MARTIAL LAW IN CANADA; CAN IT HAPPEN IN THE UNITED STATES?

THE GLOBALISTS’ PUPPET JUSTIN TRUDEAU DECLARED MARTIAL LAW IN CANADA; CAN IT HAPPEN HERE IN THE U.S.?

PART ONE

Americans should not only be concerned with but greatly alarmed by Trudeau’s declaration of martial law in Canada. His actions over there have repercussions here, a Nation that resides next door.A declaration of martial law could happen here, but the presence of tens of millions of armed citizens operates as an extraordinarily powerful deterrent against the imposition of it if the Government’s inducement for it were grounded on the notion the armed citizenry itself posed an imminent threat to it.Yet, given the nature of events at home in the U.S. this past year, under a feckless, corrupt, inept, idiotic Administration and an equally feckless corrupt Democrat-Party controlled Congress, the Government could attempt it. If the Biden Administration is that stupid, a bloodbath would ensue—no doubt about that. But it will be the Government’s call. The Government will have to be the instigator of violence against the American people.Americans will not suffer tyranny. That much is clear. The question is how far will this Government go in testing the citizenry's patience? At what point would the Government feel brazen enough to take the risk by pushing the American people against a wall?There are forces both here and abroad that would love to see the Biden Administration call for martial law, as the Trudeau Government did, notwithstanding here, as there,  lack of sound reason—or even flimsy pretext—to do so. Americans have certainly witnessed in the last few years a clear and callous constriction of their fundamental rights and liberties. But the Federal Government hasn’t dared to strangle a person’s life by freezing his or her bank account—at least not yet. And, a truck strike, such as the one in Canada, is not likely to result in anything of the sort occurring here in the U.S. for the very reason that tens of millions of Americans possess firearms. The Canadian citizenry does not. Americans would not tolerate a massive attack on their ability to provide for themselves and their families as a means to subjugate them.Any attempt to destroy one’s life—and that includes an attempt to destroy one’s ability to make a living and having access to their monetary funds—is likely to be met with an equally harsh response by the American people. This is an application of Newton’s Third Law of Motion applied to society. Still, Americans must take notice of what just transpired in Canada. And an analysis of that is in order for there is an elaborate and unpleasant mosaic taking shape in the world—one that impacts all western nation-states.Recent events in Canada mark a major step forward in a massive, albeit secretive global enterprise that transects and transcends the needs, desires, and wishes of the commonalty of all western first-world countries. The goals of that global enterprise are incompatible with the needs, desires, and wishes of the common people of those countries.Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, declared martial law in Canada a few days ago, on February 15, 2022. He delivered the declaration of martial law coolly, caustically, perfunctorily, in monotone as if reading a script prepared for him by others, which it undoubtedly was.This declaration of martial law could have been avoided if Trudeau had deigned to meet with spokespeople for the truckers, allowing them the courtesy of airing their justifiable grievances to which, as citizens, they were certainly entitled. That would have obviated the need for an irresponsible, horrific response to their strike—a peaceful act of civil disobedience. But, then, the declaration of martial law wasn't something to be avoided. It was precisely what Trudeau wanted—or rather, and more to the point, it was what those pulling Trudeau’s strings wanted. It was what the Neoliberal Globalist ruling elite wanted—the imposition of totalitarianism on Canada. And the Truckers' strike gave the Neoliberal Globalists the pretext they needed and wanted.Yet, truth to tell, totalitarianism already existed in Canada. The Canadian people didn't know that a week ago. Now they do. The declaration of martial law—i.e., invocation of Canada's Emergencies Act—simply made the fact of totalitarian rule in Canada transparent. The declaration of martial law was little more than a formality.And, the cruel assault of the RCMP and Ottawa’s police on both Canadian truckers and their supporters, that followed, only made the brutality of Totalitarianism, visited on the truckers and on their supporters, more emphatic.The obscene actions of the RCMP and Ottawa’s police simply punctuated the contentious, contemptuous attitude of the ruling Global “elite” toward the Canadian commonalty: a cold, calculated indifference toward the plight of the average Canadian citizen that manifested clearly, definitively as sheer loathing. The Government obviously gave the RCMP and Ottawa police carte blanche in its dealings with the truckers and its supporters. The message heard was loud and clear: “Do whatever you want out there!” And, giving in to the beast within them, they did just that. See, e.g., the story in Daily Mail, and article in Toronto Sun.Easy enough it surely was for Trudeau to declare martial law, sans Court order or Parliamentary consent. There was no hint of reluctance exhibited on his part.Still, the rationale for it from a legal sense, let alone ethical sense, is problematic and the implications of it for both Canada and other western nation-states, including, and especially ours, as Canada’s closest neighbor, is deeply troubling.This is no small matter. It marks an unprecedented step backward—to outright barbarism—and it is a dire omen for Americans.But, to think of Canada as a “democracy” that, through a set of unfortunate circumstances turned toward totalitarianism is false. Of course, the term ‘democracy,’—overused and bandied about ad nauseum as it is today, as, for example, among “Progressives” here in our own Country—has little, if anything, to recommend it either here or in Canada. And it is of little note in any event.Despite a hitherto close rapport with Canada, the fact remains that, in its governance, Canada isn’t like the United States, and never was.As a British Commonwealth Country, Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy. It is also described as a Parliamentary Democracy. On its public website, one learns that——“The Prime Minister heads the federal government based in Ottawa. [And at the moment that person is Justin Trudeau].

• the Queen or King of Canada is the head of state
• the Prime Minister is the head of government

The Governor General represents the Queen in Canada. The Sovereign appoints the Governor General on the Prime Minister’s advice. The appointment is usually for five years.”One thing Canada definitely isn’t is a “Republic.” The United States is a true Republic.Specifically, “The United States, under its Constitution, is a federal, representative, democratic republic, an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States.” See govinfo pdf. Unlike Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—there is no foreign head of state in the United States, whether of “royal blood” or not. Americans threw the yoke of tyranny off once and forever in the American Revolution of 1776.Unlike the Commonwealth Nations, our Constitution established three co-equal branches with carefully limited and demarcated powers and authority. This was calculated to keep the Nation’s Federal Government from descending into tyranny. This hasn’t worked out so well. But, then, the Framers of the Constitution wouldn’t be altogether surprised by this. They were not so naïve as to believe that carefully delineated and demarcated powers among three co-equal Branches would of itself prevent unscrupulous types from consolidating powers in two Branches of the Government and eventually in all three, and, upon accomplishing that, attempt to usurp from the American people the sovereignty over Government that belongs solely to them.Only the Bill of Rights would keep Government truly in check, and among those sacred, natural, illimitable, immutable, unalienable rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the final arbiter of the power and authority of the American people over Government. If tyranny were to reign supreme over the American people it would only do so by clashing with the armed citizenry and vanquishing the citizenry in armed conflict.Application of martial law against a citizenry constitutes the erasure of the exalted values of civil liberties and a tacit declaration of war on one’s own citizenry. Western Countries talk glowingly of  “liberal democracy” as if such a thing were a godsend, even though it isn’t. It is merely a political trope of the ruling “elite” suggesting to the commonalty the existence of a beneficent, benevolent system of governance that hides a sinister aim—complete subjugation of the populations of all western nation-states.Just how illusive “democracy” was in Canada was made depressingly clear through the ease by which Canada’s civil liberties were summarily erased.And, what was the rationale and motivation for Trudeau’s invocation of Canada’s “Emergencies Act?”The Conservative Institute says this:“Canada’s embattled tyrant Justin Trudeau declared martial law Monday in a desperate bid to crush the truckers who have been protesting his COVID mandates for more than two weeks.Effectively labeling the protesters terrorists, Trudeau announced he would invoke a never-before-used law, the Emergencies Act, that would give him the power to ban public assembly and freeze the bank accounts of anyone helping the demonstrators.The Emergencies Act can only be invoked in a dire emergency” that ‘seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians.’ It has never been used in Canada’s history.By invoking it Monday, Trudeau was essentially declaring peaceful demonstrators who have blockaded the capital of Ottawa to demand an end to COVID restrictions an unprecedented threat to Canada’s security. He laid out a series of extreme measures to deal with the ‘threat.’Trudeau warned that protesters who fail to obey his orders could lose their vehicle insurance and have their personal bank accounts frozen without a court order. Tow truck drivers could also be coerced to cooperate in breaking up the demonstrations. The authoritarian measures, Trudeau said, are ‘necessary and responsible,‘ and would be ‘time-limited.’” See also the article in NY Post.Trudeau’s invocation of martial law in Canada does not, in his very utterance of it, speak of the need for it, but begs the question,“ ‘Can it truly be said the security of Canada is threatened by largely non-violent protests? Certainly, our sovereignty and territorial integrity are not at risk.’” See article in the New York Post, citing, “Leah West, an assistant professor at Carleton University in Ottawa,” who pointed out that “‘The federal government [of Canada] must consult with provinces and Cabinet must believe the protests rise to the level of a national emergency.’”And, there’s the rub. The territorial integrity of Canada was never at risk. Trudeau apparently never did this. He never consulted with the Parliament and with the Canadian Provinces, as he is required to do. In fact, Parliament would not have granted authority in any case. See article in Lifesitenews. Many critical questions are raised that have gone unanswered. “Conservative Party interim Leader Candice Bergen. . . suggested that Prime Minister’s antics were unneeded & making the situation worse, [asserting, on January 16, 2022] in the Canadian Parliament, ‘Yesterday, I noted that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would have to get approval from the Canadian Parliament to enact the odious ‘Emergencies Act.’ Given the fact he heads a minority government and that many Canadian citizens support the goals of the Freedom Convoy protest, Members of Parliament may not be too keen to grant it.It appears I was right. Less than 24-hours after declaring wide-ranging powers, including terror finance laws to defund the trucker, Trudeau came to parliament to persuade them to support his move.’” “Trudeau responded with blather, completely dodging Bergen’s pointed queries. Bergen even noted that there were significant developments that negated the need to invoke the Act:

• The Coutts border between the US and Alberta has been cleared.
• The Ambassador Bridge is fully
• Ontario is ending its vaccine mandate.

When Trudeau explained he was implementing the “Emergencies Act” for the safety of Canadians, he was booed loudly.  When he said he was demonstrating exemplary leadership, there were laughter and jeers.  The Speaker of Parliament had to step in to quiet the uproar several times.Interim Conservative Party leader Bergen made one exceptional point: What if what Trudeau is doing makes things worse?Indeed, the situation appears to be poised to be far more problematic as the truckers remain defiant.” See article on the website, legal insurrection.Indeed, the situation is problematic! Martial law shall exist in Canada indefinitely. The Neo-liberal Globalist masters have tightened the noose around Canada, just as they have done so in Australia, New Zealand, and as they are doing so in the EU. Only the U.S. remains obstinately, indefatigably resistant and defiant to despotic rule. Shall it remain so?_____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: EVIL CARETAKER OF GOVERNMENT ATTACKS JUSTICES GORSUCH AND KAVANAUGH

PART ONE

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues that you’re gonna be gone in November, and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now ever, ever again!” Schumer, speaking at a pro-Abortion rally run by the “Center for Reproductive Rights”Senate Democrat Party Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s recent threat directed to two U.S. Supreme Court Justices—Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both Trump nominees—is outrageous, shameful, reprehensible, and unforgivable, surely; and it deserves our Nation’s condemnation, of course. But there is something in Chuck Schumer’s actions more disconcerting and alarming than the rant itself: something below the surface that is both telling and dire.  Consider where Senator Schumer delivered his rant: Note, it wasn’t delivered to his fellow Senators in the U.S. Senate Chamber. He delivered his rant on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in front of a crowd of angry pro-abortion demonstrators, during oral hearing on a Louisiana abortion case.*Schumer’s choice of forum was no accident. Schumer, has consciously, presumptuously, arrogantly, and inexcusably attacked the very fabric of the Nation itself: the U.S. Constitution. He has also shown visible contempt and disdain for the Nation, for the Constitution, and for the American people.He has disgraced himself and the Chamber of Congress he represents, the U.S. Senate, even as he, quite apparently, seems oblivious to this. Schumer has also denigrated the memory of our Nation’s founders and he has maligned the memory of all Americans who have served our Nation in battle and who have sacrificed their lives to preserve a free Republic. This man is beyond redemption.Instead of using his stature as a U.S. Senator to reduce anger and tension, Schumer ramped it up; and he did his rabble rousing in front of a sympathetic Press, for maximum effect. Schumer knew exactly what he was doing. It is nothing new. We have seen this before, and often. Creating divisiveness among the populace and fomenting violence comes straight out of the Radical Left’s playbook.The Democrats’ end goal is clear: take down a duly elected President; rewrite the U.S. Constitution; destroy an independent, free Republic; break the will of the American people by controlling thought and action; and deny to the American people their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, that tyranny of Government may be prevented and the sovereignty of the American people may be maintained.

A TUTORIAL IN GOVERNMENT FOR THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER, CHUCK SCHUMER

LISTEN UP CHUCK!———

Our Nation, Chuck, isn’t a Parliamentary Democracy with Monarch; it is a free Constitutional Republic, sans Monarch. The two systems are completely different.The integrity of our Nation’s free Republic is grounded in and maintained through the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution, Chuck, comprises four salient, inextricably linked components.The first component, the Preamble, sets forth the general purpose of the Constitution.The Second component, the Articles, establishes the nature of, parameters of, and operation of Government. The first three Articles define the respective and limited powers of three co-equal and independent Branches of Government, Chuck.Article One establishes Congress, the Legislature. Article Two establishes the Executive, the U.S. President. Article Three establishes the U.S. Supreme Court, the Judiciary. The third component, the Bill of Rights, is a codification of fundamental, elemental, immutable, unalienable, natural law. The Bill of Rights establishes the sovereignty of the American people over Government. Contrary to some speculation, these Ten Amendments cannot be modified, repealed, or ignored, even theoretically. Since natural law isn’t created by man; man cannot change, abrogate or dismiss natural law. And, apart from law, as a matter of logic, our Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic, in which Government is subordinated to the people, would cease to exist were the Bill of Rights to be dismissed or ignored. The Nation's Bill of Rights is absolutely essential to the existence of and maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic.The fourth component of our Constitution comprises a series of additional Amendments that were ratified subsequent to ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. These additional Amendments serve to change certain regulatory features of the Articles; to clarify the relationship between the people and the States, as in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment; to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction, “except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted;” and to clarify voting rights in the Nation.

CHUCK: YOU APPARENTLY THINK A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS EQUIVALENT TO A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY; IT ISN’T!

This may be news to you, Chuck, but, in the U.S., unlike the UK, no Branch of our Federal Government takes its orders from any other. Yet, you presume to tell the high Court how it is to decide cases. Your remarks amount to an imperative that the U.S. Supreme Court—the Third Branch of the Federal Government—is expected to take its marching orders from the Legislative Branch. The idea is not only false, and ridiculous, and impertinent; it is repugnant and dangerous.Apart from your intimidation of two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and apart from your incitement to violence—as you have made your remarks in front of an angry mob—you have denigrated the doctrine of separation of powers among each Branch, and you have deprecated the importance of our system of checks and balances among the Branches. You are laying the foundation for a Legislative Branch power grab and urging infighting among the Three Branches of Government. Your remarks do nothing but weaken the integrity of our Three Branch system of Government. Whether through callous disregard of the impact of your actions, diabolical planning to disrupt the operations of Government, or simple, inherent, irreverent stupidity, you have harmed our Nation, perceiving it to be something it is not and ought not to be. Our Government isn’t modeled after that of the United Kingdom and was never meant to be.The United Kingdom, unlike the United States, is a parliamentary democracy, it isn’t a free Constitutional Republic. In fact, the UK doesn’t even have a Constitution. “The UK Parliament is a ‘sovereign parliament’ – this means that the legislative body has ‘absolute sovereignty’, in other words it is supreme to all other government institutions, including any executive or judicial bodies. This stems from there being no single written constitution, and contrasts with notions of judicial review, where, if the legislature passes a law that infringes on any of the basic rights that people enjoy under their (written) constitution, it is possible for the courts to overturn it. In the UK, it is still Parliament (and not the judges) that decides what the law is. Judges interpret the law, but they do not make the law.” See, the website, Law TeacherIn the UK, Chuck, you would have the authority to tell the judges what the law is. But, in the U.S., Chuck, you have no such authority to tell our U.S. Supreme Court what the law is. That is the sole duty of the high Court, as made clear in Article Three of our Constitution, and in an early seminal U.S. Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).And, yes, Chuck, sometimes the decisions of the Justices are unpopular to some people.** But it is the duty of the high Court to defend the Constitution as written.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural right, codified in the Constitution. If there were any doubt about that, the seminal Second Amendment cases, Heller and McDonald, make that clear, even if you, Chuck, and other Radical Leftists, do not agree with the decisions of the Court and detest the idea and incontestable fact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Contrariwise, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution to even suggest that murdering an unborn child is a fundamental, natural, unalienable right.You and your ilk, Chuck, have an odd predilection for denying the existence of fundamental rights etched in stone in our Constitution, when you happen to find such rights distasteful to your sensibilities; and, curiously, you harbor no reticence in creating “new fundamental” rights out of whole cloth where none exists in the U.S. Constitution.But, neither you, nor New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, nor any other person has the authority to rewrite the Constitution to cohere to personal philosophical quirks.Asserting a fundamental right to murder an unborn child does not make it so. And to coerce the U.S. Supreme Court to create a work of fiction out of the Constitution is crass, presumptuous, foolhardy, and even demented. See Arbalest Quarrel article, published on September 27, 2019, titled, "What Does Abortion Have To Do With Gun Control: Nothing? Perhaps Everything!"You pompously declare: “My point was that there would be political consequences for POTUS and Senate GOP if their newly appointed justices stripped a woman's right to choose. We have an obligation to the women of America to fight for their constitutional right to choose.” See quotation from NewsmaxYou have personal thoughts concerning abortion, Chuck. Fine. We get it! So, then, write an Op-Ed for The New York Times or the Washington Post or some other Radical Left rag. If you prefer, pontificate to the American people on the Floor of the Senate or remonstrate loudly on CNN or MSNBC. But, do not purport to tell a co-equal Branch of Government what the law is when it is the duty of the Court, not you, not the Legislature to say what the law is. It is not up to you to thrust your personal annoyances onto the U.S. Supreme Court. And, yes, Chuck, the Justices have an obligation too, no less than the Legislature to operate in accordance with the strictures of the Constitution. You must operate within your province, Chuck, and you must let the high Court operate within its province.What you and the wild new wave Radical Left and new Progressive Left want to accomplish is the very thing that the founders sought to prevent: the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic. Political activism has no place on the U.S. Supreme Court.*** Your inept attempt to explain your actions doesn’t absolve you of your sin against the Nation and the American people. Instead, you only dig a deeper hole for yourself.Our Judiciary must show modesty even as you, Chuck, and most members of your Party, never demonstrate modesty, and have no desire to do so. Yet, if you wish to play the Fool, Chuck, then have at it. But, henceforth, please refrain from playing the Court Jester in front of the Nation’s high Court. _______________________________________________________

PART TWO

AMERICANS MUST NOT LET SCHUMER OFF THE HOOK: MUCH IS AT STAKE FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION

Justice Roberts properly chastised the Senate Minority leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY). And Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has introduced a Motion to censure Schumer. But you should make yourself heard as well. We urge you to call members of your Congressional Delegation. Tell them to take firm action against Schumer, as he has disgraced the Nation. The phone number is:  202/ 224-3121. That number will connect you to the switchboard operator in the Capitol Building, who will patch you through to your Congressional Representatives and U.S. Senators.

THE ENTIRE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS “UNHINGED.”

Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) had a point when he said the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is “unhinged,” after she made an absurd and reprehensible show of ripping up the printout of President Trump’s State of the Union Address. But it isn’t Pelosi, alone, who is unhinged. The Radical Left and the so-called Establishment itself is unhinged.Very few people expected Trump to prevail over Hillary Clinton. But prevail over Clinton, he did. Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, is sitting in the White House because the American people realized that our free Constitutional Republic was being eroded. The American people elected Trump to be our 45^th President to set our Nation back on course to preserve our Republic, in accordance with the blueprint established for our Nation, as created by the Nation’s founders: the U.S. Constitution. But there are forces at work in the world that will have none of that; want none of that.There are forces at work that seek to crush our Nation and its people into submission. These forces are massive and formidable. They comprise the Radical Left in Congress; the bloated Bureaucratic Deep State; the seditious Mainstream Media; much of the academia; various powerful and inordinately wealthy business and financial neoliberal Globalist interests; and Radical Left and New Progressive elements in local and State Governments and among the polity. Since the early 1990s, through the Administrations of Bill Clinton, two Bushes, and Barack Obama, our Nation has set the wrong trajectory. They have taken measures slowly, quietly, and inexorably to destroy a free Republic and sovereign independent Nation-State. These anti-American Presidents have joined forces with Globalist elements both here and abroad to create a one-world Government; to merge the U.S. into the EU, as they seek the establishment of a “New World Order.” The election of Hillary Clinton would have continued that process. The American people sensed this. They didn’t want it. They threw a wrench into the Globalist Collectivists’ plan through election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, not Clinton. And, ever since, the Globalist Collectivists threw the weight of their resources to dislodge Trump, trying to convince the American public that this is a good thing to do, the right and moral and proper thing to do.These ignoble, ruthless Globalist Collectivist forces couch their goal in terms of a “moral” duty to unseat—as they falsely assert—an “illegitimate” President. And they suggest this is necessary to serve the best interests of the American people. But that is a blatant lie. The real objective of these vile, loathsome, duplicitous forces is not the salvation of the American people, but the subjugation of the American people and that entails destruction of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic.The imbecilic Mueller investigation was the first assault against our Nation, our Constitution, and our people. It failed. The ludicrous impeachment inquiry and Senate trial to remove Trump from Office, was the second assault, and that, too, failed. The Ukraine nonsense was the third assault against our Nation, our Constitution, and our people, and that failed, as well.The only weapon left in the arsenal of these massive, formidable forces that are orchestrating our downfall is the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election. But, these forces have doubts about the outcome. They cannot trust the American people to do the right thing, and elect a “Democrat,” as the corrupt, loathsome Congressman, Adam Schiff, admitted, during the Senate trial to remove President Trump; hence, the desire to prevent the American people from exercising their Constitutional right to select the President to lead this Nation. Schiff claims to to support a "fair" election. But, he wants anything but that, were the American people to cast their ballot for Trump. For these Radical Leftists—Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and the rest of the sorry lot in the House and Senate—'fairness' equates with 'results consistent with the Radical Left agenda.'Evidence of the ultimate weakness inherent in—along with the corruption, bankruptcy and emerging madness of the forces that seek to destroy this Nation—is seen in the Democrat’s remaining choices as potential nominees to take on Trump: one, an aging, crusty, angry Marxist, Bernie Sanders, who fashions himself as a “Democratic Socialist” (whatever that means); and, two, an aging, corrupt, so-called “Moderate,” Joe Biden, one-time VP who is showing unmistakable signs of incipient dementia.The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” know they can control the doddering old fool, Biden, but not the old Marxist, Sanders. The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” want to establish a unified one-world political, social, and economic governmental scheme overseen by them: the corporate and financial oligarchs, presided over by the Rothschild clan. They do not envision a unified one-world political, social, and economic governmental scheme beholden to the proletariat masses. But neither scenario is acceptable to Americans who wish to preserve the Nation in the form the founders of our Republic bequeathed to us.Election of Trump to a second four-year term will secure the continuation of our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic. With continued Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Trump will almost certainly be able to secure at least one and possibly two more confirmations to the U.S. Supreme Court. And, Trump will certainly nominate individuals to the high Court who would preserve the U.S. Constitution as conceived by the framers of it; as written; using the jurisprudential methodologies of textualism and originalism, championed by the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia.Use of the methodologies of textualism and originalism in Constitutional case analysis serves to preserve our Nation’s Bill of Rights as fundamental, unalienable, immutable, natural law. Thus, the American people will enjoy, inter alia, the continuation of free, uncensored speech. Most importantly, the continued presence of an armed citizenry will guarantee both the sovereignty of the American people and preservation of our Country as a free independent, Constitutional Republic. That prospect makes both Globalist Marxist Collectivists and Globalist Neoliberal “Establishment” Plutocrat Collectivists apoplectic with fear and rage._____________________________________________________* June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, the justices consider whether Louisiana’s law requiring abortion doctors have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals conflicts with the court’s decision just four years ago in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down a similar law in Texas. There is also the cross-petition from Louisiana about whether abortion providers have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients.  June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Russo, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 905, | __ S.Ct. __ | 2020 WL 871679; February 24, 2020, Decided; No. 18-1323._____________________________________________** “Since judges must sometimes make unpopular decisions, their power depends greatly on their sense of public legitimacy. And of course, they should be accountable in the public arena. But when public figures—especially legislators who have the power to weaken our courts—cross the line from ordinary criticism to destructive and misleading attacks on the very work of the courts, they send a signal to the public that the judiciary's work is not to be respected.” BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND ATTACKS ON THE COURTS, 37  The Brief 66, by Bert Brandenburg"Bert Brandenburg is a writer for the Justice at Stake Campaign. He would like to acknowledge Maneesh Sharma and Jesse Rutledge for their help in researching and reviewing this article. This article was originally published in 2004 by the Justice at Stake Organization to provide background for reporters on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education. It is reprinted with permission from a Justice at Stake Reporters Guide published in 2004."See Stake Organization "Justice at Stake, founded in 2000, was a nonpartisan organization dedicated to securing fair and impartial courts, by educating the public about the role of the courts, and advocating for reforms protect courts from politics and special interest influences. After 16 years as a leader in the fair courts field, in 2017, Justice at Stake closed its doors. This page preserves some of Justice at Stake's resource pages, reports, and videos."_______________________________________________*** “I think his [John Roberts'] idea that judges should show modesty and be faithful to the Constitution, his expression that the greatest threat to the Court could be judicial activism, where the people feel the judges are not faithful to the Constitution and are imposing their political views on the people that are not required by the Constitution, that this is a threat to the rule of law because at some point in the future the Court may have to call on the American people to do things they do not want to do, they may not be popular, to be faithful to the Constitution. To erode and give away that good respect the American people have for the courts and the law would be a mistake.” Prescient comments of Senator Jeff Sessions, during the Senate’s debate on consideration of John Roberts nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. EXECUTIVE SESSION, 151 Cong Rec S 10395, September 26, 2005_________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.