal of Federal Government intrusion on State’s rights in violation of the Tenth Amendment and on the American peoples’ rights under both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.The ball is now in your court, Mr. Mayor. We pray to God, you do the right thing for the people of New York City.As the Mayor of a major, prominent American City, what you do will set an example for good or ill not only for New York City but for the Country as a whole. You can kowtow to a rogue Federal Government or you can defend the Nation's Bill of Rights. But don't think for one moment you can play both ends against the middle. The public won't fall for it; not anymore._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

FREEDOM IS WON AND CAN BE MAINTAINED ONLY BY FORCE OF ARMS

CATACLYSMIC CONFRONTATION ON THE HORIZON: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT VERSUS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

[SEGMENTS OF THIS ESSAY WERE SUBSTANTIALLY UPDATED ON 2/11/2022]

PART ONE

Forget the blither and blather of the Pelosi January 6 Commission, the claptrap and gibberish incessantly flying out of the maw of the “Grand Idiot in Chief” Joe Biden, and the facile oiliness of Garland, Fauci, and all the rest of the ungodly swine let loose to prey on the good people of our Nation.The United States as a free Constitutional Republic cannot be undone, will never be undone, as long as the citizenry remains armed—and armed to the hilt. And that is something the American Neo-Marxist internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists cannot and will not abide if their one-world transnational governmental scheme is ever to come to fruition.These Destructive elements know they cannot corral and subjugate the American people if they cannot disarm them. That end goal is essential if these Destructive forces are to realize their vision of a one-world government. They know this task has become less and less feasible and more and more daunting with each passing day.Americans have grown wise to the antics of a rogue Administration and a rogue Congress and they want an end to the charade these treacherous malevolent and malignant creatures have played upon the American people for the last year. The alacrity of ineptitude and corruption, duplicity and insincerity, audaciousness and presumptuousness of the rogue Harris-Biden Administration and the equally rogue and decadent combined cabal of Pelosi/Schumer/McConnel controlled Congress are too much in evidence for even the most lackadaisical and jaded among Americans to fail to take notice and, hence, to be alarmed.The inanity of the past year has taken its inevitable toll on both the patience and sanity of the American people and on the political, social, and economic stability of the Nation. It is impossible for people and the Nation to weather the perturbations running through them both. Even Leftist commentators know this and they have intimated as much—frantic about the outcome of the coming Midterm Elections—when they stand to lose all that the Neo-Marxist agenda has hitherto accomplished. And Rogue Republicans like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have long been a part of the venal, rancid Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist cavalcade. Just listen to the “Republican” Senator Mitt Romney complain that the demented, enervated, dissembling occupier of the Oval Office, Joe Biden, didn't reach out to him for Republican Party assistance to federalize the electoral system, ensuring retention of Marxist-Democrat Party control of Congress in the 2022 Midterm elections. The Washington Times laid this out just the other day, in an article titled, “Romney: Biden botched election reform by not talking to centrist Republicans.”“Mitt Romney said Sunday the White House never reached out to him on voting rights even though the Utah Republican is one of the few GOP senators who might be open to a bipartisan overhaul of election laws.Mr. Romney‘s criticism of the president’s leadership comes as Democrats forge ahead with a likely ill-fated plan to blow up Senate filibuster rules and ram through a partisan plan.The former Republican presidential nominee said he is working with a dozen Democrats and Republicans on ways to strengthen the Electoral Count Act after the chaos that culminated with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, so it was disappointing to see the White House try and muscle through alternative plans that GOP lawmakers view as a federal takeover of elections.‘Sadly, this election reform bill that the president has been pushing, I never got a call on that from the White House. There was no negotiation bringing Republicans and Democrats together to try and come up with something that would meet bipartisan interest,’ Mr. Romney told NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’‘They want a real dramatic change,’ Mr. Romney said of Democratic leaders. ‘They feel that instead of elections being run at the state level, they should really be managed and run at the federal level. And recognize the founders didn’t have that vision in mind. They didn’t want an autocrat to be able to pull the lever in one place and change all the election laws. Instead, they spread that out over 50 states.’Democrats say their voting bills are needed to overrule a slew of election integrity measures that have been enacted in GOP-led states since 2020.”The expression ‘Centrist Republican’ that Romney applies to himself and to others like him is a misnomer. There are none today. There can’t be, not in any meaningful sense of the word. There are, first, those Americans who believe fervently in preserving the Nation in the form the Founders created and bequeathed to us—a free Constitutional Republic. These Americans, the true Patriots, have taken an active stand to protect the Nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. They have made their voices heard vociferously, fiercely, even in the face of Government and the large omnipresent social media and technology companies that have pressed feverishly ahead to quell those dissenting voices. America’s Patriots are fully prepared, if or when the need arises, to take up arms against those forces that intend to destroy the Republic and who to subjugate the citizenry. Then there are, second, those Americans who have capitulated to the destruction of the Republic—either through quiet acquiescence, resignation, or outright obeisance to the forces that dare to crush the Nation and its people into submission. In that second group, there are found those who have actively joined the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist effort to undermine the Constitution and to eradicate a free Republic. These include the true believers of the new world order agenda, and Collectivist ideology, and Critical Race Theory Dogma. They are cultists, acolytes, in every sense of the word—thoroughly onboard with the gameplan that envisions dissolution of a free, independent, sovereign State and repression of the American citizenry. They are avid participants in the effort to see the Nation torn asunder. In their ranks, one also finds people like Romney, Cheney, Kinzinger, and corporatists—to be perceived less as cultists, and more crass opportunists, easily bribed, more interested in turning a profit than in preventing tyranny.Thus, in the midst of—at the moment—a seemingly quiet (Below the Threshold) American Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution aimed at overriding and reversing the American Revolution of 1776, there are to be found, among active participants in the struggle over the soul of the Country, American's Patriots, who wish to preserve the Nation in the form the founders conceived for it—a free Constitutional Republic—and Neo-Marxists/Neoliberal Globalists, who are not only conspiring to dissolve the Republic but to dismantle the very concept of an independent, sovereign Nation-State and sovereign American people, merging the Nation's remains into a neo-feudalistic, trans-Global empire.But to succeed in their Counterrevolution without bloodshed—as their agenda is exceedingly unpopular even among most of those Americans who think of themselves as liberal-minded Democrats—they are forced to work ostensibly within the constraints of the Constitution. And, to manage that, these Neo-Marxists/Neoliberal Globalists must take unlawful control of the electoral system as they did during the 2020 General Election. They must overhaul the electoral system. And that first requires overhauling the Senate filibuster Rule. But they do not have the votes to accomplish that. Democrat Party Senators Manchin and Sinema won't give them that. Both puppet-masters and their puppets are becoming increasingly worried, frantic that, even after having prevented Donald Trump from serving a second term in Office, their plans for the eradication of a free Constitutional Republic may still come to naught.The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalists and their many toadies are, unsurprisingly, desperate to control the 2022 November midterm elections just as they had manipulated the 2020 General election. They need to enshrine their electoral fraud machinations into law if they are to maintain control over Congress. And they are not able to accomplish that. And that failure will disrupt their plans as in 2016, most certainly derailing their agenda a second time. So, once again they are resorting to the seditious legacy Press as their Sounding Board. And this Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist captured Press is, true to form, falling back on the usual dreary, boring rhetoric of racism to chastise and cajole anyone who fails to support the passage of their ridiculous voting measures. See two Fox news articles just posted, January 18, 2022. One Fox news article is titled “Liberal media use Martin Luther King Jr. day to push election Legislation, claim ‘voting rights under assault,’” and the other Fox news article is titled, “Schumer tells Democrats to reluctant to nuke filibuster: ‘We are all going to go on the record.’”  These Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are intent on maintaining a stranglehold on the Nation, insistent on the usurpation of the sovereignty of the citizenry to main indefinite and absolute control over the Federal Government, and over the Nation's institutions, and over the Nation's people.And this unlawful usurpation of the citizenry’s sovereignty by a rogue, treasonous, tyrannical Federal Government and a duplicitous Congress is too painfully evident to be reasonably denied. To enshrine a successful Counterrevolution in perpetuity, these plotters need to have absolute control over the electoral system. And their blueprint for that was laid out in the takeover of the 2020 General Election, which saw a quiet coup of Government. And these conspirators are hell-bent on keeping the lid on that, censoring, ridiculing, and strong-arming any American who insists on questioning the legitimacy of the election that took place—that resulted in the ousting of Donald Trump, and the seating of the corrupt, senile dimwit and subservient toady of the Neo-Marxists/Neoliberal Globalists, Joe Biden, into the U.S. Presidential suite.The American people need to remember and constantly remind themselves that, despite the coup d’état of the Federal Government, through the unlawful scheming and fraud of the 2020 General Election, the American people still wield, by right, ultimate and sole sovereignty over Government. But it is not succored for them, as they can see. They must assert it.And there must eventually be an accounting, and there will be an accounting, after the 2022 Midterm elections. And the American people are holding fast to, and must continue to hold fast to their firearms. Many other Americans, who, in their dim memory, recall the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, are purchasing firearms and ammunition for the first time, recognizing a free Constitutional Republic is rapidly falling from their grasp. And they are prepared to assert their lawful power over the Government.This absolutely terrifies the ruthless forces—operating silently in the shadows—both here and abroad. For far too long they have exerted inordinate influence and power over their many toadies——

• In the Federal Government
• In Many State, and Local Governments;
• In the Public and Private Health Fields;
• In the Press, in Social Media, and “Big Tech;”
• In Broadcast and Cable News and Commentary;
• In Academia and Public Education;
• In Business, High finance, and the Central (Federal Reserve) Bank;
• In Sports and other Entertainment.

And with the exceptionally good reason these ruthless, powerful forces are terrified of America’s many armed citizens. But these destructive forces can’t back down now. They can't ease up on their grand Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist takeover gameplan. They have come much too far for that.Yes, they have been able to prevent the Populist Donald Trump from securing a second term in office, albeit through massive election fraud, chicanery, and illegal electoral engineering. And they have unlawfully silenced dissent. And they have unlawfully denied to tens of thousands of American citizens, operation of the citizens’ sacred Constitutional Rights through blatant and glaring, disregard of and outright violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They have pushed the American people against a wall.And so, the forces that dare to crush our Nation and its people into submission must see their game through to the end: it is all, or nothing at all—both for them and for us.How do we know this? The absurdist, farcical play the Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists puppet-masters have staged to date demonstrates how frantic they are to control the actions and thoughts of the American people.These destructive agencies must proceed forthwith with their agenda, that they may undertake the grand finale: their dangerous endgame. They must and will, at some point, attempt to confiscate the firearms of the American people en masse.Just consider the outright, outrageous unconstitutional actions and schemes that Americans have suffered to date through the deceit and machinations and illegal maneuvering of the treachery of many in the Federal Government and through the treachery of many actors outside the Government as well—taunting, challenging, daring the American people to resist. Consider these outrageous assaults on our Constitution and on the Sovereignty of the American people:

• Creation of Nancy Pelosi’s “Star Chamber” January 6 Commission

• Establishment of the DOJ Department’s newly formed Domestic Terrorism Unit, to target and hunt down American citizens

• Insidious Attacks on America’s Moms and Dads, and on Trump Supporters

• Continued Mindless, Senseless Denigration of and Attacks on Donald Trump

• Incoherent, Duplicitous Disinformation/Misinformation/Pseudo-Information Campaigns Orchestrated by the Federal Government, the Legacy Press, and Major Social Media Companies, all directed against the population at large

• Psychological Conditioning Programs Designed to Produce and Provoke Mass Confusion, Anxiety, and Hysteria in the Nation’s Citizenry and in the Nation’s youth and young adults

• The Perpetration and Perpetuation of an outlandish fictitious pseudo-religious dogma grounded absurdly on the Glorification of Victimhood and on the Idea of the Moral Righteousness of Social and Sexual Deviancy and of a host of other Psychological Pathologies

• De facto Abrogation of Natural, Basic Rights and Liberties of the Citizenry

• The Contemptuous Dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court Orders and Decisions; and Disdainful Disregard of Congressional Statutes

• Governmental Policy Decisions and Initiatives Designed and Calibrated to Destabilize Society, Weaken the Economy, and Endanger National Security

• Odd tolerance toward, even outright enabling of, harmful, illegal Actions of the worst, most detestable elements of Society and, concomitantly, Clampdowns on the Freedoms and Autonomy of Average, Responsible, Rational Americans

• The Presumptuous, Outrageous Opening of the Nation’s Territorial Borders to Millions of Itinerant illegal aliens, many of whom have been deported from the Country several times before but who are given Sanctuary in the U.S. by the Administration in clear violation of the Nation’s Immigration Laws

• Creation of new voting blocs from the millions of illegal aliens, convicted felons, lunatics, malleable adolescents, malcontents, and slothful individuals

• Seditious Pronouncements and Narratives Passed off as “News” by a Press that is in league with the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Agenda to Eradicate a free Constitutional Republic

• Neo-Marxist Legislators blatantly and egregiously telling Social Media and Big Tech Kingpins to engage in further Censoring of Speech instead of urging restraint and the refraining of censorship on pain of Congressional action

• Harris-Biden Administration nominations of the most corrupt, ill-suited, inept, Anti-American, and, in some instances, strange and bizarre cast of characters ever to hold public office

• House Passage of the  Voting Rights Package, combining the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act—a Bald-faced, Shameless Attempt by Congressional Marxists to unlawfully bypass Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution—thereby federalizing the election process that belongs solely to the States and ensuring that Neo-Marxists retain control of Congress in November 2022 after the Midterm elections

• Unmitigated, incessant Lying and Deceit directed toward the American People

• Painfully and oddly taciturn Republican Members of the Senate and House, seemingly oblivious to the blatant Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist attempt to destroy the Republic: Have they been bribed to remain quiet, or are most of them just frightened docile little lambs themselves, afraid to lock horns with the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist toadies and puppet-masters?

How can the Federal Government and various State Governments, along with the Press, and Social Media Companies, get away with continuous wholesale evisceration and immolation of our Nation and its people? The short answer is: They can’t; at least not legally anyway, but for the fact that Americans allow this to happen, at least tacitly.But how long will Americans put up with this dangerous nonsense?_____________________________________

AMERICAN NEO-MARXISM TAKES DIRECT AIM AT WHAT IT CALLS AMERICA’S “GUN CULTURE”

PART TWO

The fundamental, unalienable, absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is deeply rooted in our culture. There is no doubt about that. No one can reasonably deny this. In fact, the Neo-Marxist internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists both readily acknowledge the import of the right codified in the Second Amendment even as they abhor and disdainfully object to it.But, the use of the specific phrase ‘Gun Culture,’ is a political fiction, a wholly made-up terminology, no less so than is the expression ‘Assault Weapon.’ Both are manufactured phrases that Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist propagandists concocted to use and exploit against the American people in order to hobble, demoralize, and disrupt American society and America’s noble institutions.Their goal is not abstruse. They seek no less than the eradication of a free Constitutional Republic. And, through both their words and actions, the accomplishment of that goal has become increasingly plain. They intend to replace the Republic with an altogether alien and artificial political, social, economic, cultural, juridical construct—a nightmarish massive Collectivist scheme. They fancy an America as a totalitarian enclave devoid of geographical borders, devoid of a common language, devoid of National identity, and harboring an assemblage of ragtag, itinerants, completely dependent on the grace of Government to fulfill their minimum basic needs. If there is a throwback to an early age, to be seen in all of this, it is in their belief system and not that of American Patriots. America’s Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists imagine a world before the rise of modern nation-states, a neo-Feudalism, where a few “Lords” live in luxury and everyone else devolves to a state of penury and repression. And why would the American citizenry acquiesce to this?The forces that crush nation-states into submission view this Nation’s uniqueness not as a thing to be applauded and cherished but as a thing to be denigrated, ridiculed, denied, and ultimately destroyed. And they want to convince the American people—their incessant propaganda, attempts to convince, the American people—that our free Republic is not worth salvaging.And as the economy continues to suffer—all of it by design—and as Government doggedly continues to impose rapacious authoritarian policies on the people, and as the Government insidiously drives more and more people to destitution, many Americans are beginning to lose faith in both themselves and in the Republic; many are looking to Government for succor and protection. And all of this is as intended by the forces that crush entire nations into submission.And the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists blame the breakdown of law and order they themselves have fostered and nurtured not on the devious Government policy goals and initiatives—upon which breakdown of societal order is based—but on America’s “Gun Culture.”These malevolent, maleficent, malignant forces disingenuously argue the fault is not of their own making—that none of the problems plaguing America of late is of their own making—but that it is the result of America’s indefatigable “love of Guns,” of the omnipresence of a “Gun Culture” that permeates all of American society and that has existed since the dawn of the Republic. And they loudly bray that it is this “Gun Culture” that is the singular cause of the mayhem plaguing many of the Country’s major Cities; that it is this “Gun Culture” that manifests in cities around the Country as out-of-control “Gun Violence,” or so they say. But is this true? No!

THERE IS NO “GUN CULTURE” IN AMERICA, AND THERE NEVER WAS

Let us be clear: There IS NO “GUN CULTURE” in America. There IS, though, a unique “AMERICAN CULTURE.” And the two of them are not the same thing.This requires explication as much falsehood is generated and spouted over it and many gun owners may not be aware of it. The propaganda surrounding this notion and all the other notions thrust on the American people is the product of a long insidious campaign planned and executed by the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Government. And they operate in tandem with the major technology companies and with the legacy Press. Their intention is to injure and soften the American psyche. And they have become very adept at it.Through an obvious long-standing—albeit never openly admitted incestuous relationship—the bloated Federal Government, the large-scale Legacy Press, and the massive Social Media/Technology companies have, for years, combined their forces in a campaign to confuse, distract, and discourage the American public in a calculated attempt to prevent the public from focusing on the salient problem facing the Country: the very real possibility of the loss of it. For that is the plan. It was always their plan. It is the finale sought by the ruthless forces that seek to crush a free Constitutional Republic, and with that, to crush the spirit of the American people.The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists would never admit this and they still don’t. But they cannot reasonably deny it; the Nation is falling apart at the seams. Obviously, they don't wish to take credit for that, even as they are the ones that planned for it. But, they can't very well blame Trump or the American people for the multiplicity of serious ills plaguing society. So, they don't mention any of it. Rather they focus on quietly instituting more of the same, and focusing attention on the Midterm Elections. For, the longer they can retain Governmental power, the more fully entrenched they become, and the more time they have to accomplish their goal of the complete dismantling of the Country.And the Country is weakening and dying a slow death on all major indices: socially, culturally, politically, geopolitically, and juridically.The pity of it is that it need not have been so. It has less to do with the fact of it and more that Americans have only themselves to blame for it. All too many of them continually vote into high Office the vilest, vicious, inept, contemptible creatures ever to have been spawned.And why is that? There is an answer. The answer is found in the Neo-Marxists' and Neoliberal Globalists' merciless attack on America’s Spirit and Will._____________________________________

THE NEO-MARXIST/NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST ATTACK ON AMERICANS’ VITAL SPIRIT FOCUSES ON FALSE NOTIONS OF “GUN CULTURE” AND “GUN VIOLENCE”

PART THREE

The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist propagandists’ success to date propagating falsehoods about a pervasive American “GUN CULTURE” and concomitantly an uncontrolled wave of “GUN VIOLENCE,” plaguing the Country, leading to a sense of profound hopelessness in the psyche of Americans, is no accident. It is all part and parcel of an intricate, well-designed, well-coordinated, well-executed and lengthy campaign to weaken the Nation’s heretofore historically strong spirit, will, intellect, and emotional toughness. The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists know that it is impossible to induce Americans to accept a completely alien and inherently outrageous vision of the world—one requiring the immolation of the American psyche and the dissolution of a sovereign, independent Nation-State and sovereign American people—unless they first severely weaken the American psyche. Apart from a few Americans who have a peculiar predilection toward acceptance of the tenets, precepts, and principles of  Collectivism, which eschews the sanctity and inviolability of the Human Soul, the vast majority of Americans would have long ago forsworn Neo-Marxism had not the seditious legacy Press and assorted propaganda arms of social media and internet effectively controlled the dissemination of news and information. But, broad swathes of the population don't know. The Press and private and public media outlets assiduously mask the aims and actions of these vicious, virulent, vile Neo-Marxist and Neo-liberal Globalist forces with massive, well-orchestrated campaigns of disinformation, misinformation, fluff, and pablum, while blanketing the Nation with a complete blackout of authentic, elucidative information. Hence, the American public must dig hard and deep to obtain the truth, upon which the public may draw informative inferences concerning the direction that the present Government is taking the Country.That so many Americans have no inkling of the deception played upon them by those servants of Government, it is understandable that so many Americans would have accepted the false projection playing out in front of them, and would become ever more the passive, apathetic observer of the nonsense so projected out to them. Even so, it is wondrous strange that so many members of the public appear increasingly amenable to the most outrageous, outlandish, ludicrous ideas and thought-forms imposed on their psyche—ridiculous even by the standards of Neo-Marxism itself.This says much of the propagandists’ success in inflicting mass psychosis on the target population. Many Americans—most, unfortunately—have dealt with the sheer idiocy of the word salads and viral memes floating through the newspapers and internet and airwaves by blotting much of it out. Many have seemingly mastered, if half-consciously, a form of self-hypnosis, inducing a state of mental and emotional stupor; a kind of waking somnolence. But whether internalizing the nonsense spouted by propagandists, accepting it as gospel, or filtering it out—by spacing out—either way is fine for the Spoilers of our Nation; for, either way, the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters accomplish their aims. Either way, an inattentive audience or one rapt by the garbage foisted on them, that American audience becomes a compliant, docile, mute flock of sheep.Americans either become acolytes of the new nonsense dogma, thereby looking forward to the realization of the nightmare Dystopia, or become resigned to it, having lost all will and vigor to resist the actualization of it.The truth is inescapable but the implacable horror of the future prospects for our Nation is so terrifying that most Americans won’t acknowledge it to themselves or breathe a word of it to others, even as some dim portion of their intellect compels them to accept the hard, cold, disturbing fact of it. Thus, Americans engage in psychopathological self-denial. And these are some of the signs of that malaise of Spirit, directed inward upon themselves:

• Changes in eating habits
• Changes in mood
• Excessive worry, anxiety, or fear
• Feelings of distress
• Inability to concentrate
• Irritability or anger
• Low energy or feelings of fatigue
• Sleep disruptions
• Thoughts of self-harm or suicide
• Trouble coping with daily life
• Withdrawal from activities and friends

See article in very well mind. To that, we might add the pathological suspicion of friends, family, and business associates, and worst of all, fear and suspicion over one’s own motives—doubt concerning one’s own abilities and the inviolability of one's sacred Self.As masters of psychological conditioning and brainwashing, the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist psychologists and psychiatrists have manipulated the public so thoroughly that many members of the public fail to think clearly and carefully through the implausibility of the nonsense continuously blasted out in the newspapers, on the cellphones, and over the airwaves at them. They simply fail to see what is in plain sight: the horrific monster looming in front, behind, and all around them.The propagandists blare out and emphasize, ad nauseum, the false idea that our Nation is immoral; ergo, the citizenry’s psyche is irremediably damaged, and that the only remedy for an immoral Nation and a damaged psyche is radical surgery: destroy the Nation, and lobotomize the psyche. But, the irony is that the citizenry's psyche was not/is not damaged but for the actions of the propagandists who would make it so.The cause of the Nation’s woes, Americans are told is this thing that the forces that crush refer to as a “GUN CULTURE” that permeates through the length, and depth, and breadth of the County, and that manifests in a plague of GUN VIOLENCE that has taken over the Country—and so the lackeys of the seditious legacy Press tells us.But this is all a fabrication, yet one carefully cultivated and nurtured. The Nation does not have a GUN CULTURE and never did.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF ‘CULTURE’

The word, ‘Culture,’ is not an easy word to grasp.The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘Culture,’ as, ‘the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time.’ Expanding on that, the website, Thought Company, explains the word this way:

“Culture is a term that refers to a large and diverse set of mostly intangible aspects of social life. According to sociologists, culture consists of the values, beliefs, systems of language, communication, and practices that people share in common and that can be used to define them as a collective. Culture also includes the material objects that are common to that group or society. Culture is distinct from social structure and economic aspects of society, but it is connected to them—both continuously informing them and being informed by them.

Culture is one of the most important concepts within sociology because sociologists recognize that it plays a crucial role in our social lives. It is important for shaping social relationships, maintaining and challenging social order, determining how we make sense of the world and our place in it, and in shaping our everyday actions and experiences in society. It is composed of both non-material and material things.”

If that definition isn't confusing, consider, this description of the word from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“The meaning of the term ‘culture’ has been highly contested, especially within anthropology. . . . The first highly influential definition came from Edward Tylor (1871, 1), who opens his seminal anthropology text with the stipulation that culture is, ‘that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.’ Subsequent authors have worried that Tylor's definition packs in too much, lumping together psychological items (e.g., belief) with external items (e.g., art). From a philosophical perspective, this would be especially problematic for those who hope that culture could be characterized as a natural kind, and thus as a proper subject for scientific inquiry. Other definitions often try to choose between the external and internal options in Tylor's definition.

On the external side, anthropologists have focused on both artifacts and behaviors. Herskovits (1948, 17) tells us that, ‘Culture is the man-made part of the environment,” and Meade (1953, 22) says culture “is the total shared, learned behavior of a society or a subgroup.’ These dimensions are combined in Malinowski's (1931, 623) formulation: ‘Culture is a well organized unity divided into two fundamental aspects—a body of artifacts and a system of customs.’ ”

‘Culture,’ is often tied to ‘Heritage.’ But that raises a host of questions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy goes on to say:

“Do members of cultural groups have special claims to own or control the products of the cultures to which they belong? Is there something morally wrong with employing artistic styles that are distinctive of a culture to which you do not belong? What is the relationship between cultural heritage and group identity? Is there a coherent and morally acceptable sense of cultural group membership in the first place? Is there a universal human heritage to which everyone has a claim?”The more elaborate and comprehensive the definition of, the more inscrutable it becomes. But the Nation's Spoilers don't thrust words and phrases onto the public to edify and enlighten Americans but to control them. The idea is to control the public by tugging on the public's emotional strings, not by appealing to the public's higher mental and judgmental faculties.

GETTING INSIDE THE HEADS OF AMERICANS———

But, targeting the public's emotions only goes so far in controlling the public. The goals of the Nation's spoilers are far more ambitious and frightening.Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist Propagandists love to play with words and language, with syntax, semantics, and structure, and they are great manipulators of it. They cleverly craft an ever-expanding array of new words and expressions and subtly devise novel meanings for old ones. They work hand-in-hand with specialists from diverse academic fields—neuropsychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, linguists, and anthropologists—who dutifully, ruthlessly imprint, onto the psyche of the public, words, phrases, even nonsensical schizophrenic word salads. The main focus of psychological conditioning is to confuse, confound, and disrupt the American public's sense of time, place, and memory. The aim of the masters of brainwashing, on a nationwide scale, is to create in the mind of the American public an entirely new reality—a parallel world—one that is designed to slowly, inexorably replace the America that hearkens back to the dawning days of the Republic with one that draws the public into the embrace of a completely new political, social, economic, and cultural dynamic: a world-wide Collectivist organ, where the remains of the commonality are herded into special enclaves, dotted here and there around the world. The lives of the common folk will be devoid of meaning or purpose. They will live shallow lives; their minds occupied with generic, vacuous dross, played incessantly to vacant minds attuned to video monitors, and filled with soporifics to make them quiet, submissive, pliant. As little need there will be for unskilled and semi-skilled slave labor, in this brave new world, of the Collectivist future, as technology will fill much of that gap once filled by manual labor, most human beings will become superfluous, reduced to living in an essentially vegetative state.Compare that Marxist/Neo-liberal Globalist dystopian with the ideal of our present American Republic—that is, at best, but a vestige of its once greatness. The exemplars of America are unneeded commodities in the future world of neo-feudalism. In fact, in such a world as envisioned by the future Masters of the Earth, the exemplars of America are an outright liability.In the past——Nothing exemplified the American Spirit and Psyche more prominently, and emphatically than the notion of the indomitability, inviolability, and sacredness of the Human Soul. This sacred truth is itself inextricably tied to the sanctity of Selfhood. And the absolute sovereignty of the American people over Government serves as recognition of this fact. And that sole and exclusive sovereignty over Government is only maintained through the sacred right of the American people to keep and bear arms against the tyranny of Government that attempts to corrupt and profane, one's Self, and one's Spirit, and one's Soul.These notions do not exist independently but are inextricably tied to and bound up in a deep-seated, deeply-entrenched eternal Christian ethic, that itself is grounded on moral Truths, lovingly placed into the Soul of man by a Benevolent, Beneficient, and Morally Perfect Divine Creator.  A free Constitutional Republic and the idea of a free, sovereign people, borne of these sacred, unshakeable, and immortal Truths—nourished by them and, having derived their strength, success, and greatness from them—cannot long survive without them. In a free Constitutional Republic, there is an enduring need for a well-armed sovereign people. For it is only through a well-armed citizenry that a sovereign and free people can ever hope to effectively withstand the inevitable tendency of Government, and of the ruthless, insufferable Satanic forces in that Government, to destroy all that is Good, Right, and Proper.The Moral Perfection of the Divine Creator as the well-spring of America's Cultural Greatness, upon which the sovereignty of the American people and the inviolability and indomitability of the American spirit are firmly, indelibly impressed in mind and body and Spirit and  cannot be dislodged. These Truths can only be buried in memory, and replaced by false idols and that is what the Nation's Spoilers seek to do. But that is not so easily accomplished—not in a Country established on natural law rights, as only this Country, of all other countries or unions of countries, is.Thus, there exists—there has always existed—an enduring need for a well-armed citizenry to withstand the inevitable tendency of Government and of ruthless, insufferable Satanic forces, intent on destroying all that is Good, and Right, and Proper in America and in the world. The United States is truly the last bastion of hope both for the American people and, ultimately, for western civilization. And, therein one finds the salient reason why the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist forces both need and desire to destroy America and the indomitability of the American Soul and Spirit and Psyche.A one-world government, embracing billions of people, cannot exist without firm military/police control over those billions of people. And, when one western Nation-State—the most powerful and noble one the world has ever seen—effectively resists subjugation, those subjugated peoples around the world take notice. Rebellions here and there arise around the world; fracturing the well-oiled, well-humming titanic machine. The Neo-feudal Lords can have none of that. And that is why they are hard at work destroying every vestige of resistance: openly defying Constitution and Statute; seeding the Country with millions of ignorant, worthless, needy, malcontents, including outright psychopathic killers, rapists, child-molesters, drug traffickers, and sex traffickers; draining our Nation's resources, having no comprehension of or desire to learn of freedom and liberty and the responsibilities that come with it. And that is why the Neo-feudalistic Lords, through their corrupt and obsequious toadies in Government, academia, the Press, in business, in entertainment, and in social media are intent on undermining this Country at its root level. One sees them:

• Creating an entire religion and dogma out of victimhood
• Deifying the State/Government and blaspheming the one true God;
• Treating all manner of perversities and perversions as acceptable life choices;
• Denigrating our most sacred Christian beliefs;
• Emasculating our military;
• Denigrating our Nation’s Founders and Military heroes;
• Eradicating our History, Heritage, Culture, and Ethos;
• Dismantling our Public and Private Institutions
• Destroying the Doctrine of Federalism and the Doctrine of Checks and Balances among the Federal Government's three Co-equal Branches that underpin our system of Governance;
• Defying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
• Inverting our core, sacred values;
• Turning vices into virtues and virtues into vices; 
• Developing and implementing foreign and domestic and policy from alien UN and EU doctrine that irreparably weakens our Nation and are wholly inconsistent and incompatible with our Nation's Constitution, statutes, jurisprudence, historical and cultural underpinnings;  
• Making a mockery of our Nation by installing into public Office, the most inept, incompetent, corrupt, depraved and degenerate band of creatures to ever serve at one time in the Nation’s highest offices, thereby placing this Country and the world in the worst jeopardy of global thermonuclear annihilation since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962;
• Turning our Nation into a massive Surveillance State, and turning our Nation’s peoples into a collection of shoo-flies: neighbor spying on neighbor; police spying unlawfully on people and associations of Americans; teachers spying on children; children even spying on their own parents;
• Turning the massive power of Executive Branch police and intelligence apparatuses illegally on the American people;
• Reducing Congressional Democrats into a willing and compliant tool of the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters and Congressional Republicans into a passive, ineffectual, effete, and useless Governmental appendage;
• Transforming many State and Local Governments into docile toadies of Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters
• Treating American citizens as a perpetual subordinate, subservient underclass, while elevating millions of contemptible illegal alien pests, who have no respect for our Nation's laws and who are free from Government mandates and who are a bane on Americans, as the new preferred overclass.

Millions of Americans who are asleep, better awake from their slumber, before they drag down the rest of us. And those Americans who are alert, best stay vigilant and hold tight to their arms. Soon, it may be all they have to remind themselves that they once were sovereign rulers of their Land and that they still are the Nation's sole, sovereign, rulers.___________________________The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist language manipulators of thought, don't bother to define terminology that they thrust on the public psyche. They thrust terminology onto the psyche of the public, trusting—knowing, really—that emotional connotations of certain words the public is familiar with will do the hard work for the manipulators, adequately conveying to the target population's mind the images the language manipulators intend for those words to convey. And in that task, a reality is created in the mind of the target population. And, the public doesn't rationally perceive the idiocy inherent in that dubious reality, because emotion clouds the intellect.The words, ‘gun,’ ‘criminal,’ and  ‘violence,’ are all common words in the English language. Two of the words, historically, ‘criminal,’ and  ‘violence,’ have negative connotations, and understandably so. One, word, ‘gun,’ does not, historically, have an inherently negative connotation. And the reason why is plain. The word, ‘gun,’ is a tool. It is an object, not an agent. As a tool it can be utilized by an agent for good or ill. In our past, it was through the use of guns by American Patriots that a Nation was born; one unlike any other in the world before, or since. The Nation's Patriot-Founders conceived a Country conceived in Liberty, in accordance with the will of the Divine Creator God; a Country where the American people lived free and as sole sovereign, in control of their own lives and the destiny of their Country. And, that the Nation would ever remain so, the Patriot-Founders of our Nation codified in stone, a set of the most important of natural rights, bestowed on and in Man by the Divine Creator.The most basic of which, under which all the other Natural Rights are subsumed, is the Right of self-defense, i.e., self-defense against the predatory creature, the predatory man, and the predatory government.Armed self-defense is simply an aspect of self-defense, nothing more nor less. Armed self-defense implies man has the unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal right to use the best means available to defend Self and his Family against unlawful intrusion by beast, man-beast, and predatory, tyrannical Government. As a useful tool, as part of the inherent right of self-defense/survival, man has, through the centuries, come to use and to depend on the firearm to secure sustenance for Self and Family, and that tool eventually served the extended family and the greater community: one's clan, tribe, and eventually one's Nation.In times past, prior to the advent of the firearm, the most effective, efficient, personal, personnel tool for survival was the sword, which through the years andThrough man's technological prowess, that tool evolved into the firearm: matchlock, wheellock, flintlock, percussion cap, revolvers, semiautomatic firearms, selective-fire, and full-auto guns, the last few of which have, through the last century and into the 21st have become further and further refined. And in the refinement of the firearm for self-defense, the Destructors of our Nation came to abhor, loathe and fear the firearm in the hands of the armed citizen. For they know that the well-armed citizen need not long suffer tyranny if it should choose not to, and, in the ancestral mind of the American, the tyranny of Government will not long endure.The mainstay of our free Constitutional Republic is, today, as it has always been, the presence of a well-armed citizenry Not surprisingly, then, the idea of a gun in the hands of the citizen-soldier is absolutely anathema to the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Destructors of our Nation, of our Constitution, and of a free and sovereign people. It is not only inconsistent with and detrimental to the existence of a totalitarian world governmental regime, it is inconsistent with tyranny's absolute domination and dominion over the Spirit and Soul of man. And, in that rests, not only the perversity of the present Harris-Biden Administration and Pelosi-Schumer-McConnel-controlled Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government but, worst of all, the perversion of Divine Law. Our Nation is the only Nation on Earth that was created as a truly free Constitutional Republic and grounded in Christian ethics and morality in strict accordance with the Desire of the Divine Creator. And the fact that our Nation has persevered and prospered, where all others have fallen into ruin or are in danger of ruination, speaks of the Blessing bestowed on our Nation and its people by the Divine Creator. And, why, then, would any rational person or group seek to destroy that which has succeeded so well? But, then, it isn't reason and sanity that drive those forces to destroy our Nation and to destroy all nation-states. It is rabid jealousy and the avaricious and wrathful desires of ruthless men to rule over and control the lives of all men. That is what motivates them to destroy all that is Good and Right and Proper. And, they rely on the fear, lust, and desires of lesser men to do their bidding. And the corruption inherent in the souls of these corrupted souls is plain for all to see if they would but look.

IF ONE CAN SUCCESSFULLY MANIPULATE THE USE OF LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY, ONE CAN CONTROL THOUGHT AND THEREFORE THE BEHAVIOR OF THE TARGET POPULATION OF THAT SOCIETY

And the manipulators of language went to work to instill in the American psyche an irrational fear and loathing and abhorrence of the firearm to match the same fear and loathing and abhorrence these Destructors of a free Republic held toward the armed American citizen. The intent of these forces that crush was to create enmity, schizophrenia, between the citizen-soldier and that citizen's firearm.Consider the import of and the impact of the phrase, “GUN VIOLENCE,” vs. the phrase, “CRIMINAL VIOLENCE” on the public psyche. By tying the word, ‘gun’ to the word, ‘violence,’ in lieu of the word, ‘criminal,’ to the word, ‘violence,’ the mind associates guns with violence rather than criminal conduct to violence. This all by design. For, it isn't criminal acts that the Destroyers of our Nation seek to contain and constrain. The sociopathic and psychopathic agents of these criminal acts is precisely what the Destroyers of society want. It is rather, firearms in the hands of average, law-abiding, rational civilian citizens they seek to disarm. But, these Destroyers of our Nation and its institutions create the effective illusion that guns are inextricably tied to crime and that by getting rid of guns from the hands of tens of millions of average Americans will erase crime. But, it is guns in the possession of average, rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizens they seek to confiscate, and intend to eradicate. It is not guns in the hands of criminals. For it is guns in the hands of criminals they intend to preserve, as is clear from their actions, if not by their words, and it is sociopathic and psychopathic criminals and lunatics they embrace, for it is these elements that are doing the bidding of the Destroyers of America. These criminals and lunatics will continue to be released onto the streets so that their crimes and mayhem can continue unabated. Nation’s largest Cities—the Neo-Marxist controlled ones—as it so happens—is not “GUN VIOLENCE” but the plague of “CRIMINAL VIOLENCE.” Guns, knives, baseball bats, axes, bombs, motor vehicles, or hands and arms and legs and feet are merely some of the tools utilized in the acts of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE. Getting rid of guns from society won't end CRIMINAL VIOLENCE. It will only make it worse. And it is, after all, this pervasive thing, CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, around the Country that the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists want, and it is this pervasive CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, permeating all around and through our Nation's largest Neo-Marxist run urban areas that our Nation gets.Thus, criminal violence, not surprisingly, does befall major Neo-Marxist-controlled Cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, and New York City—just to name a few of these Cities. And these Cities just happen to have some of the Nation’s most restrictive gun laws. Yet the City and State leaders constantly cast blame on the problems plaguing their respective Cities, not on these jurisdictions' acquiescence to or outright enabling and facilitating of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE but on this thing—“GUN VIOLENCE” as if CRIMINAL VIOLENCE is grounded in and derives essentially from GUNS. That is absurd. But there it is, anyway. This is what the Radical Left newspapers, periodicals, radio and broadcast and cable news stations, and the Neoliberal Globalist social media and mega-internet companies continually harp about. And that is what these propaganda organs incessantly castigate gun manufacturers, and the so-called “GUN LOBBY,” and tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational members of the public, about: “Get rid of guns from everyone,” so they say, “and the problem of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE across the Land, will take care of itself.” Yea, sure!The expression “GUN VIOLENCE” is a misnomer but one carefully cultivated and scripted to be impressed on the psyche of the public. To be sure, there IS VIOLENCE in our society, of course. But, who is it that is generating all that violence? It certainly isn't the tens of millions of average, responsible law-abiding gun owners. It is VIOLENCE committed by sociopaths, common criminals, lunatics, and psychopathic criminal gang members, including illegal alien rapists, killers, and child molesters, whom various Marxist-controlled Cities and States, along with the Harris-Biden Administration that, perfunctorily, blatantly, even arrogantly disregard our Nation's immigration laws, welcoming into the Country and refusing to allow Federal ICE officers perform their lawful duties requiring them to deport this illegal riff-raff. Many of these innately dangerous elements happen to use guns in committing their criminal acts, sure, and they use many, many other weapons as well. And, as to gun-toting criminals, why is it that the Neo-Marxist Soros-elected prosecutors, judges, and Legislatures are routinely given a pass? This is common practice that goes back years. See, e.g., articles from the Chicago Reporter, the Charlotte Observer, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Heritage Foundation, News Nation, and Fox News.But if these Cities and States have draconian gun laws, most of which are directed to the public, and if these jurisdictions continued to treat the worst elements of society with kid gloves, pretending to be obsessed over criminals qua gun-toting criminals, then it is clear that the problems plaguing these Cities and States is less a function of guns and is more a function of the agents of crime—the criminals and lunatics themselves. But that fact does not serve the Neo-Marxist narrative. So, the Neo-Marxist deflects the obvious question by posing, to the public, another question that better serves their aims. The Neo-Marxist asks: where are these gun-toting criminals acquiring these guns? The answer, as with the question itself, has, of course, invariably been pre-rehearsed and preprepared by the Neo-Marxists. New York Mayor Eric Adams has made it a mainstay of his recently released “Blueprint to End Gun Violence.”  The Mayor raises the matter of gun trafficking—using that as a springboard to secure Federal Government involvement and action. The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists attempt to federalize everything. This is a clear violation of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights and Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and undercuts the long-standing doctrine of federalism that carves out powers between the Federal Government and the States.The American people are witnessing the inexorable erosion, through time, of what had heretofore existed as a well-defined barrier existent between Government and the people upon which the absolute sovereignty of the people over Government depends, and upon which that absolute sovereignty is enforced, i.e., through the continued presence of the well-armed citizenry. Getting the Federal Government involved in the regulation of firearms through the pretext of the makeweight of gun trafficking is merely one more surreptitious attempt by the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists to erode the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. Americans have seen this before. Recall the infamous “Fast and Furious Scheme,” hatched originally by the Bush Administration and further exploited by the Obama Administration. Neoliberal Globalists have, through time, tried other strategies to undermine the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. The failed UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is another example of a surreptitious end-run tactic of a treacherous lustful power-mad Federal Government to undercut the sovereignty of the American people. See article in The New American. Also see a 2019 Report conducted by the Anti-Second Amendment, The Brady Campaign To End Gun Violence, writing in part: “Current United States gun laws are dangerously weak in terms of curbing the supply of guns to the general public, preventing gun trafficking, and providing accountability mechanisms through tracing.While some states can and do mandate more stringent regulations overand above these federal laws - below is a list of some federal-level standards that often undermine the strongest state laws.” In the aforecited Report, the Report's drafters disingenuously argue that GUN VIOLENCE in Central American countries and in Mexico is the primary motivator for mass illegal migration into the United States. But is that true? One year later, it becomes apparent that the chief motivator for illegal transit into the United States is the prospects of a free lunch, made all the more enticing because the present Administration encourages it. Indeed it is tacit policy.Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from over 150 countries regularly pour into the U.S. from around the world in an unprecedented wave of migration. See, e.g., the article from The Trumpet. Someone or some entity/entities with a lot of money and a lot of organizational ability must be orchestrating this. The UN endorses this, and the present U.S. Administration adheres to it even though Congress never sanctioned it. Furthermore, illegal entry into the U.S. is a criminal act under U.S. immigration.And, now Neo-Marxists, like Mayor Eric Adams, are using GUN VIOLENCE in several major U.S. Cities as the pretext for imposing new restrictive gun laws, ostensibly going after the guns used in crime but actually targeting non-criminal gun owners. This goes hand-in-hand now with Federal Government-DOJ/FBI action that was already targeting exercise of the Second Amendment via Executive Department fiat, back in June of 2021, under the guise of curbing criminal GUN TRAFFICKING.Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, argue, once again, that GUN TRAFFICKING is the CAUSE of GUN VIOLENCE in the Nations' Cities. But this ploy is nothing new. See, e.g., the Report by Bloomberg Anti-Second Amendment group, Everytown for Gun Safety.They tell the American public that criminals acquire their guns out-of-state, from those jurisdictions that have “lax” gun laws. Fine, but if that is true, it doesn’t serve to explain, but rather begs the question, why it is that these other Non-Marxist-controlled States do not themselves have a “gun” problem. But, why aggravate the problem of violence in society? Yet, Neo-Marxist-controlled Governments deliberately aggravate violence by doing all they can to encourage sociopathic behavior.And so, instead of strict enforcement of laws, Americans see———

• Bail reform laws;
• Reduction in the number of police, and understandably disgruntled police who remain on City police forces;
• Massive prison closures;
• Early release of dangerous criminals from prison;
• Failure to place lunatics and drug addicts in hospitals for treatment

But the Neo-Marxists have an answer for that as well. Apart from the proverbial “BLAME VIOLENT CRIME ON GUNS” GAME, Americans are told that the problem of the rampant increase in violent crime is due to:

• POVERTY
• PEER PRESSURE
• DRUGS
• POLITICS
• RELIGION
• FAMILY CONDITIONS
• THE SOCIETY
• UNEMPLOYMENT
• DEPRIVATION
• UNFAIR JUDICIAL SYSTEM

See article in the Leftist site, Net News Ledger.Note that some of the items on this laundry list are merely Neo-Marxist pretexts—Neo-Marxist rationales for dismantling a free Constitutional Republic, DRUGS, UNFAIR JUDICIAL SYSTEM, UNEMPLOYMENT, and POVERTY. A few of the items are inherently inexplicable or are nonsensical or amount to facially overbroad generalizations: POLITICS, RELIGION, PEER PRESSURE, THE SOCIETY, DEPRIVATION. One item, in particular, involving the reformation of what Neo-Marxists perceive as the application of UNFAIR JUDICIAL SYSTEMS is itself the cause of VIOLENCE. In claiming that the Judicial System is unfair, the Neo-Marxists have implemented policies to ensure the perpetration of VIOLENCE and the perpetuation of it. Americans see this in defunding police; bail reform laws; failure to prosecute both petty and violent crimes; and release of dangerous criminals and lunatics from prisons or asylums. And by promoting drug use, and discouraging employment by encouraging sloth—these policies are, too, responsible for major increases in VIOLENCE. Thus, it is that—NEO-MARXISTS THEMSELVES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERY PROBLEM OF MASSIVE INCREASES IN VIOLENCE, YET DENY ALL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IT, PREFERRING TO INVOKE GUNS AS THE SALIENT REASON FOR VIOLENCE THAT CONTINUES TO PLAGUE SOCIETY AND THEY INCESSANTLY MANUFACTURE A HOST OF SEEMINGLY LESSER CAUSES FOR RAMPANT VIOLENCE AS WELL It isn't obtuseness that is responsible for the Neo-Marxist attitude. It is craftiness. You will note that when discussing GUN VIOLENCE in society, the Neo-Marxist downplays, CRIME, and emphasizes GUNS. It is all in style for them. And, to think through any of this, one sees the inherent absurdity in all of it. No wonder the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalists refrain from any sort of debate. They would rather simply posit their nonsense as self-evident, true. And, if someone should happen to protest, they simply proclaim their stance on the matter a little louder.The true cause of waves of CRIMINAL/SOCIETAL VIOLENCE is due, in substantial part, if not exclusively, to deliberately “lax” law enforcement, consistent with the Neo-Marxist aim to tear down America's institutions and to destroy an independent, sovereign Nation and free Constitutional Republic, thereby making way for a Collectivist transnational, Global Super-State, sans geographical borders, sans a U.S. Constitution and a Bill of Rights, and marked by the loss of any sense of National identity, National character, National history, and heritage, and Christian ethical system; and subjecting the remnants of the citizenry to a life of bare existence: one of repression, subjugation, uniformity of thought and action, and abject penury? But, what kind of American would choose to live in such a society? Very few Americans it turns out, as they become more and more attuned to the reality of the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist vision.The nonsensicalness and outlandishness of the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist vision for the Country and for the world are now apparent to even the most dull-witted among the American people. But these would-be Destroyers of the Country have come too far to back off now. They are compelled to push through and just hope that the psyche of the American people has been so damaged from decades of psychological conditioning and abuse and so weakened and demoralized from the ravages wrought by over two years of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus pandemic and from the inconsistent, duplicitous, messaging of the slimeballs Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky, that Americans cannot mount an effective resistance to the planned new world order.But there are few if any Americans left who are under any illusion that the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have had anything but contempt for both them and the Country. But the forces that crush never really denied that. Indeed their incessant attacks on America’s history, heritage, Christian faith, and culture have made that disdain clear as day. It says much of how far the technology and the techniques of mass brainwashing and massaging of the psyche have come that many, many Americans have so easily acquiesced to, or have capitulated to, the Neo-Marxist messaging through incessant bullying and demeaning without nary a protest, let alone a firm, forceful stand.Have most Americans had enough of this? We think so. But, we have yet to see how this will all play out.__________________________________

AMERICAN CULTURE IS GROUNDED IN FREEDOM—WON AND MAINTAINED BY DINT OF ARMS AND FORCE OF WILL TO RESIST TYRANNY

PART FOUR

People such as the new Governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, are turning things around for the State—finally—and for the better, after the horrible legacy left by the prior Governor Ralph Shearer Northam. Virginians can begin once again to live as true Americans, as the State begins its long return to sanity. And the Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, demonstrates how a State and Country should work. The formula is simple. Government must take heed: Place faith in and accede to the American citizenry. Recognize the Americans’ inherent sovereignty over the Government. Refrain from castigating, cajoling, controlling, threatening, and demoralizing them.Consider for a moment what would have befallen Virginia if the imbecilic and obsequious stooge Terry McAuliffe had defeated Youngkin in 2021 and what would have befallen Florida if the Neo-Marxist toady, Andrew Gillum, had defeated DeSantis in 2018. And consider a healthy, prosperous, and safe New York for a pleasant change. That would come to pass if Lee Zeldin is elected New York Governor during the mid-term elections of November 2022, displacing a Soros-sponsored Neo-Marxist puppet such as, e.g., Kathy Hochul. Juxtapose the two antithetical different visions for America.One vision holds true to a free Republic as bequeathed to the American citizenry through the AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776. The other vision seeks unabashedly to overturn the AMERICAN REVOLUTION through an unstated but very real NEO-MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION of the 21^st Century—one that has been well underway since the dawn of the new Century, apart from a temporary lull during the Trump tenure in Office.What frightens the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists is not a belief that Republican leadership in Virginia and Florida would fail. No! It is that they would succeed—are succeeding—TOO WELL! And the public is taking notice, everywhere. Consider how California would have turned the corner from the economic, social, and political horror that pervades it, had a majority of Californians had the courage to unseat the stooge, Gavin Newsome, and elect Larry Elder. But, habits die hard. No one in California can sensibly believe that Gavin Newsome has done such a wonderful job. His contempt for the citizenry is evident, painfully so. The crime problem, illicit drug problem, and homeless problem, in particular, are way out of control. Californians had a chance during the Recall effort to chase Newsome out of Office. But having been thoroughly habituated to the empty posturing and moralizing of Democrats, they reverted to form. Apparently, they would rather accept a life of continual anxiety, strife, and fear than allow themselves to conceive that they need not resign themselves to a life of desperation. And so the slow dissolution of California continues unabated. It is uncanny how so many Californian Americans consistently see that the politicians they continuously vote into Office work against the American peoples’ own best interests, and yet they continue to vote these same horrible creatures with their dismal records, into Office: Governor Gavin Newsome; Oakland Mayor, Libby Schaaf; San Francisco Mayor, London Breed; Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti; Los Angeles District Attorney, George Gascón; San Francisco District Attorney, Chesa Boudin—to name a few of the prominent elected officials remaking the State into a Neo-Marxist hell-hole.AND THE NEO-MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION CONTINUES ITS MARCH TO REVERSE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776—AT LEAST IN SEVERAL CITIES AND STATES AROUND THE COUNTRYThe NEO-MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION is at the moment, at least fortunately, a non-shooting war. That can change. But, if it comes, it will be commenced by the toadies of the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters, not by American Patriots. Are the would-be destroyers already preparing for this? See article posted on January 14, 2022 on BlabberBuzz, titled, “Military Prepping its Commandoes for Civil War.”  The very idea of this is probably grounded less on concern of that America's Patriots would actually commence taking up arms en masse against the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Federal Government than it is based on the hope that America's Patriots would do so. This would be in line with the Government's milking of the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol “riot.”  The Government hopes to bait the American citizenry into open confrontation. The Government would use that as a pretext to declare martial law, claiming a serious state of emergency. And that would result in an order immediately suspending the exercise of all fundamental rights, notably and especially the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Government would henceforth order the public to surrender all their firearms forthwith, on pain of immediate arrest and detention for failure to comply.Consider: “In April 1967, Greece's [a modern western democratic nation-state] new military government declared martial law, imprisoned citizens for their political views, dissolved political parties, and instituted widespread censorship, while suspending civil rights protected under the Greek Constitution.” “The Earth Alliance Constitution: International Human Rights Law And Babylon,”10 Fl. Coastal L. Rev. 33, Fall 2008, by Roy Balleste, Assistant Professor of law and Director of the Law Library at the David A. Clarke School of Law, University of the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C.But that couldn't happen here, in the United States, or could it? But hasn't it, in fact, already commenced, albeit in drips and drabs, slowly but methodically, and seemingly innocuously with the censoring of speech by the major social media and technology companies, sympathetic with the aims of Neo-Marxism/Neoliberal Globalism or otherwise cajoled into acting, consistent with Government dictates and wishes? Do we not see Government creating programs and new department agencies that specifically target Americans whose views do not cohere to that of the Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist game plan. But, what would justify the circumstances for outright suspension of all fundamental rights and a formal declaration of martial law——

• A legitimate Federal Government justifiably fearing domestic terrorism of American citizen insurgents and thereby operating on the perceived need to protect a free Republic from being overthrown by domestic insurgents? Or,

• A decidedly, incorrigibly illegitimate, rogue Federal Government i.e., a tyrannical Government, intent on persevering itself against a popular uprising of tens of millions of concerned Americans who, realizing the dire need to topple a rogue Government to secure and preserve a free Constitutional Republic takes up arms against that Government?

This raises the tantalizing question as to whether a charge of Treason—Treachery to the Citizenry—can apply to a rogue Government itself? See, e.g., the Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on October 1, 2021, titled, “If Tyranny is Treason, Only a Well-Armed Citizenry Can Effectively Resist It and Has the Duty To Do So.”Contrary to our supposition, scholars universally, or almost universally, maintain, that the crime of “treason” can only apply to individuals, not to the Federal Government itself, never to the Federal Government. But, if this is true, then a citizens’ revolt against a tyrannical government cannot ever be justified in law, even if it can, under some moral/ethical theory (e.g. normative deontological theories) be justified. But, if rebellion against the tyranny of Government is, at best, under our Constitution, only ever justified on moral grounds, but never on legal grounds, then the underlying legal imperative for the Second Amendment loses its impetus, i.e., “the right” of the people to revolt against tyranny has no legal basis even if there exists a moral basis to do so. Contrariwise, that tyrannical Government can argue its own legal imperative for repelling a popular uprising against that very tyranny, and would no doubt do so, harshly. Several legal scholars acknowledge this very point. They argue that the purport of the Second Amendment as an individual right of the citizenry to keep tyranny of Government in check is self-defeating and therefore deeply flawed. These scholars claim that the framers of the Constitution could not have intended for the Second Amendment to serve as a legal,  basis for dismantling the Federal Government, apart from whatever purely moral basis may happen to exist for doing so.Thus, taking this idea to its logical and morbid conclusion, this means that even if the Federal Government were to devolve into outright tyranny—usurping the sovereignty of the American people, followed by systematically subjugating them, clearly incurring the peoples’ wrath—the Second Amendment does not invite the people to resist that tyranny, under any legal theory or legal justification, whatever the moral imperative there might be for doing so.Unfortunately, this jurisprudential, philosophical problem is not relegated to mere academic contemplation. The Executive Branch of the Federal Government, under Joe Biden, its titular head—a corrupt, incompetent, debilitated and demented buffoon—and the Legislative Branch under the control of the equally corrupt and treacherous Pelosi-Schumer tag team have imposed tyranny on the American people. They really make no pretense of this, and openly defy the public’s justifiable acrimony. Something to ponder!____________________________________

WHERE SHALL AMERICANS FIND “TRUE DEMOCRACY” IF NOT IN THEIR THOUGHTS, THEIR ACTIONS, THEIR ARMS?

The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist stooges in Government and in the legacy Press and media constantly talk of “Democracy”— bantering endlessly that only the “Democrat Party” is intent on preserving it. Yet, they never bother to explain what they mean by it, even as they lavish attention on it. But what is really going on here? These stooges constantly claim they are all for “democracy,” and that they and they alone are the only protectors of it. And they dare anyone who might object to what surely comes across as mere pretension when they mention ‘democracy,’ and ask for explication of what they mean by it.Yet, think about what these imbeciles don’t say when they go on and on about “Democracy.” They never mention the word ‘freedom’ in association with it. They never mention ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ in the same breath. In fact, they don’t mention the word, ‘freedom’ at all. And why is that? Might it be that ‘freedom’ is not something they want; that it isn’t a thing they adhere to, and, by the same token, it’s not something they wish others to adhere to either. But why would these “Democrats” object to “freedom,” and why would they vigorously attempt to dissolve man’s natural bond to it? Indeed! Do you think this might have something to do with their concern over Americans’ exercise of their fundamental natural rights?In fact, “freedom” is tied up with and inextricably bound to natural law rights of the people—those that are enumerated in the first Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights, and those unenumerated rights as exemplified in the Ninth Amendment. Recall that the Antifederalists demanded that the U.S. Constitution provide explicit expression of the rights of the American people. The Federalists objected, concerned that, if a Bill of Rights delineated a set certain of specific rights, then a strong, centralized “federal” government might henceforth claim, one day, the natural rights of the American people must be limited to the rights specifically enumerated only, and they must ever refrain from asserting an unalienable right that has not been enumerated.But, the Antifederalists, for their part, knew that, if natural law rights of the people were not explicitly etched in stone, then a strong, centralized federal government could, and would, eventually, invariably, one day, deny, to the people, exercise of any right that government did not deign to bestow directly onto them. Tyranny is the natural state of Government. The history of the actions of governments, regimes, and empires against the populace, going back to antiquity, is laden with evidence of that. The very struggle of America’s colonists, the Nation’s first Patriots, attests to the tenacity, voraciousness, and virulence of Tyranny. It was only through a mighty struggle that America’s first Patriots, through strength of will and force of arms, were able to extricate themselves from the morass of tyranny. But having won their hard-fought freedom, the question remained how to preserve that freedom against tyranny that would, from time to time, invariably rear its ugly head.The Antifederalists’ concern has been shown to be entirely reasonable and justified. For, even as founders of a new Nation struggled to construct a Government that would be able to resist intrusion of future tyranny, they knew that tyranny would always sit at the doorstep to the Nation. They were well aware that the forces that they had defeated would soon resume the conflict and the Nation’s Patriots must have contemplated the next attempt to insinuate tyranny would be surreptitious and devious. Assisted from the outside, malevolent forces would subvert the will of the people from the inside. So, with great care and industry did the founders construct a Federal Government—a Government deemed necessary, but, paradoxically, dangerous to freedom and liberty. And, that prescient concern is now coming to fruition, over two centuries later. But even a carefully constructed Federal Government—one of limited powers and defined checks and balances—is of itself insufficient to prevent tyranny.The shadowy, sinister Destroyers of our Nation, operating through their obsequious toadies—those of an innately evil bent, or, those emotionally and spiritually weak, and, so, amenable to corrupting influences—have, through substantial effort in time, money, and organization, come close to exacting revenge against the Nation after suffering a disastrous defeat in the American Revolution of 1776.  The only hope for America to preserve the gain of freedom won through a Revolution fought more than two centuries ago, is to hold tight to their natural law rights—those rights that the would-be destroyers of our Nation, both inside and outside the Country, have struggled mightily to constrain. These forces know full well that, as long, as Americans have the capacity and will to exercise their natural God-given rights, the Nation cannot fall. And these forces that crush entire nations have made substantial inroads against in their effort to undercut and, in one case, even curtail exercise of some of those rights.The Antifederalists’ concern has been shown to be entirely reasonable and justified. For, even as founders of a new Nation struggled to construct a Government that would be able to resist intrusion of future tyranny, they knew that tyranny would always sit at the doorstep to the Nation. They understood the forces that they had defeated would soon resume the conflict. And the Nation’s Patriots must have contemplated the next attempt to insinuate tyranny would be surreptitious and devious. Assisted from the outside, they contemplated that malevolent forces would attempt to subvert the will of the people from the inside. The only hope for America to preserve the gain of freedom won through a Revolution fought more than two centuries ago, is to hold tight to their natural law rights—those rights that the would-be destroyers of our Nation, both inside and outside the Country, have struggled mightily to constrain. These forces know full well that, as long, as Americans have the capacity and will to exercise their natural God-given rights, the Nation cannot fall. Yet, these forces that crush entire nations have made substantial inroads against this Nation in their effort to undercut and, in one case, even curtail exercise of some of those natural law rights.Americans have all but lost the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The attack on the fundamental rights of free speech and the freedom of association (an attendant right of freedom of speech) are under siege, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, and has been, for decades, under vigorous assault. Had these rights not been explicitly delineated, the American people would have lost, long ago, any vestige of their once free Constitutional Republic. Those who presently control Congress and the vast and powerful police, military, and judicial apparatuses of the Executive Branch of Government do not accept the reality and legitimacy of natural law rights. They categorically reject any notion of laws that stand beyond their power to create, modify, and rescind at will. Thus, the Bill of Rights, a set of natural law rights, existent in man before the inception of Government, serves as a perpetual annoyance for them.The Antifederalists dealt with the thorny issue presented by the Federalists, among them—those who were against the creation of an express, but limited, set of natural law rights—by adding a Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment states, plainly and succinctly that,“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”The very presence of the Ninth Amendment buttresses the ineluctability of the first Eight. And the presence of the first Eight points to the illimitability and impenetrability of the essence of the Divine Creator. Through time, the Divine Creator will manifest through man further obligatory, eternal natural law rights that, at present rest, behind the veil of inscrutability that further elucidate the sanctity and inviolability of man’s Spirit and Soul.And what are the American people to make of the Tenth Amendment? The Tenth Amendment says,“‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ The Tenth Amendment is the principal expression of federalism, an assertion that the Federal Government shares power and authority with the States and the people. But it is also an expression of autonomy and sovereignty of the people over Government, both State and Federal. This idea, rarely mentioned, is, nonetheless, made explicit in Justice Clarence Thomas’ well-reasoned and amplified dissent in the case, United States Term Limits vs. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1994).The case involved whether the people of Arkansas can amend their State Constitution concerning the State’s electoral process. In a close decision, the majority opinion, penned by now retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, and joined by Associate Justices, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled the people of Arkansas do not have that right. Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Associate Justices Scalia, O’Connor, and Thomas vociferously disagreed. Discussing Justice Thomas’ reasoning, who penned the dissent, the author of the law review note writes, in pertinent part,The author of the law review note writes, of Thomas:“Thomas contends that all power stems from the people of the states and that ‘reserved’ powers therefore include all those not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution. . . . Justice Thomas reasons that the ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual state. Further, ‘because the people of the several States are the only true source of power . . . the Federal Government enjoys no authority beyond what the Constitution confers: the Federal Government's powers are limited and enumerated.’ The remainder of the people's powers not specifically granted to the federal government through the Constitution is therefore either delegated to state governments or retained by the people.” “Term Limits and the Tenth Amendment: The Popular Sovereignty Model of Reserved Powers, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Review 1163 (April 1996).Although this topic of elections and electoral process would seem abstruse as discussed in the above-referenced law review note, it is of paramount importance in the upcoming midterm elections in November 2022, and it has implications for the rights of the American people.It all boils down to this:The would-be Destroyers of the Nation realize that they need a few more years to complete their agenda—an agenda that involves further destabilization of society, dissolution of the Nation’s institutions, eradication of all memory of the Nation’s rich and vibrant history, heritage, culture and Christian ethical system, and the dismantling of the Republic for eventual inclusion of the remains of the Country into a supra-transnational governmental structure embracing the world. But these Destructors need time. And to obtain time, they must maintain firm control over the electoral process in the upcoming election. The liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court knows this to be true, as well, and their rulings in the Arkansas case suggests a desire to defeat the doctrine of Federalism, underlying the Tenth Amendment, and their rulings also underscore the liberal-wing’s contempt for any notion that the American people are, have been, and remain the sole true sovereign over all Government, State and Federal, and down to the municipal level.Anti-American forces have already stolen one U.S. Election, undermining the great strides made during the Trump years to impede the Clinton/Bush/Obama Globalist agenda that had severely weakened the security of the Nation and undermined the sovereignty of the American people.Americans must not allow these malignant forces to waylay the 2022 midterm elections, as well.___________________________________

THE PUPPET BIDEN CALLS AMERICANS THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES! IS THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CITIZENRY?

It is one thing to presuppose the need for undertaking stringent matters to protect the Nation and its citizenry against foreign terrorists, as for example, after the 9/11 Attacks by Islamic Terrorists—likely with a little help from collaborators on “the inside”—true. And likely they received a little help from collaborators on “the inside”—also true. Even so, it is quite another thing to contemplate a rogue, tyrannical Federal Government that would dare posit the presence of a far greater threat that the American citizenry poses to the well-being of the Nation. But, didn't, the swine, Joe Biden, do just that? Didn’t he make just an absurd claim? This is what he said——“White supremacist terrorism is the deadliest threat to the United States, President Joe Biden told lawmakers Wednesday night as he aimed to pivot from the country's post-9/11 foreign fights to one at home.‘Make no mistake. In 20 years, terrorism has metastasized. The threat has evolved beyond Afghanistan,’ Biden said, describing the lingering threats of the Islamic State and al Qaeda before warning of a new war in Americans' backyard.‘We won't ignore what our intelligence agencies have determined to be the most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland today: White supremacy is terrorism,’ Biden said. ‘We’re not going to ignore that either.’ See the  Washington Examiner article, titled, “White supremacy ‘most lethal’ threat to America, Biden says”, published on April 28, 2021. And, on that, score the decrepit, treacherous, demented Biden has acted true to word. The DOJ/FBI Attorney General lackey, Merrick Garland, has dutifully complied. In a later Washington Examiner follow-up article, titled, “Justice Department creates new domestic terrorism unit to target wave of violent extremists,” published very recently, on January 11, 2022,“A Justice Department official on Tuesday announced the formation of a specialized unit to combat domestic terrorism, saying investigations into violent extremism have skyrocketed.FBI investigations into domestic terrorism cases have more than doubled since March 2020, and the new unit will augment the department’s existing approach to prosecuting those crimes, said Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen, who leads the department’s National Security Division.‘This group of dedicated attorneys will focus on the domestic terrorism threat, helping to ensure these cases are handled properly and effectively coordinated across the Department of Justice and across the country,’ he said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.Justice officials said the new focus on domestic terrorism does not target groups based on their political leanings, but they identified one of the biggest threats coming from citizen militias.Tuesday’s hearing was part of a steady drumbeat in Washington raising concerns of a growing domestic terrorism threat in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack.‘The insurrection should be a wake-up call,’ said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat. ‘A reminder that America is still confronted with the age-old menace that’s taken on a new life in the 21st century: terror from White supremacists, militia members and other extremists who use violence to further their twisted agenda.’He echoed President Biden, who has vowed not to let right-wing extremists put ‘a dagger at the throat of democracy.’Over the summer, President Biden announced a sweeping strategy to deal with the threat, which the administration said largely ‘emerges from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and networks whose racial, ethnic, or religious hatred leads them towards violence.’The Department of Homeland Security deemed the threat of ‘racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists’ a ‘national threat priority.’ The FBI announced in November that it has 2,700 open investigations of domestic extremism.‘The threat posed by domestic terrorism is on the rise,’ Mr. Olsen told the Senate panel.”  The reader will note that even as “Justice officials [disingenuously quip that] the new focus on domestic terrorism does not target groups based on their political leanings, [yet, in the same breath they are quick to point out that the new special domestic terrorism unit has] identified one of the biggest threats coming from citizen militias.”  By ‘citizen militias’ the reader can be damn-well sure that the DOJ/FBI isn't planning on using its new domestic terrorism unit to investigate, hound, harass, and intimidate Radical Leftist Neo-Marxist and Anarchist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa and why should they. Those groups serve the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists: assisting in them, actively and avidly undermining the Nation’s institutions and in destabilizing society in furtherance of the penultimate goal of destroying a free Constitutional Republic so that the ultimate goal can be achieved: inserting the remains of a once great independent and sovereign nation-state into a Neo-Feudalistic post-nation-state super world empire structure.The use of the expression, ‘citizen militias’ is a dead giveaway. As for the Radical Marxist/Anarchist groups—these groups are given a pass, precisely because they assist, knowingly or not, the aim of the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters, to destabilize American society, to make way for a new post-nation-state transnational global world order. See the article in RationalWiki, on the Leftist ADL website, and on the rabid radical Left Southern Poverty Law Center website.The expressions ‘militia group’ and ‘militia movement’ are tied, traditionally, innocuously, non-pejoratively, to any group that happens to support the Bill of Rights and a free Constitutional Republic that the Founders bequeathed to us. They exemplify the right and the need for an armed citizenry to protect and preserve a free Republic.But, of late, these expressions—as played by the Federal Government, and by a compliant and sympathetic seditious Press, and by sympathetic cable and broadcast “news” and commentary stations and by sympathetic social media companies—carry pejorative connotations. The expressions ‘militia group’ and ‘militia movement’ allude to racism and bigotry, and to white supremacism. And, that explains the impetus for the rabid and rapacious attacks by the Neo-Marxist-Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Government, by the Legacy Press, by social media companies, by academia, and by various sundry Radical Left groups, against these“militia groups.”Even the seemingly centrist legacy newspaper, “The Wall Street Journal,”  in an article, published on October 10, 2020, titled, “What are Militias and are They Legal,”Even the seemingly centrist legacy newspaper, “The Wall Street Journal,” in an article, published on October 10, 2020, titled, “What are Militias and are They Legal,” demonstrates a proclivity for viewing America's militia groups in an altogether negative light, treating them as right-wing terror groups. In so doing the newspaper lends at least tacit support for the Government’s undertaking of unlawful, predatory assaults on American citizens' lawful exercise of their First and Second Amendment rights of speech, association, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Those groups recognize that a Free Constitutional Republic can only exist where the Sovereign American people can exercise their rights. And it is in the core exercise of the First and Second Amendment rights—the First Amendment directed to the fundamental, natural, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and absolute right of free discourse and free thought, and of free association with like-minded individuals, uninhibited and unrestrained and constrained by Government and by other men who might harbor discontent, wariness, and resentment toward the idea of the uninhibited, unrestrained and unconstrained expression of one's individual Selfhood that some individuals and the present Government happen to take exception to; and the Second Amendment directed to the uninhibited, unrestrained, unconstrained exercise of one's fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and absolute right of armed self-defense that enables one to effectively thwart any and all attempts by the predatory man, the predatory creature, or a predatory Government.The raison d’être of citizen militias is the protection and preservation of a free Constitutional Republic as understood and defined by the Founders of that Republic. And, it is in that fact, alone, that the interloper Harris-Biden puppet Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Administration and the puppet Pelosi/Schumer/McConnel Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Congress perceive an imminent threat to their survival; their tyranny. And, in a manner, this fraudulent Government is correct in that perception. The present Government is an abomination. It has usurped the sovereign power of the American people; pompously flaunts and flourishes illicitly gained powers, flagrantly and blatantly defies the dictates of U.S. Statute and the dictates of the U.S. Constitution; shamelessly lies to the American people. The economy is in disarray. This sham Government has cast the Southern Border wide open to hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken and sickly illegal aliens from over a hundred and fifty countries that pose a physical and economic threat to the security of the Nation. It wantonly left to Islamic Terrorists in Afghanistan, billions of dollars of state-of-the-art weaponry, and has brought thousands of unvetted alien savages into the interior of the Country. This sham Government has nakedly exploited the Communist Chinese Coronavirus to destroy small businesses, disrupt the education of our youth, and unlawfully exert control over the lives of individuals. And, most ominously, this sham Government has, now, of late, threatened Global Thermonuclear war against a massively powerful nuclear power, Russia, over an aberrant, corrupt Country that sits on Russia's border, the Ukraine, whose existence has absolutely no vital, strategic, national security interest to this Country.If this Country's myriad failed policies were due to gross, criminal incompetence alone, that fact alone would constitute reason enough to commence impeachment/treason proceedings against a myriad number of Government Administrative officials and to consider a complete revamping of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government. The sad fact is that this sham Government's policies have been specifically designed to destroy the political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical structure of the Country. And the extent of the treachery across the Government is so pervasive in scale and so devastating in its intensity as to defy any attempt by anyone to reasonably, seriously deny it.An incurious insouciance of this Harris-Biden Administration toward all of this debacle unmasks the truth. In one year this Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Government has opened this Country to catastrophe on all critical indices. This Government is nothing more than a tool of shadowy and powerful forces bent on destabilizing society and destroying the very foundations of a free Constitutional Republic. The Government has itself become the mechanism of the Nation’s own destruction—the vehicle for the dissolution of a free Republic and mortification of the American citizenry. The citizen militia movements know this. They hold fast to the sacred principle grounded in cherishing of the Right of Personal Selfhood—in sanctifying the Right of the Individual to be Individual in the face of a Tyrannical Government and of psychopathic predatory actors whom this Tyrant use. They have sworn an oath to their bestial gods to eradicate the very idea of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul and Spirit. The citizen militia movements know this. They hold fast to the sacred principle grounded in cherishing of the Right of Personal Selfhood—in sanctifying the Right of the Individual TO BE Individual in the face of a Tyrannical Government and of predatory men and predatory groups whose sworn purpose is to kill the idea of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul and Spirit. _______________________________

THE GOVERNMENT’S ATTACK ON CITIZEN MILITIAS IS AN OBLIQUE ATTACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

In treating citizen militia groups as domestic terrorist organizations, this tyrannical Government has created a false chimera to delude the public about these groups. This sham Government intends to springboard off its attack on militia groups to target tens of millions of gun owners. For it is indeed the armed citizenry—this citizen army—that does serve as a threat to a Tyrant, as well that citizen army should.The dire situation facing the Nation today is the inverse of one that prompted one legal scholar and military officer to write, over twenty years ago——“In 1998, Americans were exposed to the specter of martial law in the form of a hit movie, ‘The Siege.’ The movie vividly depicted the aftermath of a terrorist attack on New York City where the government declared martial law and rounded up thousands of Arab-Americans and put them in internment camps. Unfortunately, at some time in the future, life may imitate art and America's experience with martial law may extend outside the movie theater into reality. It seems obvious that a number of anti-American groups exist both within and without our borders that would not hesitate to employ terrorism and other tactics that could result in upheaval and, perhaps, anarchy within our country.  The circumstances that would prompt a declaration of martial law are so horrendous that they are almost beyond contemplation. But that dreadful eventuality should not translate into a lack of preparation, for if the nation is prepared, it is less likely to fear even the most awful possibilities. Those who worry about the profound legal, moral and social implications of declaring martial law must seriously contemplate Thomas Jefferson’s insightful words:‘A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means . . . The officer who is called to act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the Constitution, and his station makes it his duty to incur that risk . . . . The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer is bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.’” “The Imposition of Martial Law In The United States,” 49 A.F. L. Rev. 67, (2000), by Major Kirk L. Davies, Chief of Operations Law in the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, 16th Air Force, Aviano AB, Italy.Necessity and Self-Preservation inform Thomas Jefferson's consideration that, perhaps, the U.S. Constitution might, in theory, one day, need be suspended if the threat to the continued existence of the Country as a free Constitutional Republic were sufficiently severe. On that score, Jefferson is wrong. Under no circumstances ought, under a Deontological ethical theory of morality, suspension of the Constitution—which would, thus, mean, suspension of the Bill of Rights—ever be warranted. It is anathema because it is the sovereign authority of the people in whom the Country as a free Constitutional Republic exists. Suspension of the Nation's Bill of Rights is tantamount to the destruction of the very Republic that Thomas Jefferson, as cited by the author of the afore referenced article talks about preserving. Be that as it may, the dire situation facing the Nation today springs from a Government that operates contra to the Constitution and exists for no purpose other than to destroy a free Republic, i.e., to destroy a sovereign American people. Tyranny of Government=_dfTreason By Government.The American people have no duty to suffer a Government whose very existence is directed to the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic, ergo destruction of the sovereignty of the American people over Government. And in that regard and given the fact that the very presence of this imposter—a senile, corrupt, flaccid, incompetent placeholder of a hidden ruthless force—occupying the Executive Branch of Government, as Chief Executive, is the face of an immense, elaborate and diabolical fraud perpetrated on the American people, the American people have a right and the concomitant responsibility to voice vociferous objection to the inanity observed. But, no armed resistance should be effectuated against this Harris-Biden Administration until or unless the Administration itself initiates action against the American people. And what kind of action on the part of this sham Government against the people would amount to an act necessitating active resistance would be if the Administration were to issue a state of emergency culminating in the declaration of martial law suspending exercise of the fundamental, natural rights including most specifically, the suspension of the right of dissent against the Government coupled with the nationwide suspension of the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. Nothing like that has ever occurred in the history of the Country, not during world wars, nor even during the American Civil War, apart from Lincoln's declaration of suspension of Habeas Corpus, which was a radical and arguably illegal action on the part of Lincoln's Government. And that suspension of Habeas Corpus was rightfully criticized. Compare Lincoln's reprehensible action to the recent unlawful detention of American citizens ostensibly predicated on rioting at or in the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, including allegations of beatings of detainees during unlawful detention. See, e.g., May 2021 article on this in The American Spectator. And, nary a voice complains in the Press, or in Congress. Even Republicans have remained oddly and painfully silent. Is there not sound and valid evidence of violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S Constitution, and evidence of de facto suspension of Habeas Corpus here? Pelosi's January 6 Star Chamber Commission is ongoing. See article in The Spectator. Yet, Congressional Republicans haven't demanded investigations of numerous and serious allegations of violations of the Constitutional rights of American citizens apropos of the January 6, 2021 incident. In fact, for all the hoopla surrounding violations of American citizens' Constitutional Rights, Pelosi dismisses those deep concerns out-of-hand. And she demonstrates something palpably more than mere reluctance about sharing with the public all available and pertinent January 6 video evidence and emails—including, no doubt, her own emails—that would certainly shed more, and likely ALL, light, on what truly inspired events of that day. On February 2022, Judicial Watch pointed out, disconcertingly, albeit, unsurprisingly, as reported infra, Nancy Pelosi's unconscionable attempt to hide what can only be described as damning, and likely exculpatory, evidence that, if released would not only serve to exonerate the actions of the defendants but would serve to implicate herself and many of her cohorts. “Judicial Watch announced that it filed an opposition to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police department, Congress argues that the videos and emails are not public records, there is no public interest in their release, and that ‘sovereign immunity’ prevents citizens from suing for their release.Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit under the common law right of access after the Capitol Police refused to provide any records in response to a January 21, 2021, request (Judicial Watch v. United States Capitol Police (No. 1:21-cv-00401)). Judicial Watch asks for:

• Email communications between the U.S. Capitol Police Executive Team and the Capitol Police Board concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021 through January 10, 2021.

• Email communications of the Capitol Police Board with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021through January 10, 2021.

• All video footage from within the Capitol between 12 pm and 9 pm on January 6, 2021

Congress exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Judicial Watch, therefore, brought its lawsuit under the common law right of access to public records. In opposing the broad assertion of secrecy, Judicial Watch details Supreme Court and other precedents that upholds the public’s right to know what “their government is up to:”‘In ‘ “the courts of this country’— including the federal courts—the common law bestows upon the public a right of access to public records and documents” … “the Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that there is a federal common law right of access ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents.’ ” . . . ‘[T]he general rule is that all three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are subject to the common law right.” The right of access is “a precious common law right . . . that predates the Constitution itself.’The Court of Appeals for this circuit has recognized that ‘openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government. . . .’ ‘Neither our elected nor our appointed representatives may abridge the free flow of information simply to protect their own activities from public scrutiny. An official policy of secrecy must be supported by some legitimate justification that serves the interest of the public office.’‘The Pelosi Congress (and its police department) is telling a federal court it is immune from all transparency under law and is trying to hide every second of its January 6 videos and countless emails,’ stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. ‘The hypocrisy is rich, as this is the same Congress that is trying to jail witnesses who, citing privileges, object to providing documents to the Pelosi rump January 6 committee.’In November 2021 Judicial Watch revealed multiple audio, visual photo records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building.  The records include a cell phone video of the shooting and audio of a brief police interview of the shooter, Lt. Michael Byrd. In October, Judicial Watch released records, showing that multiple officers claimed they didn’t see a weapon in Babbitt’s hand before Byrd shot her, and that Byrd was visibly distraught afterward. One officer attested that he didn’t hear any verbal commands before Byrd shot Babbitt.Also in November, Judicial Watch filed a response in opposition to the Department of Justice’s effort to block Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit asking for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transaction records of people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021. Judicial Watch argues that Justice Department should not be allowed to shield ‘improper activity.’”Let us hope the Third Branch of our Federal Government has not been corrupted to the extent of the First and Second Branches, and that unethical conduct and outright crimes will be available to the public. It is only through complete disclosure and transparency of unethical and outright illegal conduct of Congressional Legislators and their staff, and of the unethical and illegal conduct of high-level Executive Department Officials and Officers, that these horrible people may yet be brought to account for their criminal behavior—that our Federal Government may yet be salvaged, for the sake of our Constitution and for the American citizenry.One would have to go back to the days prior to Nationhood when the British attempted to confiscate the colonists' arms. This may not have been the singular match that lit the powder keg starting the American War for Independence, but it certainly was one of the major reasons. See the article titled, “Gun Control and the American Revolution,” by the Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel, published on the website, Guns&Tactics. The article commences, thus——“This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: ‘That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.’ A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.”See also article in the Morning Call.The insidious thing about present-day events is that the shadowy forces that seek to destroy this Nation and, hence, the sovereignty of the American people, have deviously, surreptitiously attacked the Nation and its people and the Nation's Constitution from within. They have employed corrupt treacherous instruments of tyranny to betray the Nation. Under the pretense of serving the Country and its people by the very fact of being Office-holders, these characters have been betraying the Country and its people, implementing policies, prepared for them by outside, powerful, ruthless elements. All of these policies are aimed at destroying the Country. Some of these policies can be seen in U.N. compacts and position papers that Congress has never signed onto, such as the Open Borders policies. The policies are inconsistent with U.S. law. The Biden Administration has implemented them anyway. And then blatantly lies about such policies, claiming the Borders are closed. And, yet two million illegal aliens have skipped through our Borders since the Great Imposter, Joe Biden, took Office. And tens, even hundreds, of thousands more, are even now, making their way through Panama to the Southern Boundary of the U.S.The sole purpose of this Harris-Biden Administration is to serve as a convenient cover for the true powers, running the Government. It is they who feed their toady, Biden, and his Cabinet officers and other high-ranking Executive Branch officials with their marching orders—policies and initiatives designed to hobble and destroy a free Republic under the guise of serving it.But Americans still have a chance to salvage their Country and their sovereignty in whom a free Constitutional Republic resides. And many Americans are waking up to the possibility that all is not lost. Americans can still prevail if they do not allow themselves to be dissuaded by the plethora of false messaging, and continue to hold fast to their faith in themselves, and in the one True God, and in our Nation’s sacred history, heritage, and core Christian values.______________________________

AMERICAN CULTURE REQUIRES AN ARMED CITIZENRY TO GUARD AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT

It is our hope that the richness and vibrancy of our Nation—a free Republic, gained at great personal risk taken by and great personal sacrifice made by the Nation’s first Patriots, through the American Revolution Of 1776—will long be preserved. And it is our fervent hope that the blood spilled by American Patriots in the decades and centuries since, to keep our Nation strong and true to the words set in stone in our Nation’s founding documents, will not have been in vain.As in those decades and centuries past, Americans living today now see that they need not sit idly by, passively resigned to the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist world post-nation-state feudal empire, ruled by Communist China and those in the employ of the Rothschild Banking dynasty, such as George Soros. That nightmarish world need not come to pass. But, even the millions of “liberal-minded” Americans are beginning to realize that, for far too long, they have been played for fools. They are finally coming to their senses. They clearly see what is at stake. They have, at long last, awakened from their long slumber that all-encompassing, and thoroughly noxious psychological conditioning has coaxed them into. And the stirring of Americans en masse is not lost on the Nation’s would-be Destroyers. They know the jig is up, and it scares the hell out of them.Americans are beginning to realize that, for far too long, they have been played for fools. They are finally coming to their senses. They clearly see what is at stake. They are at long last awakening from the long slumber that the propagandists have coaxed them into. And that isn't lost on the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist would-be destroyers of the Nation either. They, too, are cognizant that the jig is up, and it scares the hell out of them.Of course, those in America’s militia movement were never fooled by the game plan of the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists; were never taken in by it. So, naturally, they were and are vigorously attacked for their opposition to it, and are treated as the primary instigators of it. The enemies of our Nation will not abide the militia movement; will have none of it; are dead-set against it, and are chastising those who happen to champion it.Back in 2020, the corrupting, malignant Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist forces constantly blared out that Trump is a threat to “liberal democracy.” The New York Times was and still is one of the primary pipe organs of the forces that crush. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/opinion/liberals-conservatives-trump-america.html. Yet, even with Trump out-of-office, which came about only through massive unethical and unlawful engineering of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, these malignant, malevolent forces are still at it, bemoaning the threat to “liberal democracy” by everyone and everything that pushes back against them. And the pushback is strong and enormous; for the aims of the corruptors of a free Constitutional Republic are crystalizing, becoming noticeable, too obvious for any American to rationally deny. And these Americans, of a liberal mindset, don’t like what they are seeing; don’t like what is taking shape before their eyes. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/world/americas/democracy-decline-worldwide.htm, Americans Do recognize that theirs is an “American Culture” to have and to hold. And Americans Do see that malevolent forces Do exist and Do intend to crush both it and them into submission. But what is this thing, ‘American Culture,’ that America’s enemies erroneously scorn and mock as a ‘Gun Culture?’ How is ‘American Culture,’ identified?It is identified by and exemplified through the Bill of Rights—a codification of elemental Natural law Rights and Liberties residing intrinsically in Man. The keystone and epitome of “American Culture” Is Freedom: Freedom Of Thought; Freedom Of Action; Freedom Of Will And Spirit; the Right of the Individual to be Individual, free from Government encroachment and coercion.American Culture takes as axiomatic—self-evident true—the existence of a body of Natural Law Rights and Liberties that emanate from an infinite benevolent and morally perfect Divine Creator. This means Natural Law Rights and Liberties exist intrinsically in man, bestowed on and in Man by the Divine Creator. These Rights and Liberties are not constructs created by Man through an operation of Government, and it is an error to think it so. The Nation’s Bill of Rights comprises a set of fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal Rights and Liberties. The laws laid down in the Bill of Rights are not all-inclusive, as the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights makes abundantly clear.Nonetheless, the salient Natural Rights and Liberties are explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights.These sacred Rights and Liberties serve as both a constant reminder and warning to those serving in Government that they are servants of the American people and that the Federal Government—as all Government—operates at the exclusive pleasure of the American people and exists for no purpose other than to serve the interests of the American people. Government is nothing more than a manmade contrivance, an artificial device that must cease to exist once it fails to recognize or fails to remember for whom it exists to serve.All Natural Rights are ultimately subsumed in and encapsulated in the Second Amendment Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms—a right that is absolute and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That Right is itself subsumed in the fundamental Right of self-defense—the cornerstone of the fundamental Right of Autonomy that exemplifies the sanctity and inviolability of the Soul—the seat of Man's Free Will.A Government of limited Power and Authority and a set of unlimited Rights and Liberties are the building blocks upon which true American Culture is built and in which it has, since the inception of the Republic, resided.Our Constitution is the blueprint for and the foundation for——

• A free Republic;
• An independent, sovereign Nation-State; and,
• A free, independent, sovereign people.

It is this Constitution which the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists both here and abroad contemptuously scorn and constantly deride through such pejorative descriptors as ‘old,’ ‘outmoded,’ ‘antiquated,’ ‘archaic,’ ‘anachronistic,’ ‘out of touch with international law and international norms,’ ‘inconsistent with the constitutions of other countries.’ In fact, our Constitution is unique and that is a good thing—it is the very thing that allowed this Nation to become the most prosperous, powerful Nation on Earth. So, then, why would the Neo-Marxists consider this to be such a bad thing?In truth, it is the very success of the United States on all important indices that Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists find frustratingly, extraordinarily difficult to attack in any convincing manner. So they create fiction, fairy tales, fanciful horror stories in their unconscionable attempt to convince Americans that the Country is inherently evil—that the Nation was conceived and constructed on the backs of African slaves and indigenous American Natives. By postulating that the Republic is inherently immoral, these ingrates attempt to convince Americans that the Nation ought not to continue to exist in its present form; that it never deserved to exist.The dogma thus created is nothing but a façade, a cloak, a disguise to mask the Neo-Marxists deep-seated antipathy toward, even loathing, of the very success of America for over 200 years of its existence as a free Constitutional Republic. But these Neo-Marxists are able to tap into an inexhaustible supply of money made available to them through over 200 George Soros-connected organizations and these Soros organizations have slowly, inexorably attacked the very underpinnings of America’s institutions. And, the more secretive Rothschild network lurks above the Soros organizations, unseen, but the Rothschild tentacles are vast. They are everywhere and their negative impact is felt deeply in the United States. See, e.g., articles in Stillness in the Storm, and American Patriot Contact Tracers.Major News Organizations that have not sold their souls to the Neo-Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalists need to be more outspoken about the threat these ruthless elements pose to the Nation. Some commentators, such as Tucker Carlson of Fox News, have demonstrated courage just to mention George Soros, by name, explicitly, as a singular danger to our free Constitutional Republic, which Soros is. News publications such as Epoch Times, the New York Post, and The Washington Times have done their part, but they need to do more.Soros, after all, isn’t operating in a vacuum. Both he and the major technology companies are working in concert through a much larger and shadowy network of destructive influences across the globe that are dead set on destroying the nation-state paradigm. More investigative work needs to be done. The fate of the western world hinges on the strength of the American people to remain true to their Constitution—and, especially, to their Bill of Rights and never doubt for a moment the absolute importance of keeping and bearing arms. For only through an armed citizenry can a free Republic and Sovereign people truly expect to survive. A transglobal world empire cannot be accomplished without the inclusion of the resources of the United States. It is for this reason the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have spent so much time, money, and organizational effort to undermine the Country. Americans must see to it that these ruthless forces do not succeed.While many of the forces behind the effort to destroy the Nation cannot be easily discerned, absent serious investigation, the negative effects, and impact of the assault and treachery on our Nation, the Constitution, and people cannot be reasonably, rationally denied. Consider:

• Release of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus into the Country

• Massive Electoral Fraud Perpetrated on the American people in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, and deceitfully, incessantly Denied by a Seditious Press

• Misapplication or Outright Dismissal of the Dictates of Law and Constitution by both the present Administration and by the Pelosi/Schumer run Congress

• Illegal Usurpation of the Sovereign Authority of the American Citizenry over the Federal Government

• Incessant and Blatant Lies and Deceit to Cover up the Emasculation of the Country’s Military

• Unlawful Commandeering of DOJ/FBI, Military, and Intelligence Apparatuses of the Nation by the Administrative Deep State to Target Innocent Americans

• Illegal Attempts by the puppet Harris-Biden Administration to Federalize State Electoral Systems; State Education Systems; and State and Local Police Forces

• Unlawful Commandeering of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Department and Department of Labor’s OSHA to implement an Authoritarian Regime over the American People in defiance of the Bill of Rights and in contradistinction to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Illegal Suspension of Habeas Corpus in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

• Treating Serious Gun Crimes committed by Common Criminals as misdemeanors (reported in the western journal) 

• Bombastic Threat of Global Thermonuclear War against Russia over the Ukraine, that sits on Russia’s border, see International Business Times but noticeably docile over China’s Geopolitical Ambitions

And, the list goes on——The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist stooges in Government constantly talk of “DEMOCRACY.” They constantly banter that only the “Democrat Party” is interested in preserving DEMOCRACY in the Country, without bothering to explain how any American would object to that or to them.But, think for a moment what it is that these stooges in Government don’t bother to mention when they continuously throw out the word ‘Democracy’ and claim that they are all for it and that they are the only protectors of it. They never mention the word ‘freedom.’ And why is that? Might it be that ‘freedom’ is, after all, associated with Natural Law:“THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE INDIVIDUAL.”Freedom is a function of the autonomy of the individual. It embodies the sanctity and inviolability of the Human Soul.Democracy as understood by the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal stooges has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy for these detestable creatures is just a word that sounds “good” and plays well to the target audience. What they are talking about is “Direct Democracy” as Majority Rule. The Majority Rule for these stooges is associated with Mob Rule. And what is Mob Rule? Mob Rule is predicated on the idea that people, as a group, tend to operate simplistically through emotion, and emotion is susceptible to easy manipulation. Mob Rule is ascendant in our Country, pushed by the Neo-Marxist Pelosi/Schumer-led Congress. The Government doesn't talk of Mob Rule though. The Government refers to something called ‘Direct Democracy,’ but this is simply a device that makes it easy for Tyrants to control the mob. And many there are in this mob of millions that accept control by Tyrants, even relish it, as long as their minimal physical needs are met. The mob is simply a vast collection of malcontents, and idiots—the dregs of society—and always looking for handouts, as are the millions of illegal aliens that the Obstructors and Destructors of our Country are intent on utilizing to assist in erasing a free Constitutional Republic. But the mob also includes otherwise intelligent people who give too little thought to the fact of the swindlers, grifters, and sociopaths in public office who are using hard-earned taxpayer dollars to line their pockets and those of special interests and couldn't care less about the interests of the American people. And many Americans seem not to mind or assume that there is nothing they can do about any of that anyway. So they would rather indulge themselves with the fluff available to them through the agency of mass entertainment—fluff carefully orchestrated to keep them from thinking about the fate of their life, and those of their Country and Countrymen, at all.And the Government stooges understanding the usefulness of mobs, are intent on loosening voting standards to give voting rights eventually to millions of convicted felons and to millions of illegal itinerant aliens who feel beholden to a Government that will provide them safe haven, free education for their kiddies, food, lodging—free everything—all the bare necessities that will allow them to live their lives as contented little sheep.The only thing these SHEEP won’t have will be “FREEDOM”—FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, OF ACTION, AND OF WILL.But with FREEDOM—TRUE FREEDOM—comes ATTENDANT DUTY AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Those individuals who are slothful by nature and who otherwise are encouraged by a Government willing to give them handouts for their vote, don't care about FREEDOM and the attendant duty and responsibility that comes with real FREEDOM. They would rather forsake the sanctity of Selfhood, the Right to be left alone. They would willingly forsake THE RIGHT TO DEMAND TO BE LEFT ALONE AS RIGHT TO BE ARMED OBLIGES, IF GRUDGINGLY, BY THOSE IN GOVERNMENT. They would give up all of it for a few crumbs and trinkets—dutiful little sheep, easily coddled.Sheep prefer to have Government take care of them. It is easier to allow the Government to care of them, of their basic needs, than to invest time and effort in themselves; to take responsibility for their own life. But then such sheep eventually end up in the slaughterhouse—all of them. Yet until the last moment, sheep never give a thought to that, and when that moment does come around, as it will, as it must, it will be too late to protest, much too late, as they are left with no tenable means to defend themselves. Indeed, many will go resignedly to their deaths anyway. It would be much easier to relent than to resist. That is what they have been trained to do; what they have been conditioned to do.Intensive investigative work on these destructive forces and influences on our Nation needs to be done. But, it rests upon the will strength, and tenacity, and courage of average Americans to do this work. Don't expect this work from the Press. And don't expect help from Congress. For most of Congress is “on the take” or otherwise impotent. And that demented fool hunkered down in the Executive Suite has no more control over the Executive Branch of Government than he likely has over his own bladder and bowels. Such is the state of our Nation. Had he any sense of pride of self and dignity over himself, he would have spared both himself and the Nation from making fools of both. Alas, he does not. But the shadowy and sinister puppet-masters who have orchestrated the creation of the EU and the UN and who are orchestrating the demise of our Country are not fools. They are as crafty and intelligent as they are evil and ruthless. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the policies they have crafted and implemented to destabilize the political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical structures and institutions of the U.S. go hand-in-hand with their desire to transform the very appearance of our Nation into burlesque. From Biden and Harris right on down the line, the creatures that the puppet-masters have selected to inhabit the highest Offices of the Federal  Government were not selected merely for their incompetence and for lack of any sense of personal integrity, and moral decency. No! They were carefully screened and selected to appear like the buffoons they are. A circus needs its troupe of harlequins. And, those marched out in front of the American people are calibrated to create an image on both the world stage as well as on the home front of a Nation that has devolved into a veritable “Punch and Judy” puppet show. And Americans are forced to watch this drivel and, more, to accept this shameful display to National pride as something to be emulated.From the CCP's unleashing of COVID upon the world (through the active assistance of or acquiescence of Government toadies) to the meticulously engineered creation of pseudo-English constructs and other crass and calculated strategies to induce confusion in one's thought processes; and through the investiture of a nonsense pseudo-ideology infecting the entirety of public and private U.S. institutions—this “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”—the United States and the rest of this so-called “free world” is all the verge of collapse. And it is all part of a grand, intricate, horrific design. But, the collapse of the U.S. and of western civilization is not a fait accompli. Much depends on the indomitability of the American will and spirit to resist this mental assault on the American psyche.The fate of the western world and of our own Country hinges on the strength of the American people to consciously remain true to themselves and to trust their inner moral guide; place faith in their history, heritage, and core Christian values; and remain steadfast to the tenets and precepts and principles of Individualism upon which our Constitution rests—and remain especially true to the most important component of our Constitution: the Bill of Rights.Take as a categorical imperative, the right, the need, and, yes, dare we say, duty of the patriotic American citizen, to always keep and bear arms. For only in the exercise of that Right can a free Republic and Sovereign people truly expect to survive and prevail against the forces that crush.A transglobal world empire cannot be accomplished without the inclusion of the resources of the United States. It is for this reason the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have spent exorbitant amounts of time, money, and organizational effort to undermine a Free Republic. But the Country is not Theirs. It is Ours. Remember that!_____________________________________________

THE PHRASES “GUN CULTURE” AND “GUN VIOLENCE” ARE NOTHING MORE THAN PROPAGANDA TOOLS TO DISTRACT AND CONFUSE THE UNWARY

PART FIVE

Anti-American propagandists have coined the expression ‘Gun Culture’ just as they have coined the phrase, ‘Gun Violence’ as propaganda devices.Malevolent, malignant forces use these coined phrases in tandem, in a deceitful attempt to generate, in the minds of suggestive members of the American public, an abhorrence of and phobia of firearms.There is a problem of “Violence,” in America, surely, but there is “Violence” in every country throughout the world.The insidious thing about violence existent in America is that it is compounded, multifold, by the fact Marxists in the Federal and State and Local Governments not only tolerate violence but actively encourage it; even commend and celebrate it. This accounts for the recent development of entirely new kinds of violence. One such is called the “smash and grab” operation. It has become so prevalent in Marxist-run Cities that it has become institutionalized. How is this possible? Take a look at this article in “The Republican Daily” for one.Neo-Marxists rationalize, even attempt to justify this imbecilic “Smash and Grab” violence. They see it as an acceptable vehicle to provide “Reparation Payments” to Blacks because Congress won’t enact laws to give tax-payer money to black Americans. But why should they? See the article in “Fleeting Freedom.”In allowing for this, Government makes fools of those blacks who take part in it.Many, if not all of these blacks, are nothing more than common criminals who, not surprisingly, have realized the great opportunity given to them by the Neo-Marxist-controlled Government. And, these people are just the sort to vote into office Neo-Marxists—as long as voting is made easy enough for them. That helps explain the Neo-Marxists' urgency to pass comprehensive voting-made-simple legislation for citizens and non-citizens alike, the latter of which shouldn't be voting anyway—but, hell, who would know if there is no mechanism to ensure the integrity of the voting process?Neo-Marxists are encouraging the worst elements of society to engage in the worst conduct. It is all part of their grand design to destabilize the Country, thus ushering in their new world order regime.Neo-Marxists have already decriminalized violence in many parts of the Country and have given meager arguments at best to support it. Perpetrators of these crimes apparently don’t realize—or otherwise are so giddy of being encouraged to engage in felonious criminal misconduct unimpeded—that they don’t care that Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist “white” elites are playing them for dupes. But there is a price tag for this behavior; a price to be paid; a day of reckoning is around the corner. If these Corruptors of America do take over the Country, they will subjugate all Americans, regardless of their race or ethnicity. to a state of abject penury, surveillance, and control.This explains why Neo-Marxists and fabulously wealthy Neoliberal Globalists, alike, are not interested in dealing with the true cause of pathological criminal violence. It is in their interest to promote such violence, consistent with their aims to tear down a free Republic, thus making way for a transformational Collectivist regime in America. And they are following through with their plan to pervert the Nation’s youth. Marxism has gone mainstream. The Destructors of society are absolutely shameless.The corrupt, alien, thoroughly detestable Black Lives Movement is actively, avidly proselytizing around the Country. And Government—our Government—celebrates it. Parents are justifiably alarmed and outraged at the presumptuousness and audaciousness at these efforts to corrupt even the most innocent of Americans—our children. Parents Defending Education are fighting back. See their web article, titled, “‘Black Lives Matter at School’ in K-12 Classrooms Nationwide in 2022.”  And see Article on the same website, titled, “Denver Elementary School announces plans to instruct kindergartners and 1st graders about why it’s important to disrupt the nuclear family and be trans and queer affirming; they host racially segregated playground nights too.” These articles draw attention to the calumny of the highest order—defamation of our entire way of life.The forces that aim to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic have orchestrated, implemented, and are exploiting the violence occurring across the Country that they deliberately enabled. Their aim is to induce a rapid breakdown of law and order, in public schools, in the greater social community, in houses of worship in business, in entertainment, in Government, even down to the individual family. No area of civic or personal life is to be left untouched by the forces that desire to crush this Nation. Every sector of the economy and every institution is to be affected, thus demoralizing and destabilizing society. These malignant forces intend to scorch and burn to ashes the entirety of our Nation down to the minutest detail.Had Trump not been denied a second term in Office, this breakdown of law and order would not have occurred. It would have been stopped in its tracks, all of it; and the serious fractures and the gaping ruptures in our Nation would be repaired and the Country could commence the long healing process to both the physical body politic and the Nation's psyche. Americans would have seen a re-stabilization of society and the revival of a booming economy to replace the present stagnant disintegrating one. The free Constitutional Republic would be conserved and preserved intact. It would be the incorrigible lunatics, psychopaths, common criminal elements, and tens of millions of itinerant illegal aliens and rabid transnational criminal gangs that have been allowed to gain a foothold in our Nation that would lose out. And to that list, we could add malevolent, malignant, and rabid Neo-Marxist and Anarchist gangs and similar assorted riff-raff that would lose out.And, too, the Mega-Billionaire and Trillionaire Neoliberal Globalists would also lose out. They would be compelled to rethink and recalibrate their goal of creating a mammoth neo-feudalistic post-nation-state, transnational world empire. Thus their goal of a new world order, sans the United States, would have to wait decades or a century longer. They would not be pleased.But Trump is not in Office. Still, the desperation of the Neo-Marxists and Neo-Liberal Globalists is palpable. The public, seeing what one year of the puppet Biden has wrought, is signaling that, maybe, some voters, made a huge mistake in voting for the senile, corrupt stooge, Biden.The forces that aim to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic have orchestrated, implemented, and are exploiting the violence occurring across the Country that they deliberately enabled. Their aim is to induce a rapid breakdown of law and order, and thereby demoralize and destabilize society.The fear is readily apparent in recent articles of their propaganda tool, The New York Times. The articles have become increasingly strident, demonstrating how frantic the Neo-Marxist Democrats are to get their voting package through Congress. And it doesn't look like that is going to happen.In the most recent articles, the Times has argued how critical it is that the Senate approve the combined voting rights package that passed the house. That won’t happen unless the Senate changes its filibuster Rule. But that isn’t going to happen either. The New York Post explains:“Congressional Democrats will begin a futile bid to jam sweeping election reform through the Senate and alter its 60-vote legislative filibuster later Thursday when the House votes on a bill merging two separate voting measures.The complex effort is certain to fail due to opposition by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) to changing the filibuster rule — and a new memo from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) suggests a promised showdown vote may not happen at all.Democrats have opted to use an unrelated bill extending NASA’s property leasing authority as the vehicle to send both the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act to the Senate.The newly constructed measure cleared two procedural votes in the House along party lines late Wednesday and a vote on final passage is expected at midmorning Thursday.Because the original bill was already passed by the House and Senate, Schumer does not need 60 votes to open debate on the election proposals. Republicans repeatedly blocked debate in the 50-50 Senate on both the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act last year and none are expected to support cloture when Schumer moves to end debate.”The mega-Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters successfully seated their senile, corrupt, physically and emotionally wreck of a man in the Executive Branch of Government, having successfully carried out their quiet coup of the Government, these shadowy forces that crush have urged Americans to accept the explanation for and acquiesce to all of the imbecilic foreign and domestic policy blunders and failures. Many or all of these policy failures weren’t really failures at all. They were deliberately designed to weaken and destabilize the Nation, and they have.Some Americans have acquiesced to and are resigned to the loss of their Nation, or—among the most ignorant or lazy among Americans—have bought into the nonsense with little prodding. Most Americans who have originally voted for the Biden, have, though, come around to their senses, realizing they have been played for jackasses, taken in by the claim, as broadcast by the many propaganda arms in the Press and Social Media that Biden is a “Political Moderate” and will unify the Country. Never mind that the guy never campaigned even though he, as the U.S. Presidential contender, would have certainly been expected to do so. But, then, the man is a blithering idiot, his mind addled by years of dementia. Better it was to let the idiot’s many stand-ins do his campaigning for him.And, as many people were so brainwashed to fear a second term from Trump—even though they couldn’t think of anything the man did that was ever wrong for the Country, or for them personally—they mindlessly allowed themselves to be taken in by the propagandists.But most Americans who accepted a Biden Presidency as preferable to Trump, are beginning to push back, realizing their error—realizing that real autocracy lay with the Harris-Biden Administration, not with the Trump Administration. The idea that Trump was/is the Autocrat was another bit of fiction that all too many American were all too ready to believe even though a few minutes of contemplative thought would have made clear how ridiculous the notion.And many Americans are beginning to push back hard even as a few holdouts, having been early and completely seduced into accepting the Neo-Marxist propaganda, are, psychologically, too far gone to return to sanity. They have turned irrevocably into brain-damaged acolytes of the incessant nonsense propagated by the Press and the media. But is it too late, then, for the Country?The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalists know that, when the screws tighten slowly, inexorably, the public becomes more inured to the pain and anguish. But there is a line in the sand the Government and its many friends and agents in the Press, in social media, in business and finance, in academia, and in entertainment do not yet feel confident to cross. Yet, at some point, in time, they will definitely try, as they must. And that day may be coming sooner than most Americans think. And, with the midterms rapidly approaching, and with the unlikelihood that they will get their voting package passed, without which the forces that would destroy the Country will definitely lose control of Congress in November 2022, they must go for broke.The Government must engage in the attempt at mass gun confiscation very soon. But, how will that play out? Authoritarianism has already taken root—in a way that has never existed before.Still, most Americans believe that however appalling and heinous the Government’s actions have been since Biden took Office, they will never see a day when the Government would dare demand mass confiscation of guns, let alone would the Government actually be able to accomplish it.But, then, consider: How inconceivable would the actions of the toadies in the Federal Government, and of the other assorted grovelers and lackeys operating on Government’s behalf, seem to Americans even thirty years ago if they were to imagine the breadth and depth to which authoritarianism has taken firm root in our Country today, and as it marches toward outright totalitarianism tomorrow? Americans would think it all well-nigh impossible.Much of America is in denial and has been so for many years. But that will surely change. It is changing. It must change.For, if an attitude of placid acceptance to Federal Government control over our life, or quiet acquiescence to it, or blunt obsequious groveling in the face of it, does not change, the United States, as a free Constitutional Republic, will cease to exist. The Nation will become nothing more than a small and forgotten footnote of history; not a vestige of its prior greatness would remain.And America’s descendants will never know they were once a free and powerful people, destined—through tenacity and a hard-fought war for independence from tyranny—to live and thrive in a free Constitutional Republic as sovereign rulers over Government.__________________________________________

THE NEO-MARXIST AGENDA REVOLVES AROUND CONVINCING AMERICANS TO ACKNOWLEDGE AMERICA’S “GUN CULTURE” AND TO RENOUNCE IT

PART SIX

It must be reiterated. There IS NO AMERICAN “GUN CULTURE.” That notion is merely a fiction, and a makeweight into which Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have cast everything they abhor about a free Constitutional Republic. “Gun Culture” becomes a descriptor for other fictions: “White Supremacism;” “Police Brutality;” “Systemic Racism;” “Toxic Masculinity;” and so on and so forth—all fictions, created and thrust on the American public to deceive them into accepting a new and perpetual Neo-Marxist reign.The phrase ‘Gun Culture’ has also become a stand-in and general descriptor for other false claims, including such claims that America is inherently:

• RACIST
• XENOPHOBIC
• NATIVIST
• JINGOISTIC
• CHAUVINISTIC
• PAROCHIAL, PROVINCIAL, UNSOPHISTICATED
• OBSTINANT, RECALCITRANT, INTRANSIGENT, IGNORANT

Radical Left elements blame it all on the Second Amendment. They ultimately pin the wrap on America’s “Gun Culture,” i.e., on everything they perceive as wrong about America. They see this false notion of American “Gun Culture” as emanating from average Americans desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. What the Radical Left doesn’t accept or even acknowledge is that the desire to exercise the right to acquire, own, and possess firearms is grounded on the God-given right of self-defense against predatory creature and predatory Government.Yet, Marxists don’t even accept the notion of a rational basis for the right of self-defense, let alone a right of armed self-defense.The Arbalest Quarrel has discussed this idea in depth. See, e.g., the recent AQ article titled, “Tyranny, Fundamental Rights, and the Armed Citizen,” posted on December 2, 2021. But, if anything at all is to be sensibly made of the idea of a purported “Gun Culture” in America, it is nothing more than the manifestation of the Neo-Marxists’ own tolerance of, even encouragement of, criminal use of guns to prey on innocent Americans, whether black or white. But that is hardly something the Neo-Marxists would care to acknowledge.Nonetheless, if there is anything to be made of this notion it is that “Gun Culture” equates with the Neo-Marxist tolerance of, even encouragement of “Criminal Violence” of which “Gun Violence” is merely an aspect of such violence. Thus, “guns” as used in crime are not a “cause” of violence. Firearms are merely one of many tools used in the commission of violent criminal acts, according to FBI statistics.Read how one Leftist-leaning academician spouts his contempt for America’s “Gun Culture” and the imbecilic assertions he makes, attacking both the police and the natural right of self-defense. The below article appears in the Leftist publication, Boston Review:“On August 25, 2020, in my hometown of Kenosha, Wisconsin, seventeen-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse joined several other white vigilantes with AR-15-style rifles. They came purportedly to defend businesses from people protesting the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a twenty-nine-year-old Black man. A few days earlier, a police officer had shot Blake seven times in the back outside of his car, while his sons were in the backseat.Despite violating a city curfew, Rittenhouse and other vigilantes were given bottles of water by the police, who told them, ‘We appreciate you guys, we really do.’ Within hours, Rittenhouse had shot three protestors, killing two of them. Overnight he became a hero among the far right, which enabled him to crowdsource his $2 million bail. Rittenhouse’s actions, acquittal, and celebrity status are the culmination of a tactical turn in U.S. gun culture, which began in the late twentieth century. Tactical clothing, training, weaponry, and language have now become commonplace among private gun owners and law enforcement, rendering both nearly indistinguishable from soldiers. Individual gun owners are increasingly seeing themselves as de facto militia members regardless of whether they engage in paramilitary training or formally associate with an organization. Even law enforcement officers who don’t serve in tactical units are now ‘armed, dressed, trained, and conditioned like soldiers,’ writes Radley Balko in Rise of the Warrior Cop (2014). . . . The freedom they defended was, indeed, not intended for everyone and the purpose of an armed segment of the population, as U.S. history has consistently demonstrated, was to enforce its exclusivity: an armed white citizenry, working in tandem with law enforcement, has for centuries sustained white rule in the United States through legal and extralegal violence. Violence is necessary to maintain what Martin Luther King, Jr., called ‘a democracy for white Americans but simultaneously a dictatorship over Black Americans.’ As for those ‘otherwise intelligent Americans’ . . . the history of white supremacy is replete with those who speak about universal rights yet doggedly pursue a white-dominated racial order. . . .In the late twentieth century, what had been . . . still only a subculture with disproportionate influence rose to the level of popular culture. At the same time, the forms of white supremacist rule it has historically supported now face legal challenge on par with what they faced during the classic civil rights era and Reconstruction. Though the story of this tactical development in U.S. gun culture is complex, I focus in this essay on a few particularly crucial components. The first is that border enforcement has been increasingly militarized since the 1970s and diffused deeper into the interior of the country. This has blurred the boundary between domestic and foreign conflict, brought the use of exceptional police powers into nearly every U.S. town, and turned militarized ‘border security’ into a ubiquitous mechanism of racialization. This has also corresponded with the militarization of local police forces, which was certainly worsened by the War on Terror, but which historian Elizabeth Hinton has identified as having deeper roots in the Johnson administration’s War on Crime. Like the nationalization of ‘border security,’ it turned the nation’s city streets into sites of militarized racial enforcement.Second, individuals once arming themselves for self-defense—often out of racial fears or a perceived threat to their masculinity—are now frequently claiming to do so in defense of the Constitution and freedom itself. The NRA has played an outsize role in this vigilante reframing by promulgating the myth that gun ownership has always been an individual, constitutional right and oriented toward a nativist vision of self-defense. This vigilantism operates in conjunction with the extralegal violence of law enforcement officers and is fueled by an individualist notion of sovereignty more dangerous than any military-grade weaponry. It rejects the freedom of others as equal to one’s own and views any attempt to support such equality as tyranny. Most importantly, this sovereignty is assumed to grant the individual the power to take life (vitae necisque potestas) in defense not of law, but of particular social and racial orders.”There is a lot to unpack here, but it is worth an analysis because the author’s sophistry encapsulates, better than many such articles, a true Neo-Marxist internationalist/Neoliberal Globalist contemptuousness toward Americans and toward the very precepts, tenets, and principles of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded.Preliminarily, we point out that the article came out fairly recently, December 17, 2021, and aptly describes, in an academic format, a definitive Neo-Marxist Anti-Second Amendment sentiment toward American gun ownership and possession. The article is also demonstrative of the extent to which Neo-Marxists design and construct elaborate fairy tales around that sentiment.The author of the article, Chad Kautzer, is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Lehigh University. Kautzer’s article appearing on the website, Boston Review, encapsulates the Neo-Marxist contemptuousness of America’s heritage and core values.Kautzer’s all-encompassing and obviously virulent disdain for America is detailed in his book, “Radical Philosophy.” Routledge Books published it, a few years ago, in 2015. Routledge is a major publisher of professional and academic books.A short review of the book makes clear the extent to which Kautzer extols the virtues of Marxism, Feminism, and something called “Queer Theory,” a thing concocted by Marxist Sociologists. See also, article in IU Libraries. This all goes to the glorification of victimhood, the Neo-Marxists mantra and new religious dogma, suffusing itself throughout the landscape of American society, perverting and polluting and corrupting the psyche of Americans.Most Americans are waking up to this fact, and the puppet-masters and their Government toadies know this and they are not too happy about it, but there isn’t much they can do to quell the rapidly rising resentment welling in the American people. _________________________________

THE PLAN FOR WHOLESALE GUN CONFISCATION  IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER

PART SEVEN

Chad Kautzer, the Neo-Marxist American philosopher, associates the idea of an American “Gun Culture” with notions of ‘white supremacism,’ ‘militias,’ and ‘police brutality toward blacks.’ See the article in Truth About Guns, by Dan Zimmerman, on Chad Kautzer’s nihilist philosophy, for another perspective on Kautzer.Everything negative about America in the mind of Neo-Marxists eventually circles back to America’s purported “Gun Culture”—more specifically, America’s purported “White Man’s Gun Culture.”America’s so-called “Gun Culture” is encapsulated in the primary premise upon which Neo-Marxists promulgate and propagate their deep-seated abhorrence of America: in what Kautzer refers to as “the myth that gun ownership has always been an individual, constitutional right and oriented toward a nativist vision of self-defense.”But the individual, constitutional right of armed self-defense against predatory animal, predatory man, and predatory Government isn’t myth at all. It is a God-given natural, unalienable right. It is a basic, inherent, axiomatic Truth. And, we are the only Nation on Earth that recognizes that fact. Small wonder, then, that those who envision a totalitarian new world order would seek to destroy, once and for all time, the sacred salient underpinning of that one remaining absolutely free Nation on Earth, and the one remaining truly sovereign people—all maintained and preserved forever by the one essential and incommensurable Right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. And, with that, the Neo-Marxists intend to destroy the very notion of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul and Spirit.How are the forces that crush going about this demanding task? Below is their game-plan

• Desecrate the very notion of the ‘armed citizenry.’
• Instill, in the mind of the polity, a phobia toward guns and a general animus toward those Americans who adamantly insist on owning them and bearing them
• Instigate a breakdown of public order
• Demoralize and generate fear and anxiety in the American people
• Declare a State of Emergency, necessitating the surrendering of all civilian-owned firearms to the appropriate authorities
• Engage in a mopping-up operation of those remaining Americans who fail to comply with the National Surrendering and Laying Down of Arms Emergency Order

Do you see what is going on here? Do you understand the Neo-Marxist game plan?Taking away exercise of the Second Amendment Right is well-nigh difficult, perhaps impossible. They know this to be difficult. They also know it to be necessary for the would-be Destroyers of America. For, if they can accomplish that, everything else becomes easy.

THERE IS NO AMERICAN “GUN CULTURE”: THAT IS A NEO-MARXIST PLOY TO ATTACK THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The American Neo-Marxist Kautzer uses the notion of an American “Gun Culture” as a strawman argument. Having created the fiction of it, and as it comes across as an inherently negative idea, as it is intended to do, Marxists suggest, and at times boldly assert that this idea of an American “Gun Culture” is inextricably linked to the Right codified in the Second Amendment.The tacit inference that the Marxist urges one to draw is that, since the notion of a society embroiled in a “Gun Culture” is a terrible society, that society can be only rectified by eliminating the salient cause of the troubles inherent in it. In other words, American society can begin to be regenerated as a psychologically healthy society if the right of the people to keep and bear arms is erased. And that is what people like Kautzer aim to do.In attacking the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Kautzer consciously and unabashedly attacks the American Soul—the very heart of the American psyche.This doesn’t bother people like Kautzer because he has inculcated his very being to envision the creation of a Marxist Collectivist America. But that goal is impossible to realize as long as the right embodied in the Second Amendment continues to exist.Having tied the sacred, natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms to this nonsensical “wild west” “Gun Culture,” strawman creation of the Radical Left, he sees the civilian gun ownership and possession as morally bankrupt and innately corrupt. So he has no compunctions in denouncing both. He and many other academics do so with relish. And a sympathetic Press and Social Media circuit heralds their works as major achievements.Kautzer also points to a so-called “Whiteness Problem,” in America. But, instead of proving the existence of such a thing, he takes aim against it. He treats it as self-evident, true, and runs with it. Kautzer invokes it as a real phenomenon, and not a myth—but this idea of a so-called “Whiteness Problem,” in America, is, as well really nothing but fiction. It is a thing deliberately carefully constructed and generated by, and cultivated and fostered by America’s Neo-Marxist movement. It is all part and parcel of an overall campaign strategy to destabilize American society.Race, though, if one should stop to think about it, has nothing to do with classical Marxism and never did.Classical Marxism divides the world’s classes neatly by income, not by race. Karl Marx saw the world as a dichotomy of Rich Capitalists versus Poor Laborers and not, as America’s Neo-Marxists portray it as one of elect white people versus damned colored people, that is to say, Privileged White People contrasted against “Preterite Damned  People, regardless of income status. The latter notion is more ridiculous than anything Karl Marx ever dreamed up. It suggests that people like the Obamas, Oprah Winfrey, and Lebron James—deca-millionaires or billionaires, all, suffer the pains of Sisyphus, while white Appalachian miners and oil refinery workers, who have always had a difficult life made all the worse by the Neo-Marxists’ “Green New Deal” nonsense, live the life of Riley. It is all absolute nonsense. But so the Neo-Marxists propagate it and proselytize,  this rubbish, endlessly, to the masses.But to argue this is to maintain that the color of one’s skin trumps the money in one’s bank. Indeed, if these fabulously wealthy colored people truly suffered because of their race, then a society that is fundamentally racist as the Neo-Marxists pretend, would never have enabled the Obama clan, Winfrey, James, and many other successful colored people to succeed.Classical Marxism doesn’t easily fit into the program orchestrated by and this paradigm promulgated by America’s would-be Destroyers of our Nation. So America's Neo-Marxists deny Classical Marxism out-of-hand, constructing their own simulacrum out of it and from it, even going so far as to attack adherents of Classical Marxism, suffering no resistance to their own contrived orthodoxy.America’s Neo-Marxists—predicating warfare not on the basis of wealth, i.e., economic class, but on race, irrespective of monetary wealth—deliberately instigate a rabid animus between and among Americans, and they do this to create and then to exploit tension between and among Americans. For, if Americans are warring among themselves, they will be too busy to notice that the Nation's Destructors are machinating the destruction of society to completely reengineer it. Adherence to the tenets and precepts and principles of Classical Marxism doesn't lend itself well to the destabilization of American society as quickly and as thoroughly as they want it to occur.Thus, America’s Neo-Marxists must do more than simply give little thought to Classical Marxism, they must actively denounce Classical Marxism along with anything else that contravenes or contradicts their belief systems. Fancy that! See the article in The New York Times on the topic.Modern Neo-Marxist internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists manufacture social and political contrivances and jargon to undermine the social, political, economic, cultural, and even juridical fabric and framework of the Country, grounded on one unique attribute upon which America’s greatness over all the other nations on Earth depends: the native ability of the American citizenry to keep the power of the Federal Government ever in check through the exercise of the natural God-given of armed self-defense. These fictions, postulated by Marxist academics, like Chad Kautzer, Ibram X. Kendi, Nicole Hanna Jones, and others, are disseminated by and reiterated ad nauseum by the legacy Press, by social media, and by Neo-Marxist commentators. They are unconscionably treated as gospel in the Nation’s colleges and universities, and they are even taught to many if not most of the 50,000 children attending over 130,000 public and charter schools. And these and other noxious curricula, are likely taught in many private schools as well. See article in Education Week, and article in the New York Post.America's Neo-Marxist educators proselytize this rabid nonsense to our children. The Harris Biden Administration flunkies then shape and mold these malodorous fictions into political initiatives and political actions to be shoved down the throats of the adult population as well. It is one more tool utilized by Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists to destabilize the Country and to ready it for inclusion in a mammoth multicultural, neo-transformational, post-nation-state neo-feudalistic world.These fictions permeating through society and perpetuated in the Nation's public and charter schools, colleges, social media, the Press, and in the Federal Government itself, are conceived as and operate as useful indoctrination tools for undercutting and overriding the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism upon which the Nation’s Constitution is grounded and upon which a free Constitutional Republic depends for its perpetuation. Take that away, and the Republic falters and falls. That is the intention of the Neo-Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalists._____________________________________________

THE CORE OF AMERICA’S FREE REPUBLIC RESTS ON RKBA

PART EIGHT

Adherence to natural law is not only the core of American culture, it is THE basis of America’s foundational structure as a free Republic and it is the essential predicate for it. Natural law is grounded on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul.This idea is in constant tension with the Government that, by its own nature, seeks to inhibit free expression, as it must. The Government does not ask for but demands obeisance, subordination of the Self, submission of personal autonomy, and subordination of independence of spirit and will to the power of Government.Thus, the sovereignty of the American people over Government must, at all costs, be sanctified in law if that sovereignty over Government is to be preserved against that Government. And sovereignty over Government can only be preserved if the American people have the tenable means to do so.The Framers of the Constitution knew this full well. And the natural law right of self-defense over predatory animal, predatory man, and predatory Government was thereby enshrined in the Nation's Bill of Rights through the codification of the Right of the people to own, keep, and bear firearms. Neo-Marxists don’t deny the historical rationale for this. In fact, they are well aware of it even though they don't accept the truth of it. It is the predatory Government that Neo-Marxists seek to install—the antithesis of what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended, and what they fervently abhorred. That is why the Marxists see the need to eradicate the armed citizenry and they intend to do so. That is their ultimate order of business.Marxists know that as long as the idea of the inherent sovereignty of the American people over Government remains p, pervasive, and persuasive in the psyche of Americans, the Marxist-envisioned and Neo-Marxist-engineered society cannot exist. And they know the idea of the inherent sovereignty of the American people over Government is part and parcel of the physical fact of firearms in the hands of the citizenry.Get rid of the latter, so say the Marxists, and the former notion of the sovereignty of the American people over Government falls away of its own accord, for there is nothing tangible left to maintain it. Free Speech—the right of the people to dissent and to make certain that their voices are heard—means nothing, comes to nothing, in the absence of the means to require Government to listen and to cohere to the demands of the true and sole ruler over Government: the armed American citizenry.The Sovereignty of the American people only continues to exist and function through exercise of the natural, indelible, immutable, unalienable Right to acquire, keep, and bear firearms.This is the predicate basis of the Nation’s strength and singular greatness and it is the foundation of the citizenry’s sovereignty over Government.It is the salient basis of and also proof of the inference that the framers’ understood and intended for the American people to be and to remain sole sovereign over Government, for all time. And only through the exercise of force of arms will the people retain the ability to check the power of Government, and thereby have the certain means to assert their sovereignty over Government if such becomes necessary. And it may well come to that from what we see transpiring today since the Great Pretender—Joe Biden took Office.American Neo-Marxists accept as axiomatic—no less so than do America’s Patriots—that the sovereignty of the American people over the Federal Government is a function of the citizenry’s ability to acquire, keep, and bear firearms. But, the Neo-Marxists adamantly reject the notion of a natural, God-given Right of the people to keep and bear arms, even as the Right is clearly, categorically, concisely, unequivocally codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Neo-Marxists reject the very idea of natural law rights that precede the construction of Government, that exist independent of Government and of man-made law, that exist intrinsically, eternally in man, bestowed in man by the Divine Creator.As the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the bedrock principle upon which the Country came to exist as a free Republic, it can only ever continue to exist as a free Republic, and remain as a free Republic, exactly as the founders of the Republic intended, so long as the people remain armed.The Neo-Marxist and the American Patriot both know that American identity is tied inextricably to natural law which, at the primal level, is wrapped up in the intrinsic right of self-defense, of which armed self-defense remains the one true capable means of self-defense. If that goes, the Nation goes with it as there is nothing left of value to be salvaged in America. The Neo-Marxist doesn’t pretend otherwise. For the Neo-Marxist all of America must be destroyed, and that idea is exemplified in Neo-Marxist depredation and degradation of America’s history and heritage and core values; its despoiling of America’s statues and monuments to its leaders and heroes; its unapologetic denunciation and denigration of America’s Founders.And this unmitigated, unrelenting Neo-Marxist attack on the Nation is taken up by the Corporatist Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists, too, as they also seek to destroy America for their own ends.The Neoliberal Globalist doesn’t buy into Neo-Marxist claptrap, but as they both desire to demolish America as an independent, sovereign Nation-State, they have entered into an unlikely truce, at least for the moment.For the Neo-Marxists, the aim is to create what they perceive to be a pure, stateless Communist-run world Government, where Government provides for every person’s minimum wants and needs. And, with the Government in absolute control of all political, social, and economic rulemaking and planning, they believe that an orderly world is possible, and a relatively contented one, for billions of people. The fact that the life of the individual is meaningless in such a world where all thought and conduct is rigorously controlled is of no consequence to the Neo-Marxist internationalist. For him, the notion of the sanctity of the individual and the notion of the importance of human purpose are, at best, nostalgic, but essentially archaic, empty concepts—both devoid of meaning. The Neo-Marxist perceives the idea of the sanctity of the individual as a concept as devoid of functional import and purport as are the notions of ‘independent, sovereign nation-state,’ ‘citizen of a nation-state,’ ‘national identity,’ and ‘national spirit;’ and as archaic and anachronistic as are  ideas of ‘freedom,’ ‘personal autonomy,’ ‘free Constitutional Republic,’ and as senseless and dangerous, as is the notion of ‘a people reigning as supreme sovereign over Government.’The Neo-Marxist scoffs at the idea of man having an immortal Soul, and denies out-of-hand the truth of natural, fundamental, unalienable, illimitable, immutable, God-given Rights, bestowed on Man and in Man by a benevolent and infinite Divine Creator.Obviously, there can be no meeting of minds, no negotiation. The basic principles and precepts, along with the goals and aims of the Neo-Marxist are wholly incompatible with the principles and precepts of human worth, dignity, of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, and of a free Constitutional Republic and of a free Sovereign people. And what is one to make of the thought processes of the mega-billionaire Neoliberal Globalist financiers and corporatists? What is one to make of their goals and aspirations?For the Neoliberal Globalist, the aim is to control rapidly diminishing resources and contain a wildly growing world population. The world they aim to create is structured on ancient feudalism. It is a world where a few mega-rich, i.e., they, themselves, can live in regal splendor, and billions of others can be safely and securely corralled in various massive containment centers, dotted here and there around the world, where the bare necessities of life—food, water, shelter, clothing, and medical care—are doled out sparingly, minimally. It is to be expected that, eventually, a few billion people will die through natural attrition: plague, the elements of nature, and malnutrition. And that is perceived as a good thing, as it will place less stress on the life and well-being, and enjoyment of the elite leisure ruling-class and of scarce natural resources.Since automation and technology will make fewer demands on the need for unskilled and minimally skilled labor in the future, as is rapidly becoming apparent today, the need for such labor as was once necessary in an industrial-based society, as in the world of the 20th Century, will be de minimis. Thus, the value of the average person is de minimis. Some minimal human labor will be needed of course. And substantial numbers of paramilitary police and military will be necessary to maintain public order and to provide protection for the ruling elite from the occasionally expected revolts of the millions of downtrodden Hoi Polloi.People both in this Country and abroad are already beginning to see the inklings of this “Brave New World” to Come. And it isn’t a pretty sight.If the Nation as the founders of a free Constitutional Republic envisioned it is perceived by the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists as one outdated, and archaic, hopelessly out of touch with the rest of the world, then so be it. Better it would be that Americans happily maintain their archaic island of resistance in the futurist neo-feudal transglobal world gone mad._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

THE ANTIGUN MESSAGE OF TEACHERS’ UNIONS MISSES THE MARK ON GUN VIOLENCE.

Antigun activists must take Americans for fools. When a terrorist, gangbanger, lunatic, or your garden variety criminal seriously injures or murders innocent citizens, be it with a knife, a bomb, a car or truck, a baseball bat, or a firearm—no matter the object—the answer to stemming violence of all kinds is ever the same: “Get rid of the Guns!” That’s the long and short of it. Many members of the American public feed on such misguided, imperious and impertinent anti-Second Amendment slogans, manufactured by and pressed into service by the destroyers of our sacred rights and liberties, taking them to heart. The mainstream Press obliges, churning these slogans out regularly, incessantly. The verbiage may change a bit, but the message does not.Members of the public, who succumb to the antigun rhetoric and propaganda, espouse enactment of ever more restrictive firearms legislation—firearms legislation targeting the law-abiding American civilian population. Individuals who buy into the rhetoric and propaganda believe strongly, although wrongly, that the solution to societal violence is as simple to understand and to effectuate as recitation of the antigun slogans themselves. It isn’t. Contrary to the implication behind these anti-American slogans, no simple cause exists for today’s endemic violence. Accordingly, no simple solution exists for curbing it.But, one point is poignantly clear if a person would just stop to consider it. It is a point antigun advocates won’t mention. It is one antigun advocates would never countenance; and it is a point the mainstream Press—the willing bullhorn of the antigun establishment—would not so much as intimate. Societal violence is a manifestation of human conduct, not inanimate, non-sentient objects.Guns do not go on shooting sprees on their own volition. Knives do not stab individuals on a personal whim. Cars and trucks do not, themselves, ponder jumping curbs to run down bystanders. Yet antigun advocates convey the impression that inanimate objects, firearms, especially, are the innate causal agents of violence—that they “work” a sort of sorcery on individuals who, themselves, become merely the vessels for carrying out acts of violence. So, it is guns—those in the hands of law-abiding, rational American citizens and civilians—that are targeted for unceremonious eradication.“Get rid of guns!” That is the battle cry. And, the antigun advocates count on the public’s wholesale acceptance of their agenda, shaping and molding opinion to their cause; playing on emotion; stoking fear and anger. There is no reflection; no consideration; no debate. Antigun propagandists, activists, and zealots want none of it, believing that serious reflection, consideration, debate to be unnecessary, irrelevant or, more to the point, dangerous, as even a modicum of thoughtful reflection would bring immediately to light, the legal and logical weaknesses of their position.Americans who fall prey to and buy into simplistic antigun messaging and proselytizing operate unthinkingly, mindlessly, reflexively, like a village mob, brandishing pitchforks and torches, hell-bent on destroying Dr. Frankenstein’s monster—believing that ridding the Nation of firearms will in fact stem gun violence and curb most societal violence. They fail to realize that the “monster” they seek to destroy will not be destroyed—cannot be destroyed—because it is no more than a creation of the antigun propagandists. It is a shadowy figment, existing not in the “gun” at all, but in themselves. The monster manifests in and takes on form and substance, and life, as they wish it to—in their own weak, benighted natures.Of course, some Americans, certainly the antigun perpetrator activists who seek public acceptance of their antigun agenda, would like to see civilian gun ownership and possession substantially curtailed and eventually eliminated from American society, even though realization of their goal wouldn’t reduce societal violence one iota. They know this. Indeed, if pressed, they would likely acknowledge this. Antigun activists’ abhorrence of guns rests as much on aesthetic grounds as on social and political ones. They simply do not like guns; see no benefit to having them in “civilized society;” and, so, do not accept that American people have a fundamental, natural right to keep and bear arms. For antigun activists, zealots and those members of the public that fall prey to the messaging, the idea that Americans have a natural fundamental right to keep and bear arms is repugnant; an anathema; not simply arguably wrong, but heretical, even nonsensical.Yet, many more Americans—most Americans—believe fervently in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as did the founders of our free Republic, the framers of our Constitution, who sensibly realized the importance of codifying that sacred right in the Second Amendment. This is an article of faith. The antithesis of which—that no American has an unalienable right to keep and bear arms—is truly heretical. So long as the concept of natural rights remains a bedrock principle of our Nation, all the chanting, ranting, and prattling, for yet more restrictive gun laws, will be rendered moot, as well such sanctimonious posturing should.On April 5, 2018, the United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”)—a teacher’s union that represents New York City Schools—posted two articles in its publication, in support of the antigun “March for our Lives” demonstration that took place in Washington, D.C. Similar antigun protest marches took place in New York City, and elsewhere around the Country, drawing hundreds of thousands of high school and middle school students, as well as public school educators and administrators. The mass shooting incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, served as the impetus and pretext for the marches. Michael Bloomberg’s antigun advocacy group, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” and other groups, sympathetic to the goals of Bloomberg’s group, provided funding, organization, and logistical support for the students.UFT President Michael Mulgrew, who authored one of the articles appearing in the Union’s publication, titled, “Time for common sense on guns,” says that the protestors “demand sensible gun laws to keep weapons out of our communities,” and that students “don’t want to live with fear and [that] they are tired of waiting for Washington, D.C. to stand up to the National Rifle Association.” To emphasize his own abhorrence of firearms, the UFT President added this weak attempt at a play on words: “teachers should be marking papers, not being trained in marksmanship.” Rachel Nobel, UFT Staff Reporter, who authored a second article, that appeared in the same April 15 publication, titled, “Taking a stand against gun violence,” reiterated the UFT President’s comment that arming teachers was a bad idea. She asserted: “Many teachers had come to protest President Donald Trump’s proposal for licensing teachers to carry weapons in schools.” In her article Rachel Nobel quotes Larry Sachs, a teacher at PS 57, who asserted, “If taking one gun off the street saves your child from being shot, then it’s worth it.” As can be seen, a cascade of antigun slogans tumbles through these UFT articles.The overuse of slogans, in support of the position for further gun restrictions against the civilian populace of this Country, is aptly and abundantly illustrated in the titles of the two UFT articles and in the articles’ content. Slogans invariably fill mainstream news and opinion articles as well. Slogans serve, at best, as a feeble substitute for vigorous, sustained argument. At worse, they are inane, doing the American citizenry a disservice, playing simply to one's emotion, rather than to one's intellect. Use of slogans rather than cogent argument promotes intellectual laziness--both in the author of an article and in the reader. Author and reader are encouraged--nay, expected--to suspend critical judgment.The principal, albeit tacit, point of the two UFT articles is that popular support exists for yet further gun restrictions. Apparently, the UFT President and UFT Staff Reporter, and, evidently, many teachers and school administrators across the Country, believe that, although this Nation suffers from hundreds of Federal, State, and local restrictive firearms’ statutes, codes, regulations, and rules, many more are needed. Obviously, those who espouse further restrictive gun measures won't be satisfied until civilian possession of firearms in this Country is ended.Of course, tens of millions of American citizens do not support further gun restrictions. But, even if we assume, for purpose of argument, that more Americans than not, do support ever more gun control, does popular support, in and of itself, constitute a sound argument for it? No, it doesn’t!Among the informal fallacies known to antiquity, argumentum ad populum, is a common one. The argument, “appeal to popularity,”—also referred to in common parlance as “appeal to the people”—rests on the fallacious claim that, because a significant number of people believe a proposition to be true, the proposition is true.In the present case, the idea conveyed is that, because hundreds of thousands of people, taking part in the recent antigun protest demonstrations, believe that further restrictive firearms’ measures will reduce gun violence, it follows that further restrictive firearms’ measures will, in fact, reduce gun violence, and that further restrictions on civilian ownership and possession of firearms will reduce all forms of societal violence. These notions are false, blatantly so. No matter. Yet, the mainstream media insists on presenting these false notions as fact; as self-evident truth.This is a prime example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The fallacy proceeds from the idea that popular opinion constitutes good and sufficient evidence to support a claim. Consensus, among the masses, though, does not, in and of itself, provide evidence in support of the truth of a proposition. Shouting loud and long does not make a claim true, or “truer,” contrary to what many Americans —including all too many young people, who are particularly sensitive to emotional messaging—may happen to think.Apparently, many young Americans, as well as all too many older ones, feel that whoever shouts the longest and the loudest is one whose judgment is correct, and who, therefore, is to be believed over someone—anyone—who operates through calm reflection, who articulates a point clearly, cogently, softly, rather than through bombast.The American public should not, in any event, be subsidizing, with its tax dollars, student protests during school days and hours. Better it would be if high school students debated the issue of societal violence, calmly and intelligently, in the classroom, not in the public forum. Doing so would allow for more sensible and productive use of time.Yet, rather than seeing teachers and school administrators beseeching students to operate through restraint, we see all too many of them taking part in group excesses, along with these students. We see teachers and administrators, at the behest of the leadership of antigun groups, indulging students’ baser instincts; unconscionably encouraging, abetting, and exploiting raw emotion in young people, rather than encouraging restraint on emotions.Teachers should be cultivating each student’s critical faculties, cautioning each of them of the dangers in allowing emotions to hold sway over rational intellect, especially in moments when the rational mind is overwhelmed by senseless tragedy. But, that is where personal strength, fortitude, and indomitability of spirit come into play—where a person checks his or her emotions at the door, preventing those who hide an ulterior motive from making use of a student’s understandable anger and fear, to promote an insidious and deceptive agenda—one detrimental to the preservation of our Nation’s sacred rights and liberties. Oh, but wouldn’t that be a shame!_________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.   

THE ISSUE OF CURBING VIOLENCE IN OUR SCHOOLS DOES NOT DEVOLVE TO SIMPLY BANNING GUNS. IT IS MORE COMPLEX, ELUSIVE, NUANCED.

PART FIVE

STUDENTS MUST BECOME CRITICAL THINKERS, NOT “PARROTS” OF THOSE WHO HARBOR ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

Peaceful protest isn’t a bad thing. The youth of our Nation, as citizens of the United States, have a Constitutional right to do so as the right of the people to peaceably assemble is a fundamental right, specifically codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the right to the free exercise of religion. These rights are broad in scope and critical to the maintenance of a free Republic. The danger of protest rests when there exists a hidden agenda behind the protest, unbeknownst to those that take to protest.On March 24, 2018, hundreds of thousands of young people, including adults, turned out to protest violence in our Nation’s schools. The horror that took place in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School served as the impetus for the protest. Last February 2018, a deranged young man, Nikolas Cruz, whom School Officials had expelled for multiple serious disciplinary violations, walked unimpeded into the School, and proceeded to murder 17 students, including teachers, using a semiautomatic long gun, modeled on the “AR-15” platform.Organizers of the March 24 protest on our Nation’s Capital on Saturday, March 24, 2018 called it, “March for Our Lives.” The New York Times banner headline on Sunday, March 25, 2018, says something different however: "With Passion and Fury, Students March on Guns."Students across the Country are furious—and rightfully so—at the failure of Government, to protect them, as students are vulnerable to violence when in school. How it is that a seriously disturbed individual, Nikolas Cruz, who was on the radar of both the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, and who, on several occasions, had openly expressed a desire to kill, could gain access to a firearm and ammunition, and who then could act on that desire, speaks of gross incompetence and glaring ineptitude, on multiple Governmental levels? Then there is the failure of an armed Broward County Deputy Sheriff—a Resource Officer, assigned to the School, and of other Broward County Deputy Sheriffs, who shortly arrived on the scene—whose actions or, rather, inactions, must be   singled out. Broward County Deputy Sheriff, Scott Peterson, and other Broward County Deputy County Sheriffs failed to confront and stop Nikolas Cruz. They all consciously, intentionally, refrained from entering the School building to confront Nikolas Cruz, even though they heard gunshots in the School, and knew or had every reason to conclude that, every time they heard a gunshot, an innocent person had died. Bald-faced cowardice, cannot be ruled out.Students have a right to ask of Government, that is charged to protect them, why Government failed them. This failure must be addressed and then redressed. Action must be taken to protect our schools with appropriate security. Competent, armed individuals, both physically capable of action and psychologically predisposed to act in a life-threatening situation, must be a component of an effective school security program.

FIREARMS, OF THEMSELVES, DO NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE BECAUSE THEY ARE OBJECTS, NOT AGENTS.

As for the root cause(s) why more violence occurs in our schools, this is a complex issue, with no simple answer or remedy. Unfortunately, in the face of overwhelming horror and tragedy, there is a normal tendency to look for a “quick fix,” and there are those who jump at the chance to funnel through the mainstream media, to the public, a  simple answer—more stringent gun laws, commencing with an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic long guns, defined as ‘assault weapons,’ including a ban on large capacity ammunition magazines.Antigun advocacy groups have argued, for decades, for further restrictions on civilian access to semiautomatic firearms, defined as ‘assault weapons.’ Of course, the definition of ‘assault weapon,’ is amorphous, as the phrase is a political invention, not an industry or military term of art. Those jurisdictions that generally ban possession of “assault weapons” in the hands of the American civilian citizenry, have defined the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ in different ways. In fact, under New York law at least one category of weapon, the revolving cylinder shotgun, is defined in law, an ‘assault weapon,’ even though, given the revolving cylinder shotgun’s method of operation, as the name makes plain, the revolving cylinder shotgun isn’t a semiautomatic weapon at all.Antigun advocacy groups have an agenda and that agenda does not necessarily equate with ensuring a safe school environment. In pursuit of that agenda, these groups have successfully harnessed the anger, hurt, frustration, and legitimate concern of students. The “March for Our Lives” didn’t just happen. It happened for a reason: Antigun advocacy groups and other liberal advocacy groups quietly, behind the scenes, harnessed student anger and redirected it. They redirected student anger, hurt, and frustration away from an attack on the failure of some State and local governmental authorities to provide students with a safe and secure environment, where student anger, frustration and hurt should have been focused, or should rightfully have remained, to an attack on "the gun" qua "assault weapon." Thus, instead of encouraging young people to take part in an open, frank, and intelligent discussion on the root causes of violence in our society and how it is and why it is some people erupt into an orgy of horrific violence and how State and local governments, in the interim, may implement reasonable security measures in schools, to protect students, we see antigun advocacy groups, and other advocacy groups in agreement with them, ratcheting up student anger to the point where that anger explodes into a paroxysm of rage launched specifically and solely against an inanimate object.An undertaking of this magnitude requires, money, organization, and coordination well beyond the capacity of young people to engineer. The billionaire Michael Bloomberg, through his antigun advocacy group, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” organized, funded, and coordinated the rally. This isn’t supposition, it is fact, as reported by CNN, and as Bloomberg’s group itself readily admits.

WOULD A WHOLESALE BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC LONG GUNS, MODELED ON THE ORIGINAL AR-15 ARMALITE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE, PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR NATION’S SCHOOLS?

An outright ban on an entire category of weapons in common use would not prevent further gun violence. A federal ban on so-called ‘assault weapons,’ implemented in 1994, was tried. That ban failed to prevent many mass shootings. The ban expired in 2004 through a sunset provision, and Congress did not reauthorize it. We have seen, since, violent acts committed, not only with so-called “assault weapons,” but with other objects, including, knives, bombs, and even trucks.“Everytown for Gun Safety,” and like-minded antigun advocacy groups argue that violence in our schools, and in public spaces generally, can be prevented or significantly reduced if Government, local, State, and Federal, would simply prohibit civilian access to firearms. Whether these antigun activist groups truly believe that, is unlikely. Their goal, if achieved, would not eliminate or even reduce violence in schools or in the greater society. They must know this. Their goal, if achieved, would have the negative effect of leaving the civilian population of this Country essentially defenseless. The tacit but obvious impetus of these antigun advocacy groups is to effectuate Government control over the citizenry. The goal of these groups is not to promote public safety, express claims to the contrary, notwithstanding.The fact of the matter is that, even if antigun advocates were successful in removing every firearm presently in the possession of honest, law-abiding, average, rational American citizens who desire to exercise their fundamental, inalienable, natural right to keep and bear arms who comprise the vast civilian citizenry of firearms’ owners in this County, that would do nothing to curb violent acts. A simplistic fix that happens, not unsurprisingly, to cohere with the personal agenda of antigun advocacy groups—destruction of the Second Amendment—isn’t the panacea for effectively dealing with a culture of violence endemic in our Nation, contrary to the supposition of antigun activists and contrary to their rhetoric. It is a recipe for disaster. First, the antigun activists’ simplistic fix leaves the American citizenry defenseless. Second, the abridgement of the American citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties—reflected, first and foremost in an armed citizenry—is inconsistent with the continued conservation and preservation of a free Republic, rooted in our Nation’s history. Third, such abridgement of our fundamental rights and liberties is inconsistent with the basic principle upon which those sacred rights and liberties rests: the sanctity, autonomy, and inviolability of the American citizen.Until Americans, including the youth of our Nation, are willing to look deeply and seriously at the true root causes of violence that infects and infests our Country, rather than excoriating guns as the salient cause of violence and mischief in our Nation in accordance with the dictate of antigun advocacy groups, violence will not appreciably be forestalled or constrained; for violence, ultimately, exists in the heart of individuals, not in such inanimate objects they happen to wield. Any object—a gun, a knife, a vehicle, a chainsaw, or any other tool—can be used by a sentient being for good or ill.Young people, especially, must learn to think through an issue calmly, not rashly. Unfortunately, those individuals and groups that have a personal agenda to serve, have irresponsibly coopted the rightful anger and hurt of young people to assist them in pursuit of a singular goal: divesting the civilian population of this Country of their firearms. The young people must resist the urge to serve antigun groups as their servants or proxies. Antigun groups are very good at coaxing young people to join them in service to a personal agenda: gun control, culminating in gun confiscation. Instead, the young people of our Nation might more effectively use intellectual rigor to explore the root causes of violence in our society. In the interim Government at the federal, State, and local levels, can and must design and implement plans to secure our schools from threats of harm. Violence is, unfortunately, persistent in our Nation. But, violence is endemic in many other Western nations, too, even as those other Western nations have rigidly suppressed individual ownership and possession of firearms.A viable security plan to protect students from harm never existed in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. But other Schools across the Nation that have implemented effective security, have been free from deadly threats to students and to teachers. That means all schools must embrace a proactive, not reactive, stance to threats of violence of any kind. A sound plan to protect students is doable and helpful. Going after guns is not._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE PARKLAND, FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOL TRAGEDY MAKES THE CASE FOR ARMED SELF-DEFENSE.

In the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School tragedy, the mainstream Press, echoing the sentiments of antigun activists and antigun legislators, focused the public’s attention on two subjects: guns and mental illness. Antigun activists argue that guns and mental illness are both intractable. Mix the two like a cocktail and you have a recipe for disaster. That, as maintained by antigun activists, accurately explains the cause of the mass shooting incident at the Parkland, Florida High School. But does it?In an editorial, appearing in The New York Times on February 24, 2018, titled, “I Can’t Stop Mass Shooters,” by Amy Barnhorst, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis, admitted the conundrum. The author writes, “Each mass shooting reignites a debate about what causes this type of violence and how it can be prevented. Those who oppose further restrictions on gun ownership often set their sights on the mental health care system. Shouldn’t psychiatrists be able to identify as dangerous someone like Nikolas Cruz. . . ? And can’t we just stop unstable young men like him from buying firearms? It’s much harder than it sounds.”The author has no answer other than the perfunctory, putting “some distance between these young men and their guns.” But, would that prevent mass violence? Clearly, it would not even if this seems plausible to some. Signs of mental illness in a person do not automatically mean a person has violent tendencies. Conversely, those individuals who not fall within one or more listed categories in the latest version of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (“DSM-5”)—the Psychiatrist’s Bible—may have violent tendencies.

FROM AN EMPIRICAL STANDPOINT, DISPOSSESSING CIVILIANS OF THEIR GUNS WILL DO NOTHING TO CIRCUMVENT VIOLENT CRIME.

“The reality is that mass shootings are very rare and that neither mental illness nor mass shootings are a significant cause of gun violence. Individuals with a serious mental illness only account for approximately 4 percent of all violent crime in the United States, the majority of which is not committed with a firearm. Furthermore, individuals having no history of mental illness committed a number of these mass shootings. With mental illness representing such a small fraction of gun violence, gun-control efforts focused solely on the mentally ill are ‘unlikely to significantly reduce overall rates of gun violence in the United States.’” “The New York Safe Act: A Thoughtful Approach To Gun Control, Or A Politically Expedient Response To The Public's Fear Of The Mentally Ill?”, 88 S. Cal. L. Rev. 16, 43-44 (2015), by Matthew Gamsin, J.D. Candidate, 2015, University of Southern California Gould School of Law.Despite this evidence, antigun activists nonetheless vehemently call for general bans on the sale of semiautomatic “assault weapons” and are specifically targeting those individuals deemed to have mental illness, which may very well raise due process and equal protection issues for millions of Americans. Were these steps taken, violence would still ensue. Consider:“On April 15, 2013, two homemade bombs detonated 12 seconds and 210 yards (190 m) apart at 2:49 p.m., near the finish line of the annual Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring several hundred others, including 16 who lost limbs.  On April 18, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released images of two suspects, who were later identified as Kyrgyz-American brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.” “The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist truck bombing on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States on April 19, 1995. Perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the bombing killed 168 people, injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one-third of the building.” “Eight people were killed and almost a dozen injured when a 29-year-old man in a rented pickup truck drove down a busy bicycle path near the World Trade Center Tuesday in Manhattan, New York City. The suspect was identified by two law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation as Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov. He's from Uzbekistan in Central Asia but had been living in the US since 2010, sources said.” Whether these killers were mentally ill in a clinical sense or “normal,” they did not need a firearm to create havoc.Of course, antigun activists and their cheerleaders in the mainstream Press and in Congress argue that civilized Countries place restrictions on civilian access to guns and that doing so would constrain a killer’s access to one lethal instrumentality. Still, antigun activists must contend with the legal ramifications of attempting to curtail civilian access to firearms in a Country where the citizenry's rights and liberties, codified in a Bill of Rights, cannot be so easily dismissed.

INDISCRIMINATELY DISPOSSESSING THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THEIR GUNS WOULD NOT HOLD UP TO LEGAL SCRUTINY.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN THE LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT HELLER CASE, HELD THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, NOT CONNECTED TO SERVICE IN A MILITIA. FURTHER, THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT EMBODIES  ARMED SELF-DEFENSE. AND FROM A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE, CIVILIAN DEFENSE OF ARMS IS PRESSING BECAUSE, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THE POLICE ARE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO SAFEGUARD THE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS. THAT RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ON EACH PERSON.

Antigun activists retort that nothing in the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an American citizen to own and possess an “assault weapon.” But, is that true?First, the concept of ‘assault weapon’ is a legal fiction that encompasses a wide range of weaponry. On examination it becomes clear that antigun proponents and activists are not merely targeting some semiautomatic weapons; they are targeting all semiautomatic weapons. The legal issue is whether semiautomatic weapons in common use—which include firearms defined as 'assault weapons'—fall within the core of Second Amendment protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on this. But, that does not mean Government, State or Federal, may presume semiautomatic weapons, especially those firearms referred to as “assault weapons,” do not fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Second, a corollary to the basic, unfettered, natural right codified in the Second Amendment is that American citizens have a right to possess a firearm for self-defense. Antigun activists argue that armed self-defense is unnecessary because it is the duty of the police to safeguard the lives and well-being of the citizenry. But do police departments, as government entities, really have that duty? They do not!“No inquiry is more central to constitutional jurisprudence than the effort to delineate the duties of government. The courts' approach to this complex subject has been dominated by reliance on a simple distinction between affirmative and negative responsibilities. Government is held solely to what courts characterize as a negative obligation: to refrain from acts that deprive citizens of protected rights. Obligations that courts conceive to be affirmative—duties to act, to provide, or to protect—are not enforceable constitutional rights. “The Negative Constitution, A Critique,” 88 Mich. L. Rev. 2271 (August 1990) by Susan Bandes, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of law.The safeguarding of one's life is then a personal responsibility, not a police responsibility. Broward County residents, especially those high school students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, should have learned that lesson well. Many, obviously, have not as they--at the behest of their silent benefactors and choreographers of their political strategies, the antigun groups--act against their own best interests. They lash out at NRA, the very organization that serves them by protecting their sacred right of armed self-defense; and they call for civilian disarmament leaving them worse off. The duty of the Police is merely to safeguard, in some nebulous sense, the well-being of a community as a whole, not the lives of the individuals who live in it. But, then, since Government has no affirmative duty to provide armed protection for each citizen, Government cannot, in good faith, deny the citizen the natural right of armed defense owed to one's self. If the public is to take away anything from the recent Parkland, Florida tragedy, it is this:The Broward County Sheriff’s Department and the first responders from the Coral Springs Police Department did an abysmal job. By the time the Coral Springs Police SWAT team arrived, it was too late. Lives had been lost. An investigation unfolds, but it means nothing; for, whatever the outcome, police departments do not have and never did have an affirmative duty to protect individuals within a community. They are immune from suit. This is not supposition. It is law.“Thus . . . a claim that police officers failed to protect a particular individual from injury by nongovernmental actors is generally not cognizable; a successful claim would require sufficient prior contacts between police and the individual to indicate a specific undertaking or promise by the police to provide protection and detrimental reliance by the individual. Absent such facts, there is generally no liability for failure to enforce laws and regulations intended to benefit the community as a whole, failure to provide police or fire protection, or failure to inspect." Affirmative Duties, Systemic Harms, and the Due Process Clause, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 982, 999-1000 (February, 1996), by Barbara E. Armacost, Professor of Law, University of Virginia.The first and last line of adequate defense both inside the home and outside it is, as it always was, as the framers of our Constitution knew full well and as they provided for: armed self-defense.

ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES NOW.

Call your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives.  Tell them this: “if you want my support, then vote for national handgun carry reciprocity now.”PHONE U.S. SENATE: (202) 224-3121;PHONE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: (202) 225-3121______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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.

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH? SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? GOING, GOING GONE IF THE NEW YORK TIMES WERE TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION!

THE NEW YORK TIMES BOMBARDS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WITH ‘GROUPTHINK’ AND ‘DOUBLESPEAK: WELCOME TO “1984” IN THE 21^ST CENTURY.

“We are poor little lambs Who have lost our way. Baa! Baa! Baa! We are little black sheep Who have gone astray. Baa! Baa! Baa!” ~ from the Wiffinpoof song, circa 1910; traditional closing number of the Wiffinpoofs, an a cappella group of Yale UniversityAs is our wont, the creators of the Arbalest Quarrel often peruse on Amazon.com—books, on philosophy, politics, science, and law, among various other categories of knowledge to assist us in the work we do for our readers in defense of our most sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we write this, we came across a book, serendipitously, and one which we may purchase, titled, “Reasons Why,” by Bradford Skow. The illustration on the book’s cover is whimsical: a platypus seemingly contemplating a strawberry. And, lest one believe the book was written for a child, the answer is decidedly, “no.”Notwithstanding the straightforward, seemingly, superficially simplistic title, the material is decidedly tantalizingly complex. We perused a few pages of the book, on-line, as Amazon sometimes permits. We bring this matter up here because the subject matter of the book, “why questions,” drew us to consider something about the mainstream media that is somewhat mystifying to apprehend and, at once, frightening to contemplate. Mainstream media organizations—comprising major newspapers, radio, television, and internet—are drawn more and more to proselytize to the American public rather than to simply report the news, and this is contrary to the basic import and purport of news organizations. But, what is the purpose of a news organization? We ask:

WHAT IS THE IMPLIED GOAL—THE TRADITIONAL, PRIMARY PURPOSE OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS? THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A NEWSPAPER IS TO CONVEY TO THE PUBLIC A RECORD OF THE DAY’S EVENTS: TO REPORT THE NEWS, THEN, AND TO REPORT THE NEWS CLEARLY, ACCURATELY, OBJECTIVELY, WITHOUT EMBELLISHMENT.  IN PROVIDING AN ACCOUNT OF EVENTS IN THE WORLD, A NEWSPAPER MUST REFRAIN FROM WEIGHING IN ON THE EVENTS IT REPORTS ABOUT THE WORLD. FOR, ONCE A NEWSPAPER WEIGHS IN ON EVENTS THAT IT REPORTS, THAT IT DESCRIBES, THE NEWSPAPER, THEN, IS NO LONGER, AND CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AN OBJECTIVE, NEUTRAL OBSERVER, NAMELY, ONE OPERATING APART FROM THE EVENTS, BUT, RATHER, BECOMES, INSTEAD, AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE EVENTS—IN THE VERY SHAPING OF EVENTS A NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON. AND, ONCE A NEWSPAPER BECOMES PART OF THE EVENTS, THE OBSERVED, RATHER THAN THE NEUTRAL OBSERVER, THE NEWSPAPER, THEREUPON LOSES ITS OBJECTIVITY—LOSES ALL OBJECTIVITY. BUT, THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO BOTHER MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS IF THEY BOTHER TO CONSIDER THE LOSS OF OBJECTIVITY IN THEIR REPORTING THE NEWS AT ALL. TODAY, MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS, LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES, ARE NOT CONTENT MERELY TO REPORT THE NEWS, BUT ARE TELLING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HOW THEY ARE EXPECTED TO THINK ABOUT THE NEWS. OBJECTIVITY IS THEREBY COMPLETELY LOST. REPORTERS BECOME MINISTERS OF PRIVATE BENEFACTORS, UNKNOWN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY BECOME PROPAGANDISTS. EVERYTHING REPORTED IS SUSPECT.

MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT OBJECTIVELY, NEUTRALLY, AND DRYLY TELLING THE PUBLIC ABOUT CRITICAL EVENTS IN THE WORLD—AND THEY ARE NOT REPORTING ON ALL THE CRITICAL EVENTS. RATHER, MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS SELECTIVELY REPORT EVENTS AND THEY DO NOT ALLOWTHE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO MAKE UP ITS OWN MIND ABOUT THE EVENTS REPORTED. THESE MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ARE, AT ONCE, TELLING THE PUBLIC HOW THEY SHOULD REACT TO EVENTS, HOW THEY ARE TO THINK ABOUT THE EVENTS, REPORTED.

Journalists, also referred to as—and, traditionally, more inclined to prefer the term, ‘reporters,’ as the latter expression is narrower, suggesting specifically what these professionals do, namely reporting news events rather than journalizing whatever may come to mind—learn, in college, before commencing work for mainstream news organizations, what reporting of news encompasses and, just as importantly, what it does not. Whether through the written or spoken word, reporters are expected to—well—report the news, nothing more and nothing less. To do their job correctly, appropriately, reporters are expected to report news accounts clearly and dryly, without embellishment, utilizing nouns and verbs, eschewing the use of adjectives and adverbs, to avoid “coloring” their reporting. They are expected to propound propositions that mirror truth, under the epistemic correspondence theory of truth they ascribe to, with the goal of providing the American public with reports on facts--'states of affairs' as philosophers prefer to refer to these “things,” “facts”--about and in the world, rather than propounding subjective  evaluations, about the facts, that is to say, providing extraneous comments about the states of affairs reported on.Reporters answer fundamental ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and, occasionally, ‘how’ questions. It is not the purpose of reporters to ask and to discuss ‘why’ questions, which brings us back to Skow’s book, directed principally to the philosophy of science, as “why” questions set the stage for causal explanations for events. Yet, today, we see mainstream media encroaching more and more on ‘why’ questions. They do so—as they may say—to engage the public in open and lively discussion, and to give context to their news reporting. They attempt to explain the reasons for events and, they proceed, then, to a consideration of changes that they believe should occur for the benefit of society. But that is shifty, deceptive, and not the basic motivation of mainstream news reporters for dealing with “why” questions at all. They provide answers to “why” questions to manipulate thought. They sermonize. Sometimes they do this calmly and collectedly. More often they do this callously and caustically; bombastically and sanctimoniously; stridently and angrily. They do this to cajole the public into accepting the nonsense they spout, attempting to convince the public that their prescriptions for dealing with the many events they report on, that they write about, is right, and proper, and just, and should be acted upon by policy makers. Many Americans—all too many members of the American public, to date, but, increasingly, fortunately, fewer members of the American public, through time—do still accept, unconditionally and uncritically, the presumptuous and vapid claptrap the mainstream media offers up for the American public’s consumption. Indeed, these reporters—now propagandists —working for mainstream newspapers and other mainstream news organizations, attempt to disguise the subjective evaluations they propound about events as true, simple, to-the-point, objective, accurate accounts of the events reported on, when subjective evaluations and objective reports about states of affairs in and of and about the world merge into each other, or where one becomes the other, and the public is left with the impression that it has received bare factual accounts about news events when they are really obtaining subjective appraisals of the events reported on.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S DANGEROUS PREOCCUPATION WITH FIREARMS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

One of the favorite topics of the mainstream media involves news about ‘gun crimes,’ which are particularly susceptible to this subterfuge that mainstream news reporters engage in which is to mix objective news accounts into subjective evaluations.  If newspaper and cable networks and radio simply reported instances of ‘gun crimes,’ dryly and matter-of-factly, and left the matter at that, that would be fine. But, then, mainstream newspapers and cable news networks, were they true to their creed, would also report on defensive uses of firearms. Yet, the mainstream newspapers and their affiliates on cable news invariably remain silent on defensive use of guns by law-abiding citizens who forestall gun violence, through use of their own firearm or who use a firearm, as necessary, to defend themselves or to defend other innocent lives. One would think that accurate reporting would require newspaper accounts to strive to report all news events: to report, then, on the use of firearms by ordinary Americans to thwart violent criminal acts, as well as to report gun crimes committed by lunatics, terrorists, criminal gang members, and by your garden-variety common criminal.

SELECTIVE NEWS REPORTING IS DEMONSTRATIVE OF “FAKE NEWS” NO LESS SO THAN FALSE REPORTING OF NEWS

The non-reporting of critical news events constitutes deception no less than the false reporting of news events and no less than the habit of mainstream news reporters of adroitly stirring subjective evaluations into news accounts. The mainstream media, including, prominently, The New York Times—whose motto is, “All the News That’s Fit to Print”—infers, or, more correctly, assumes that defensive use of firearms isn’t news that’s fit to print at all; so, the American public doesn’t see it. But, it is news just the same and, to our mind, this news does fall squarely into the domain of “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” The New York Times refuses to report on instances of defensive uses of guns as that tends to denigrate and weaken the running narrative that guns cause only bad things to happen. Still, if The New York Times stuck to reporting gun violence and refrained from proselytizing about the “evil” of guns, we might accept reporting of those events involving gun violence alone even if the Times’ accounting of “use of guns” is incomplete—as in the case of utilization of firearms for self-defense. Unfortunately, The New York Times and other mainstream news organizations do not and will not stop with reporting the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when,’ ‘where,’ and ‘how’ of gun violence. These mainstream news organizations tread dangerously into the realm of the ‘why’.’ They dare to ask, rhetorically, ‘why did the individual commit a violent act with a gun.’ The ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when,’ ‘where,’ and ‘how’ of gun violence, then, is merely a side-note. It is merely incidental to and serves to buttress their argument for strengthening draconian gun laws and adding ever more to the serried ranks of restrictive federal and State gun laws and local gun ordinances. And, it is these arguments for ever more restrictions on the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms that the mainstream media makes, constantly, ad nauseum: sermonizing, proselytizing to the American public.The reporting of news merely operates, then, as an introduction to what it is that mainstream news organizations really wish to do which to address “the need to get rid of guns in this Country.” So, reporters and editors of mainstream news organizations, like The New York Times, mention instances of gun violence in order that they might proceed with their long-running, never-ending polemic on why gun violence occurs and wherefore gun violence happens and ‘why civilian access to guns is wrong and why, therefore, guns ought to be abolished. And, that is where mainstream news organizations have gone astray. They should protect this Nation, this Free Republic; but they have, instead, hijacked this Nation as they work strenuously, and actively, and insidiously against it, undermining the Nation’s Bill of Rights, all the while masquerading that they are the guardians of it, oblivious to the inherent invidiousness of their pronouncements.Mainstream news Reporters and Editors wrongly assume the role of psychologists, and psychiatrists, and sociologists, and politicians, and ethicists, and attorneys among others. They do not merely report the news, they attempt to explain the news. In so doing, the mainstream media no longer remains the outside, neutral observer of news events, coolly describing events, but insinuates itself into the events themselves, observing itself and thereupon reflecting its own image onto the American public’s psyche, and, in a most contemptuous fashion, proclaiming to the American public how the public ought to see the world and how the world ought to be molded and shaped.And, with that—with attempts to answer “why” questions—these mainstream news organizations carefully construct and carefully calibrate their explanations and use these explanations as springboards to “ought imperatives” such as: ‘no American civilian ought to have access to firearms;’ and ‘this Nation ought to have more stringent, common-sense gun control laws’; and ‘this Country ought to perceive gun ownership and gun possession as unnecessary and dangerous to the well-being of a modern society;’ and ‘Americans should abhor guns like most citizens do who reside in other Western Countries, like those citizens of Nations that comprise the EU do;’ and ‘ everyone has the right of free speech as long as one’s comments do not offend another person’s sensibilities; and ‘employers ought to be able to control their employees thoughts and ideas, whether on the job or off,’ and that ‘censoring of ideas and opinions and beliefs is wrong, except that, sometimes, it could be right.’Not content to declare what it is that happens to be the case—the “thus and so” of a given news event—mainstream news reporters and editorial boards tell us what “ought to be the case.” Now, generally, newspapers have used opinion editorials—“Op-Eds”—as a place where they feel they are at liberty to answer the ‘why,’ the cause of such event, and, therein, to express and expound upon the ‘ought,’ as they see it, from the occurrence of a given event. But this seeming bright-line separation between “news” and “opinion” is no longer perceptible or tenable in the age of mind control and psychological conditioning through various media mechanisms. The one flows seamlessly into the other. But normative ‘ought’ statements—normative prescriptions of the way the world should be, according to mainstream media—do not logically follow from ‘is’ statements—descriptions of the way the world happens to be, notwithstanding that mainstream news Reporters and Editors assume that ought prescriptions can be derived from and deduced from “is” descriptions, and we see, now, that Reporters and Editors of mainstream news organizations commence to operate as if the one can be derived from and deduced from the other. But, they cannot.It is hardly a secret that mainstream newspapers, like The New York Times, vehemently, indeed virulently, oppose possession of firearms by anyone in society, other than law enforcement, and other than the military and--although they won’t admit it--other than by the powerful, ruthless billionaire class that increasingly rules us and that seeks to destroy our free Republic, and that seeks to destroy the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State, and that seeks to destroy our unique and sacred Bill of Rights.Now, even as the owners of mainstream media vehicles will quickly deny—at least in their reporting of events—any specific position toward firearms and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the fact of the matter is that the owners of these mainstream media news vehicles have, as with any other subject discussed in their media vehicles’ “bag of tricks,” specific opinions that infiltrate, insinuate themselves into, and seep and filter in and through, descriptions of news events. So, the public is not obtaining merely descriptions of news events, but prescriptions about how the public should think about those events and the sorts of actions that should be taken by policy makers from those events. Bad enough that mainstream media is reduced to propagandizing and proselytizing to the public through control of virtually every major form of media apart from a few outlier websites such as the Arbalest Quarrel, but mainstream media seeks, of late, to control the thoughts and actions of their own employees, too.Consider, one mainstream media news organization, The New York Times, goes so far as to control its reporters’ exercise of their personal First Amendment right of Free Speech even when they are not writing specifically for the newspaper. This is reprehensible and, likely would not survive Constitutional muster if challenged and is odd, too, when one considers that The New York Times, and other mainstream media news organizations, vociferously, presumptuously, and hypocritically argue that the President wrongly attacks their First Amendment right of freedom of the Press. Yet, the U.S. President is also a citizen and, as a citizen, he certainly has the right, guaranteed under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to call out “fake news” narratives when he sees it. And, he rightly does so, on behalf of himself and on behalf of those Americans who support him.

GROUPTHINK VERSUS THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH

Lest the reader of this article think that the Arbalest Quarrel has made a false claim about The New York Times controlling its employees’ expression of personal opinion, outside of employment, we point out that the Times, itself, expressly admits as much. On October 16, 2017, a reporter for the New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, writing in the Business Section of the Times newspaper, in an article titled, “Seeing Right Through Tech Chiefs’ Talk of Better ‘Transparency’”, said: “My newspaper [The New York Times] is [when reporting on Tech Companies control of their employees’ opinions], also dealing with the question of how transparent a person should be on social media. On Friday, it announced a new policy for its journalists requiring them to avoid say anything on the platform [that is to say, reporters must avoid saying anything on any and all vehicles, aside from The New York Times, when, on their own time] that they could not say under the banner of The New York Times. At a TimesTalks event in Washington on Thursday night, the Times’ executive editor, Dean Baquet, said that overly opinionated or partisan tweets could undermine the paper’s mission of reporting ‘objectively and clearly.’” Who is Baquet kidding? The assertion is nonsensical and disingenuous to boot. For, it isn’t “objective and clear reporting” that the NY Times newspaper is interested in protecting. It is, rather, a specific “subjective viewpoint” that the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times seeks to foster and buttress, and it is a subjective viewpoint that the drafters’ of the newspaper’s new policy obviously presume that every employee of the newspaper knows or should know. In fostering and buttressing that viewpoint, the newspaper’s owners and Editorial Board would squelch a reporter’s right of free speech in that reporter’s capacity as an American citizen, even when, on that reporter’s own time, the reporter wishes freely to express his or her own viewpoint on a subject, absent constraints imposed on the reporter in the course of his or her work for the newspaper. Obviously, it isn’t objective facts that the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times is concerned about protecting—despite what Baquet says; for, after all, the facts can take care of themselves. Rather, it is the running narrative—the “why” and of a story—that The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board wish to maintain an overarching monopoly on. It is the running narrative, as it were, that they wish to control and that they intend to control, through the Times’ new policy.The newspaper, thereupon, muzzles and censors its own reporters First Amendment free speech rights, through a policy that operates essentially as a “gag order” lest its reporters, and any other employee, working for the newspaper, weaken the running narrative the newspaper’s publisher owners and Editorial Board wish to convey and to maintain clear, categorical, and unequivocal. Consider, too, that, this new policy directive of the New York Times, as issued by the executive editor, Dean Baquet is logically absurd, as well as legally insupportable. For, if a newspaper is simply describing events, objectively and clearly—the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when, ‘where,’ and, occasionally, ‘how,’ of the news—an account that “mirrors” a state of affairs in the world, how can such objective description feasibly be subject to subjective analysis? The answer is that it cannot; for such descriptive account of a news event, of a particular state of affairs in the world, can only admit of one accurate descriptive account, not multiple accounts. Only subjective analyses—one’s opinions—of descriptive accounts can admit of and allow for multiple and incompatible propositions about an event. Thus, there can only be one accurate descriptive account about any given actual state of affairs but many subjective opinions about that one descriptive account. If so, then how can one’s opinion about an objective news account, the ‘why’ statements and ‘ought’ statements, “undermine the paper’s mission of reporting ‘objectively and clearly?’” The answer is that opinions cannot undermine a newspaper’s objective reporting of an event.Recall what we said, supra. Normative, prescriptive ‘ought’ statements about the way the world should be do not logically follow from or entail descriptive ‘is’ statements, namely declarative propositions about the way the world happens to be. So, then, take the example of a lunatic, or psychopathic terrorist who kills innocent people with a gun. The newspaper reporter recounts the event in a news story. Likely, the news account will be, as well, laced with inaccurate, suggestive wording regarding the gun incident. Then, suppose that the reporter that wrote the story for the newspaper, writes, on his own time, on a social media site, that he supports the arming of all American citizens, as a method for reducing criminal gun violence. Would that supposition undermine a newspaper’s mission of reporting accurately and objectively? How can it? It cannot. It cannot because logically accurate, objective, clear reporting of an event—that is to say, logically accurate, objective, clear reporting of a state of affairs in and of the world—does not implicate and cannot implicate, anything, intelligible about the way the world—from one perspective or another—ought to be. Yet, you and I both know where this goes. For, assume, then, the newspaper’s editorial board, follows up the descriptive account of a terrorist murdering innocent people with a firearm, with an Op-Ed calling for new restrictive gun laws, impacting law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens' exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, if a reporter working for the newspaper were to argue, contrary to the position of the editorial board, that all law-abiding, sane, responsible Americans ought to be armed and that Congress should enact a national handgun carry reciprocity law, such normative viewpoint on gun ownership and possession would be at loggerheads with the editorial board’s own normative viewpoint on gun ownership and possession--one calling for confiscation of all firearms in the hands of civilians.It is not the descriptive account of a violent gun incident that the newspaper owners and editorial board are concerned about protecting. Rather, it is the normative, prescriptive remarks concerning the buttressing of restrictive gun laws that The New York Times owners and Editorial Board is desirous of protecting. For, the two normative, prescriptive viewpoints—one viewpoint expressing the desire for more restrictive gun laws and the other viewpoint calling for a relaxing of restrictive gun laws—are semantically incompatible and logically inconsistent. The reporter who writes something, on his own time, in another medium, arguing for the arming of civilian population in America could end up receiving a “pink slip” from his employer, a mainstream news organization, for that employee's troubles—and he may receive a very public rebuke as well.Extrapolating from this, to the new policy of the NY Times, it should be evident that the mission of the newspaper is not, contrary to Dean Baquet’s assertions, undermined if the newspaper were only concerned about protecting clear and objective and accurate reporting of news events. It is, rather, something other or, at least, in addition to the protection of objective and accurate reporting of news events. For, the more emphatic, persistent, and ominous mission of The New York Times is one not of reporting news events, it is, rather, one of persuasion—persuading the American citizenry, for example, that civilian gun possession should be radically restrained and constrained, and that the Second Amendment is archaic and should be repealed. And, these normative prescriptions of the way the Nation ought to look, of the way things ought to be are conveyed to the American public constantly, vociferously, incessantly, through the medium of The New York Times. Obviously, a reporter that does not share the normative worldview of the newspaper’s publisher and owners and of the Newspaper’s Editorial Board and who wishes to make his or her contrary thoughts known in another medium, on his or her own time, will be skating on thin ice, for it is this person’s personal opinion that the newspaper’s owners and editors really see as undermining one specific mission of the paper—a mission that is directed to restricting and thereby weakening gun rights, not expanding or strengthening gun rights. The objective reporting of a particular instance of gun violence is not affected by differing opinions concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The matter of restricting or strengthening gun rights has, then, absolutely nothing to do with the mere reporting of a particular incidence of gun violence. Normative, ethical pronouncements have nothing to do with and do not follow from a descriptive accounting of a particular event in the world. But, the newspaper’s owners and editors don’t wish to acknowledge this. They do not wish to be seen as preventing their employees from exercising their fundamental right of free speech. So, they concoct a subterfuge. They come up with a ludicrous rationale for their news policy—a rationale that is tantamount to doing just what they do not wish to be seen as doing: preventing their reporters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak freely, and on their own time, whatever it is that their reporters may wish to say, pertaining to personal opinions about this or that subject, through a medium other than through The New York Times newspaper.The NY Times’ owners thus deny to their employees the free exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a right they, as members of an “aristocratic elite,” as they fashion themselves, garner for themselves. And, of course, these aristocratic “elite” see no inconsistency in reserving for themselves those fundamental rights that they would deny to their employees, as American citizens, and which they would deny to most every other American citizen if they could, whether it be the right of free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that they would like to restrict or the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Imagine, for a moment, that the writers of the Arbalest Quarrel happened to work as reporters for the NY Times. Would the Times’ publishers and editors suffer us to write in support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Not under this new policy as heralded by Dean Baquet, which he, as a spokesperson for The New York Times, sees as a good thing, as a positive thing. But that can only mean The New York Times does not draw a tenable distinction between its opinion articles and its news articles. Objective facts and subjective opinion are conflated. Opinion and Fact are all one and the same for the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times. Thus, The New York Times owners and Editorial Board, through this incongruous sleight-of-hand, argue that its reporters cannot offer an opinion, even on their own time and through a medium other than the newspaper they work for if that opinion happens to be inconsistent with and therefore is perceived as operating to the detriment of the newspaper owners’ and Editorial Board’s running of an Op-Ed/News narrative. This, though, has nothing to do with protecting objective facts which can very well take care of themselves. It has everything to do with controlling the thought processes of the public. The public is coerced into accepting one line of thought regarding any subject that The New York Times happens to write on and the Newspaper will suffer no viewpoint to the contrary.

THE OWNERS AND EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ARE HYPOCRITES

The hypocrisy of the NY Times’ owners and Editorial Board toward the First Amendment free speech protection—a right it would retain for itself, as coupled with freedom of the Press, and which it has the audacity to refuse exercise of by the Newspaper’s employees—was not lost on another mainstream newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, no less a mainstream newspaper—a “gatekeeper” ostensibly on “the right” of the political spectrum, but still a mainstream media newspaper just the same, representing the wealthy “nobility” in this Country. William McGurn, writing an Opinion, titled, “The NFL vs. the New York Times,” on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, quoting the NY Times editor, Baquet, at length, which the NY Times itself dared only to touch upon ever so slightly for its readers, noted the hypocrisy and doublespeak and smug self-assurance coming from the Times. “Mr. Baquet says ‘. . . In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation. Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively. These guidelines apply to everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics. . . . We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy. . . . While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones. Separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or ‘like’ online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.” If this is the rationale for gagging a citizen’s right of free speech, it is a poor argument, as it denigrates the very idea inherent in a newspaper—the notion of factual reporting of events. It also denigrates the very notion of free expression, one of the essential legs upon which a free Republic—our free Republic—stands. Indeed, it is the very notion of critical comment and commentary that the American public has a right to demand. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board admit their fear of critical comment, commentary, and review. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board admit their fear of public consumption of opinions different from and contrary to their own. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board fear open and public and lively debate. All this the American public now hears from a newspaper that loudly proclaims the right of a Free Press, codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—but, apparently, only so long as there exists one voice—that of the NY Times’ owners and Editorial Board which they would deign the American public to hear. Through this policy The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board are telling their employees that the purpose of The New York Times goes far beyond the mere reporting of “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” far beyond the recitation of objective facts. The newspaper’s owners and Editorial Board has informed the American public, “clearly and objectively and accurately, that the newspaper engages in influence peddling and, more, that it will suffer no viewpoint on any subject other than its own, as dictated to it by its benefactors: the enclave of  incorrigible, intractable, ruthless, secretive, inordinately wealthy and powerful internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist “elite,” both here and abroad, who seek to undercut the sovereignty of this Nation, who seek to undermine the supremacy of this Nation’s laws, and who seek to pervert and debase the sanctity of the natural and fundamental rights of this Nation’s citizenry.The New York Times’ new policy goes well beyond the import and purport of the Hatch Act that applies to Federal Government Bureaucrats. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits the vast Federal Government Bureaucracy from taking part in political campaign activities, but the Act does not prevent a Government Bureaucrat from expressing his own political or social or philosophical view on social media, on his or her own time, as that would be at loggerheads with the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Yet, the new policy of The New York Times' Editorial Board goes must further. For, here we have a mainstream newspaper, the fervent promoter of and benefactor of the Freedom of Press clause of the First Amendment, that dares to deny of its own employees the right of free speech—which also resides within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—when those employees wish to exercise, outside of their employment in their capacity as American citizens, the right embodied in the First Amendment. Thus, The New York Times disparages and decries of others what it would monopolize for itself—the right to express an opinion. Clearly the Times Newspaper is not interested in protecting objectivity in reporting. It is only interested in controlling opinion and, when it comes to the Second Amendment, the NY Times intends to control opinion--to control the narrative--completely, even if the exercise of that control amounts to denying--denying of its own employees, in their capacity as citizens of the United States, and denying to those employees, hypocritically, as well as denying to those employees, unlawfully-- the very right of free speech, which it would jealously guard for itself.Apparently, The New York Times is taking its cue from Germany. In an article posted on June 30, 2017, titled, “Delete Hate Speech or Pay Up, Germany Tells Social Media Companies,”  NY Times Reporters, Melissa Eddy and Mark Scott, write:“Social media companies operating in Germany face fines of as much as $57 million if they do not delete illegal, racist or slanderous comments and posts within 24 hours under a law passed on Friday.The law reinforces Germany’s position as one of the most aggressive countries in the Western world at forcing companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to crack down on hate speech and other extremist messaging on their digital platforms.But the new rules have also raised questions about freedom of expression. Digital and human rights groups, as well as the companies themselves, opposed the law on the grounds that it placed limits on individuals’ right to free expression. Critics also said the legislation shifted the burden of responsibility to the providers from the courts, leading to last-minute changes in its wording.Technology companies and free speech advocates argue that there is a fine line between policy makers’ views on hate speech and what is considered legitimate freedom of expression, and social networks say they do not want to be forced to censor those who use their services. Silicon Valley companies also deny that they are failing to meet countries’ demands to remove suspected hate speech online.Still, German authorities pressed ahead with the legislation. Germany witnessed an increase in racist comments and anti-immigrant language after the arrival of more than a million migrants, predominantly from Muslim countries, since 2015, and Heiko Maas, the justice minister who drew up the draft legislation, said on Friday, that it ensured that rules that currently apply offline would be equally enforceable in the digital sphere.”As a prime example of hypocritical, contradictory “doublespeak,” the Times Reporters, add this remark of Maas:“‘With this law, we put an end to the verbal law of the jungle on the internet and protect the freedom of expression for all,” Mr. Maas said. “We are ensuring that everyone can express their opinion freely, without being insulted or threatened.’“That is not a limitation, but a prerequisite for freedom of expression,” he continued.” What? Taking away a person’s right of free speech is to be equated with giving that person the right of free speech? Unless something was lost in translating the German into English, here, this remark by Heiko Maas is a contradiction in terms and the quintessence of bombastic absurdity. Maas should be ashamed of himself. Apparently, though, The New York Times felt there was something noteworthy in the remarks of Maas to the extent that The New York Times felt that Germany’s new National policy is worthy of adoption by the Times newspaper itself. Incredible! But, the absurdity fostered transcends well beyond the Times itself. As the newspaper reports, major publishing houses are hiring so-called “sensitivity readers”—at the moment directed to the writers of children’s books. In an article, published on December 24, 2017, titled, “In an Era of Online Outrage, Do Sensitivity Readers Result in Better Books, or Censorship?,” by Times reporter, Alexandra Alter, we are told that,“In today’s hair-trigger, hyperreactive social media landscape, where a tweet can set off a cascade of outrage and prompt calls for a book’s cancellation, children’s book authors and publishers are taking precautions to identify potential pitfalls in a novel’s premise or execution. Many are turning to sensitivity readers, who provide feedback on issues like race, religion, gender, sexuality, chronic illness and physical disabilities. The role that readers play in shaping children’s books has become a flash point in a fractious debate about diversity, cultural appropriation and representation, with some arguing that the reliance on sensitivity readers amounts to censorship. . . . Behind the scenes, these readers are having a profound impact on children’s literature, reshaping stories in big and small ways before they reach impressionable young audiences. Like fact checkers or copy editors, sensitivity readers can provide a quality-control backstop to avoid embarrassing mistakes, but they specialize in the more fraught and subjective realm of guarding against potentially offensive portrayals of minority groups, in everything from picture books to science fiction and fantasy novels. . . . Some see a downside to publishers’ growing reliance on sensitivity readers, and warn that it could lead to sanitized books that tiptoe around difficult topics. Skeptics say the heightened scrutiny discourages authors from writing about cultures other than their own, resulting in more homogenized literature. “Can we no longer read ‘Othello’ because Shakespeare wasn’t black?” the novelist Francine Prose wrote recently in an essay about sensitivity readers and censorship in The New York Review of Books."The NY Times' reporters, continue:

"Others have echoed that view, arguing that sensitivity readers might have derailed works like William Styron’s “The Confessions of Nat Turner,” Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” or Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” After the subject was covered in Slate, a writer for National Review fretted that “if ‘sensitivity readers’ are given the freedom to hijack authors’ visions, we’re going to lose some beloved works of art that we could have otherwise enjoyed.”

Is The New York Times’ “gag order” policy anything less than an attempt to censor opinion? Does not The New York Times impose its own sensitivity readers—its Editorial Board—on all ideas expressed. We are seeing, in this Country, an attempt to second-guess every written and spoken word. The American public is not the better but all the worse for it.This attempt by the Deep State and by the mainstream media to control guns, to control thoughts, to control actions is leading to societal upheaval, mass hysteria, pandemonium. Perhaps this is by design—an attempt to create volatility and confusion in order to weaken this Nation, to weaken its resolve, to weaken the Bill of Rights so that we, American citizens, will be ripe for takeover by the powers that seek to crush us into submission.

HOW FAR WILL THE NEW YORK TIMES AND OTHER MAINSTREAM NEWS ORGANIZATIONS GO TO TRAMPLE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AS WE ENTER A NEW YEAR?

As this year draws to an end, The New York Times has commenced a series of articles, “The Home Front,” where the newspaper’s Editorial Board is calling for a major transformation of the Lautenberg Amendment, 18 USCS § 921(a)(33)(A)(i). What is the Lautenberg Amendment? Essentially the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996, following in the footsteps of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, makes it unlawful for any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a gun. Here we have the NY Times Editorial Board writing an extensive series of articles on a law—subsumed under the Gun Control Act of 1968—that the Editorial Board knows little, if anything about, and seems to care even less of what it may know about, the law, but writes with presumed and presumptuous authority and certitude about a law as if it knows full well whereof it speaks. Yet, it knows nothing. Nonetheless, the NY Times Editorial Board skirts broad discussion of the actual law itself and yet writes extensively and boldly about why the law needs to be strengthened.The NY Times' Editorial Board should not be proselytizing to the American public on matters beyond its professional ability to explain and decipher. Actually, the Editorial Board should not be proselytizing to the American public at all, but certainly not on matters of law, especially those impacting fundamental Constitutional Rights. The Editorial Board, likely, does not include lawyers. Unfortunately, that doesn’t prevent, the Editorial Board from expounding upon the law. That it chooses to do so is illustrative of an overbearing pompous attitude exhibited in discussing legal matters. This pompous attitude adds to, rather than distracts from, this Newspaper’s condescending attitude toward its readers. The Editorial Board apparently believes it can successfully cloak its ineptitude concerning law and legal matters by cultivating an air of moral superiority when pontificating on matters involving firearms and on the exercise of the right to keep and bear them.The Editorial Board of the NY Times suggests—nay, demands—as seen in this series, which has yet to conclude, that the law—the Lautenberg Amendment—ought to be transformed. The Editorial Board would create a monstrosity, denying to millions of Americans their right to own and possess firearms.We will take to task in forthcoming articles on the Lautenberg Amendment in the New Year. We will provide you with the language of the Statute as it exists—something The New York Times will not provide for its readers. We will explain the meaning of the law as drafted and enacted, and will discuss problems with it, in the context of the Second Amendment and in the context of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well. The law is poorly drafted. The New York Times would make a poorly drafted law even worse, as it calls on the public to blindly go where the newspaper leads it—to the edge of a cliff.Returning, for a moment, to the Yale a cappella group’s Wiffinpoof Song, consider, in light of the foregoing remarks set down in this essay:

WHO REALLY ARE THESE “BLACK LITTLE SHEEP IN THE WIFFINPOOF SONG WHO HAVE LOST THEIR WAY? ARE THE BLACK LITTLE SHEEP THOSE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHO HOLD TO TRADITIONAL VALUES, MORES, CODES OF CONDUCT, HISTORICAL PURITY—WHO VIEW THIS NATION AS THE FOUNDERS OF THE REPUBLIC, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, ESTABLISHED—OR DO THEY INCLUDE THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS NATION: NAMELY AND PARTICULARLY, THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE  MAINSTREAM MEDIA; VARIOUS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS; THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE VAST BUREAUCRACY OF GOVERNMENT; AND NOT LEAST, THOSE CONFUSED AMERICANS WHO HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE CAREFULLY PLANNED AND ORCHESTRATED RUSE THAT NATIONALISM IS BAD, THAT OPEN BORDERS ARE GOOD; THAT ANYONE WHO BELIEVES HIM OR HERSELF TO BE AN ‘AMERICAN’ IS AN ‘AMERICAN’ EVEN IF THAT PERSON IS RESIDING HERE ILLEGALLY; THAT GUNS ARE EVIL AND THAT GUN BUYBACKS ARE GOOD; THAT GENDER IS NOT BIOLOGICAL AND ABSOLUTE BUT INFINITELY MALLEABLE, SO THAT A MAN IS A WOMAN AND A WOMAN IS A MAN AS ONE WISHES TO BE; OR, PERHAPS, NEITHER, OR PERHAPS, BOTH AT ONCE; AND THAT WE, AMERICAN CITIZENS, ARE NO LONGER TRULY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT, RATHER, CITIZENS OF THE WORLD—ONE BIG, GLORIOUS HAPPY FAMILY, FIXATED ON MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE: SPORTS, ENTERTAINMENT, CLOTHES AND JEWELRY AND COSMETICS—THE DAILY DOSE OF SOMA TO KEEP A PERSON, HAPPY, CONTENTED, AND ASLEEP? PERHAPS, TO SOME EXTENT, BOTH ARE “BLACK LITTLE SHEEP”: AMERICANS WHO SEEK TO HOLD ON TO THEIR BIRTHRIGHT, WHO CHOOSE NOT TO “GET WITH” THE NEW PROGRAM, THE BRAVE NEW WORLD ORDER, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THOSE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHO SEEK TO DEMOLISH THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION, OF THIS REPUBLIC, HAD SO LOVINGLY BEQUEATHED TO US, THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY? PERHAPS THIS NATION AND ITS CITIZENS AND THE IGNORANT, ILL-INFORMED AMONG US AND THE DEMON KIND WHO WISH TO RULE OVER EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING ARE ALL WELL LOST AND HAVE ALL GONE ASTRAY. PERHAPS IT IS MUCH TOO LATE FOR THIS NATION AND MUCH TOO LATE FOR ALL THE DENIZENS IN IT. IF SO, THEN, LET US ALL CHIME IN: “BAA, BAA, BAA!” BUT, WE HOPE ALL IS NOT LOST FOR US, TRUE AMERICANS, WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE OUR NATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR CONSTITUTION'S MOST SACRED AND CRITICAL COMPONENT--THE BILL OF RIGHTS--WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE OUR NATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALISTS, TO UPHOLD OUR TRADITIONS, OUR VALUES, IN THE MODE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS GREAT NATION, IN THE MODE OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION. WE MUST CARRY ON; WE MUST PERSEVERE, AND WE MUST BE EVER WARY AND CAUTIOUS OF THOSE WHO TALK ABOUT CHANGING OUR NATION, CHANGING OUR CORE VALUES AND CORE TRADITIONS, CHANGING OUR HISTORY, "TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES;" FOR THESE ARE PSEUDO AMERICANS; THEY ARE THE BETRAYERS OF OUR NATION, THEY ARE BETRAYERS OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS FREE REPUBLIC; THEY ARE BETRAYERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OF OUR SACRED BILL OF RIGHTS. THEY USE AN ODD NOTION OF MORALITY TO CLOAK THEIR DESIRE TO TEAR DOWN THIS NATION STATE; TO DESTROY OUR SOVEREIGNTY; TO DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION; TO DESTROY OUR NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES--RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT EXIST IN US INTRINSCIALLY AS THEY COME TO US FROM THE CREATOR AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE LAWFULLY TAKEN FROM US BY GOVERNMENT. WE MUST PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE. ALL THESE NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE UNDER CONCERTED ATTACK BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND BY THEIR FELLOW TRAVEVLERS IN CONGRESS AND BY THOSE BUREAUCRATS THAT LURK IN THE SHADOWY CORNERS OF GOVERNMENT, UNSEEN AND UNHEARD, AND BY THE SECRETIVE AND RUTHLESS INTERNATIONALIST, TRANS-NATIONALIST ROTHSCHILD CLAN AND BY THEIR TOADIES IN THE UN AND IN THE WTO, IMF, WORLD BANK AND IN OTHER "INTERNATIONAL" ORGANIZATIONS--EVER SCHEMING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO INCORPORATE THIS NATION INTO THE EU AND EVENTUALLY TO DISMEMBER ALL WESTERN NATION STATES, MERGING AND SUBMERGING THEM INTO A NEW WORLD ORDER, PRESIDED OVER BY A COLD-HEARTED WEALTHY AND POWERFUL RULING "ELITE," DICTATING POLICY TO WE, THE NEW SERFS OF THAT NEW WORLD ORDER, WHO HAVE NO RIGHTS, NO LIBERTIES, SAVE THOSE THAT THE RULING "ELITE" DEIGN TO GRANT TO US AND WHO MAY, ON A WHIM, TAKE FROM US.

The Arbalest Quarrel seeks to awaken the American public from its slumber. As always, and most importantly, the Arbalest Quarrel will set the record straight on matters involving this Nation’s most sacred right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2018 we will press for enactment of national handgun carry reciprocity and propose our own language to avoid attempts by some States to ignore the national handgun carry reciprocity if, or, hopefully, when, enacted. We will explore the qualifications of certain individuals we would like to see on the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will continue with our detailed expositions of Federal and State firearms legislation and of Federal and State case law impacting on the Second Amendment. We will return to completing series we had commenced writing on in 2017 and in previous years. We have a lot of work to do, and much to accomplish.Antigun groups and antigun legislators are not sitting idly by. They intend to destroy the Second Amendment. But, like brave Horatio at the Bridge, the Arbalest Quarrel intends to stop these anti-American groups and anti-American people. But, we intend to do much more. We intend to take the fight to them, strengthening the Second Amendment, along with and in conjunction with the critical work NRA does on behalf of Americans.We will never give up our values, our history, our traditions, our Bill of Rights!Our articles and our essays stand as a testament to our commitment in support of our Bill of Rights and, especially, in support of our sacred Second Amendment. Please feel free to explore our site at www.arbalestquarrel.com. We encourage you to join our list of readers. It is easy to add your name to our list. You will receive immediate notification of the posting of our articles. There is no cost to you.We all have our work cut out for us. But, together, taking nothing for granted, and working hard to preserve and strengthen our Bill of Rights, and supporting our President in this effort, we can succeed in holding our Nation together, in the vein the Founders of our Republic intended. Won’t you join us?_________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.