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.

UNITED STATES SAFE ACT IN THE MAKING: PENNED AND PENCILED BY ANDREW CUOMO

GUN RIGHTS STAY CENTER STAGE

With the midterm Congressional and Gubernatorial elections just around the corner, those Americans who support a strong Second Amendment must not sit idle, but must vote for Congressional candidates and State Governors who will not only support the right of the people to keep and bear arms but who will actively defend that right against those who dare to destroy it. The gun rights issue is of paramount importance and will take center stage if Cuomo Democrats win control of the House and Senate and if they take control of the States.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT REMAINS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST FOR CUOMO DEMOCRATS.

The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out in our article, posted on August 1, 2018, that, although the immigration issue has been hyped by the mainstream media and by leftist politicians, in recent weeks and months, it is the Second Amendment that remains first and foremost, firmly in the crosshairs of those who seek to undermine our sacred Bill of Rights. And, sure enough, the exercise of gun rights is once again in the antigun zealots’ crosshairs.In recent days, as the Governor of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo, gears up for a third term bid, he has taken direct aim at the oldest Civil Rights Organization in the Country, the NRA. NRA exists to defend the single, most important right of the American people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right critical to the safeguarding of a free Republic, and critical to guaranteeing the autonomy and sanctity of the individual citizen, as the true sovereign authority in and of the United States.The New York Times has taken the lead in shepherding New York residents to elect Cuomo to a third term in Office, making the point of telling the public, in an August 5, 2018 article, titled, “A New Brawl With the N.R.A.? Cuomo Seizes an Opportunity as a Primary Looms”— that “Mr. Cuomo has had a longstanding ideological commitment to gun control. . . [and that] in 2013, Mr. Cuomo successfully fought for passage of the Safe Act, making New York the first state to enact more stringent gun regulations after the Sandy Hook massacre. He has proudly touted his ‘F’ rating from the N.R.A.” Lest there be any doubt where Cuomo’s ultimate ambition lies, the New York Times adds, in that same article, that “he [Cuomo] has also made no secret of his belief that his actions on gun control have made his state a model for the nation—a handy argument for a politician who has garnered some mention as a possible 2020 candidate. ‘Use New York as a test case,’ Mr. Cuomo said in an interview of his gun control measures, including the Safe Act. ‘The state is a laboratory of democracy where I can say: We passed the law five years ago. Come look at our state.’”Come look at New York, indeed! Imagine, if you will, a Nation, where the model for gun control, the New York Safe Act, becomes federal law—thrust on every State in the Union.De Facto, if not outright de jure, repeal of the Second Amendment has been the goal of the Democratic Party for decades. And, Andrew Cuomo will lead the charge on eviscerating the Second Amendment. Long before Democrats changed their position on illegal immigration—calling at an earlier time for curbs on such immigration, but now extolling an open borders policy that would essentially open the floodgates, letting flow, like an angry river into this Country, tens, perhaps even hundreds, of millions of low-skilled migrants, along with a large contingent of criminal gangs and refugees from failed states of the Middle East—Democrats have never wavered but have consistently attacked the sacred, natural right codified in the Second Amendment. They have done so incessantly, unceasingly, vehemently. That single issue is what defines them. That single issue is what motivates them, like no other. For, they know that: once the right of the people to keep and bear arms is destroyed, they--these Cuomo Democrats and other leftists--will do away with other fundamental rights and liberties. In so doing, they contrive and machinate to contort our Nation into a thing unrecognizable, an entity completely alien to the aims and desires of the founders of a Free Republic. These Cuomo Democrats seek to create a quagmire, a geographical "Place," no longer an Independent, Sovereign Nation--but merely a place--overrun by unassimilable alien people. These Cuomo Democrats and other leftists who seek to destroy our Nation--a Nation founded on natural rights and liberties--intend to destroy the very fabric of our Nation: its memory; its history, its values, its culture, its ethos. They intend to wipe the slate clean. And, to assist them in their detestable endeavor, they conspire to bring into our Country, such denizens of other Countries who have no understanding of, no appreciation for and, in fact, no concept, of a Nation that exists under and by the will of the people alone--a Nation whose people are endowed by their Creator with fundamental, natural rights and liberties--rights and liberties intrinsic to their very being: incorruptible, immutable, beyond the power of Government to deny, to ignore, to erase.

CUOMO DEMOCRATS DO NOT PERCEIVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS CODIFYING NATURAL RIGHTS BUT AS A CREATION OF MAN THAT CAN, THEREFORE, BE AMENDED OR DELETED AT WILL.

Not surprisingly, Cuomo Democrats and other leftists' disdain for the Second Amendment is reflected in their rebuke of the very notion that the Bill of Rights embodies and codifies a set of basic, natural rights endowed to man by the Creator, intrinsic to man's very being. As Cuomo Democrats and other leftists savagely, mindlessly, mercilessly attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment, they have also attacked the right of free speech, codified in the First Amendment, and they have attacked the very notion of private property rights codified in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They consider these rights trivial, anachronistic to, and an anathema to the "new" Socialist Order they wish to create. In their scheme, these Cuomo Democrats, and these other leftists residing in our Nation, consider the Nation's sacred rights to be merely man-made conventions, capable of excision or rescission, at the stroke of the pen.Thus, these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists belittle the Nation's Bill of Rights, and belittle, too, and especially, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. At every turn these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists contrive to undermine the sanctity of our sacred rights. In their insidious design first to trivialize the Nation's fundamental rights--natural rights, codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights by the framers of our Constitution--they seek, second, eventually, to strike these fundamental, natural rights from the Constitution, substituting for them, such man-made rights, they happen to construct for the moment; rights that happen, for the moment, to comprise their wish list, consistent with and commensurate with their plans for a new Socialist Order they intend to impose on Americans.And what are some of these new rights? Investor Business Daily wrote, presciently, in 2016, that: “They [Democrats] talk about the ‘right to affordable health care,’ the ‘right to a college education,’ the ‘right to a livable wage.’ But at the same time, many of these same Democrats have been agitating to restrict or outright repeal existing rights enshrined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.” 

CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS MUST SPEAK OUT!

Conservative commentators must speak out against the perils of a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, and they must do so continuously. They must emphasize the threat that Cuomo Democrats and other leftists pose to the continued sanctity of and continuity of the Bill of Rights and, especially, the threat they pose to the Second Amendment.Yet, conservative commentators remain, for the most part, reticent. Oddly, even the conservative commentator Sean Hannity fails to mention that Cuomo Democrats would strive to weaken the Second Amendment if they gained control of the House and the Senate. On his nightly Fox news broadcasts, Hannity rightly warns the American public about specific dangers posed by a Democratic Party takeover of Congress, including Democrats’ intention to impeach President Trump and their commitment to an open borders immigration policy, but he says nothing about Cuomo led Democrats’ devious, scurrilous plans to enact restrictive firearms measures, on the National stage, in the event they take over the House, and, possibly, the Senate as well.

IS THE WRITING ON THE WALL?

If Democrats do in fact take over Congress, after the November 2018 midterm elections, and if Andrew Cuomo is elected to a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo will be taking his plans for a National New York Safe Act to a receptive Congress, where he will lead the pack to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Of that, there can be no doubt._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: OBAMA SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN STAY IN AMERICA BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO? BUT, IS IT?

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 3: THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL’S OPINION ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

SUB-SUBPART 1: OBAMA SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN STAY IN AMERICA BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING FOR AMERICA TO DO? BUT, IS IT?

Lost in the chorus of sloganeering over immigration is any discussion of the legality of Obama’s executive order, granting amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. Obama claims that a legal basis for his executive order exists. But what is it? Does Obama tell us? Curiously, when Obama talks, he glosses quickly over critical points he doesn’t want the public to focus on. And that’s true of his intention to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.Obama happened to mention, in passing, that the Office of Legal Counsel told him he has the legal authority to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. And the mainstream media (MSM), quick to echo the President’s sentiments, is slow to question the accuracy of the President’s assertions and the sincerity of his motives. The MSM simply takes Obama at his word. In so doing, the MSM becomes merely a toady for the President, and, as such, utterly fails to serve the public interest. Neither Obama nor the mainstream media troubles to tell the American People what the Office of Legal Counsel actually said. Obama, an attorney himself and purported Constitutional law expert doesn’t want to talk about the law. Rather, Obama talks incessantly about morality. Obama says granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is the right thing to do. Some Americans might disagree with Obama’s notions of morality. But, whether you agree with Obama’s brand of morality or not is beside the point. What we are concerned with here is law, not one person’s notions of morality.So, let us consider what the Office of Legal Counsel actually says. Let us consider the purported legal authority of the Chief Executive to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.We begin with a simple truth: letting millions of people remain in this Country because it would be nice for us to do so – individuals, who had no business being in this Country in the first place – isn’t a tenable basis for letting them remain here.Keep in mind, at the outset of this discussion and analysis, three critical points.The first critical point is that the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is just that: an opinion. The opinion does not have the force of law because the opinion is not handed down by a court of law after an adversarial proceeding. Still, the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel has more import than dubious, simplistic, bombastic, moralistic pronouncements by Obama.  For, the opinion sets the stage for the Chief Executive’s arguments in Court in the event Republicans in Congress ever demonstrate the courage to throw down the gauntlet. At the moment Congressional Republicans are merely huffing and puffing smoke. And Obama suspects Congressional Republicans don’t have the backbone to challenge him on illegal immigration.The second critical point is that our Founders gave considerable thought  to the matter of naturalization and understood the singular importance of it by explicitly referring to it in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders made clear that Congress, alone, has the power to create rules for naturalization. No other Branch of Government has such power. Yet Obama seeks to assume that power unto himself, as Chief Executive.The third critical point is this: the laws our Nation adopts for those who are to become citizens have a decisive impact on what this Nation is; what this Nation may become; how successful this Nation shall be. We ignore our own laws at our peril. And, we undermine the strength of our citizenry by admitting, ultimately, as new citizens of our Nation, the worst among people – those who would dare to cross our borders illegally. For how can such people claim to be law-abiding, honorable individuals, who break the first of our laws, crossing our borders illegally – and then daring to claim what they are not: responsible individuals, respectful of our Nation’s laws – those who come to this Nation under cloak of darkness -- their very presence here, a lie?  The opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is extraordinarily long and detailed. The person who drafted the report, Karl R. Thompson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, talks about a lot of things, but one thing he doesn’t talk about is morality. There isn’t one word about it in the entire length and breadth of the report. And that makes sense. That is as it should be. For, the issue of amnesty raises a legal issue, not a moral one. So, Obama’s rhetorical utterances to the Public are irrelevant. What is relevant – the only thing that is relevant – is whether Obama has the legal authority to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Once again, the Constitution certainly doesn’t give him that power. That power resides only with Congress.Now, the Office of Legal Counsel doesn’t suggest that the authority to enact laws governing naturalization and citizenship reside in the Office of the Chief Executive. Clearly, it does not. Rather, what the Office of Legal Counsel seems to opine, at least according to Obama’s terse and tacit assertion about it, is that Obama’s executive action, granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, does not rise to the level of law-making. For, if it did, Obama’s action would definitely lie beyond his authority as Chief Executive. But, if Obama’s executive action is no more than an exercise of administrative discretion, then such action would fall within his legal purview. So, which is it? On scrutiny of the opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel actually equivocates on this very point. But Obama goes his merry way, claiming his power to act unilaterally on illegal immigration, in the bold unprecedented manner he wants and does, is clear and unequivocal. And there's the rub. Obama is dead wrong. And that, perhaps, explains why Obama says next to nothing about the law to the American public and all too much about morality.Obama is less a competent leader of a nation and more an able stage magician. He deliberately, cleverly, and perniciously, directs the public's attention away from what is important, namely the laws of immigration and a Chief Executive's duties under the U.S.  Constitution, and toward something totally irrelevant, an odd sermon on morality as he or his enablers define it. Thus, he completes his conjuring trick.Let’s take a look at the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel.Two specific questions are raised: (1) whether, given limited resources, it is legally permissible for the President to prioritize the illegal aliens the DHS first gets rid of; and (2) whether it is permissible for DHS to give temporary relief from removal to certain illegal aliens who are the parents of children who are present in the U.S.  Those are the two questions that Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel to answer. Those are the only questions that Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel to answer. But what were Counsel’s  answers?In providing answers to the President, the Office of Legal Counsel first looked at the impetus for the questions.  The Office acknowledged that 11.3 million illegal aliens have taken up residence in this Country and that the DHS only has resources sufficient to remove 400,000 of them each year. So, in the absence of additional resources DHS has to prioritize what illegal aliens it rids the Country of. And the legal questions, especially, the first one, go to the issue of prioritization.The President asks the Office whether he can decide, irrespective of Congress, who among the illegal aliens can stay here, at least for a while, although, in fact, indefinitely, and who among them must be removed immediately. The crux of the first issue is: how far does Executive discretion extend? We will explore this question in depth in the next installment. In a subsequent post we will deal with the second of the two questions, pertaining to temporary relief for a specific class of illegal aliens.One further point to ponder:In dealing with immigration here, understand, no one is seriously contesting the propriety of immigration proper. After all, we are a Nation of immigrants. What we are looking at here is whether people who entered our Country illegally, with impunity, should be forgiven their transgression, and allowed to remain. In the context of the desire of millions of illegal immigrants to remain this Country, we must remember that many millions of individuals throughout the world desire to become American citizens. And the vast majority of those wishing to become American citizens do respect our laws. They wait their turn. They wait patiently to become citizens in accordance with the laws of naturalization Congress has enacted.To give preference to those who disrespect our laws is to denigrate those who respect and honor our laws. To give preference to those who disrespect our laws is, as well, to undercut the rule of law. It is to denigrate our parents and grandparents and great grandparents – individuals who came to this Country through legal channels; individuals who sought to learn the English language; individuals who sought to adopt American culture, and customs, and traditions, rather than to force America to adopt theirs. Those who come to our shores in the dark of night, rather than in the light of day, do not concern themselves about our laws, our culture, our customs, our traditions, our history, our language. Is that not all too obvious?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.