WITHOUT AN ARMED CITIZENRY THE PEOPLE REMAIN AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE

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

WITHOUT AN ARMED CITIZENRY THE PEOPLE REMAIN AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE

MULTISERIES

PART TWELVE

HELLER, MCDONALD, AND BRUEN ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF THE 21ST CENTURY

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Anti-Second Amendment Legislators in Albany were in a bind. The U.S. Supreme officially published its decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen on June 23, 2022. Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-Controlled State Legislature in Albany had reason enough to expect, and every reason to fear, that Bruen would be a momentous decision—and for Hochul and the Democrat Party Legislators in Albany—a disastrous decision, directly and potentially fatally, impacting the State’s century-old Gun Law, the Sullivan Act, long since codified in the State’s Penal Code, NY CLS Penal § 400.00, et. seq. It would take Hochul and the Legislators, and their respective lawyers considerable time to concoct a scheme that would salvage the Sullivan Act, creating the illusion—if ultimately unconvincingly—of complying with the High Court’s rulings. The Anti-Second Amendment Hochul Administration and the Legislators in Albany had nothing but contempt for the High Court. Hochul, herself, did not so much as try to hide this. On the Governor’s website, the public sees this announcement:“ ‘While the Supreme Court's appalling decision to strike down New York State's concealed carry law has potentially vast and far-reaching implications, it does not activate any immediate changes to State gun license and permit laws, nor does it allow residential permit owners to carry their weapons outside their homes. . . . “As the case returns to lower court, we encourage responsible gun owners to continue to follow their current restrictions, and always put safety first. While we are disappointed with the Supreme Court's reckless disregard for the safety of our communities, we are prepared to fight. And the Lieutenant Governor, Antonio Delgado, added this to Governor Hochul’ statement.“‘Yesterday, the Supreme Court sent us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence by striking down a NY law that limits who can carry concealed weapons. While the implications are not immediate, New York is committed to taking action and enacting a new set of laws that will work around this ruling. . . . If the Supreme Court and federal government won't act to keep our children safe, then New York will.’” Id.Hochul likely had received abundant advance notice of the content of the Bruen decision “on the QT,”  judging by how quickly her Government came out with a comprehensive set of amendments to the State’s Gun Law. The Arbalest Quarrel has taken an in-depth look at the Bruen decision along with the Hochul Government’s response to it. There is a lot of material to digest, and we will continue to do this as nothing—absolutely nothing—is more critical to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic, than the right of the people to keep and bear arms.All the rambunctious talk of “the need to get rid of guns” for the sake of public safety and public order for everyone serves as deflection. The message translates as: “constraining law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms for self-defense. The argument presented for doing so is specious on its face and, worse, it is corrosive of the fundamental truth that tyranny looms in the absence of an armed citizenry. Tyranny of Government looms in New York. And, as New York is a microcosm of the Nation, what transpires there has a ripple effect across the Nation: crime is rampant and intractable; the criminal justice system casts a blind eyed to the safety of the public, and the public is denied the right to defend itself against the danger presented. It is a recipe for societal collapse. The U.S. Supreme Court could see this even if the New York Government does not. The Court could not compel the New York Government to protect its citizens, but it could require New York to adhere to the core principles of the Bill of Rights. That means New York cannot lawfully prevent the citizen from protecting itself. The Bill of Rights boils down to these Divine absolutes: the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood; and the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, and incontrovertible natural law right of survival against aggression, howsoever that aggression manifests itself: from predatory creature, or predatory man, or a predatory Government.Yet, as violent crime goes unchecked, and the criminal justice system itself remains constrained, the Hochul Government provides excuses. Yet, as to the matter of armed self-defense, the Hochul Government has much to say.It couldn’t dismiss U.S. Supreme Court rulings out-of-hand without admitting that it cares not for the Article 3 authority of the Court. So it came up with a workaround to salvage the Sullivan Act. It was as ingenious as it was diabolical. The Government pretends to give free rein to the law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun concealed for self-protection. And a seditious Press and the Hochul Government denounce the U.S. Supreme Court for turning New York into a “wild west.”  The Press and the Hochul Government should reflect on that a bit. New York City and other jurisdictions, including those several on the west coast, and jurisdictions inland, including Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and many others, are already in the throes of the “wild west.” In the name of the new secular religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” and with Soros's money raining down on jurisdictions that support his Dystopian Nightmare of the “Open Society,” Cities across the Country are collapsing. Incompetence can’t alone explain this. It has to be deliberate.The degradation of society invariably follows in the wake of and must therefore be construed as a function of systematic denigration of the Second Amendment by governments in all of those jurisdictions. Congress and the Biden Administration have done little if anything to prevent wholescale annihilation of the exercise of armed self-defense, and much to promote it.And so it is left to the province of the U.S. Supreme Court to reinvigorate the Bill of Rights that the Federal Government and those of many States and cities have disdainfully ignored or actively dismantled.

DOWN MEMORY LANE: THE VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS

The U.S. Supreme Court had done with playing games with New York and with all other State Governments that had heretofore played fast and loose with the natural law right of armed self-defense. New York and other similar Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions had withstood the impact of Heller and McDonald through feats of judicial legerdemain. And New York itself had weathered the storm of the predecessor to the Bruen case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. the City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020); often referred to informally as the “New York City Gun Transport” case.In both NYSRPA vs. Bruen and NYSPRA vs the City of New York, the U.S. Supreme Court began to zero in on a long-standing nemesis to the Second Amendment, New York, just as it had zeroed in on the District of Columbia and on Illinois, several years earlier. All three of these jurisdictions were notorious for systematically treating the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as the bane of Collectivist orthodoxy that seeks to Government absolute control over the thoughts and actions of the masses. And that requires suppression of basic freedoms and liberties—most notably that of speech, privacy, and the right to armed self-defense.The U.S. Supreme Court was one remaining Branch of the Federal Government that had had enough of the immolation of basic natural law rights: most concerning to some Justices on the Court: armed self-defense.If Congress and the U.S. President would not take concrete steps to preserve the natural law right of armed self-defense, several Justices on the High Court would do so. And, after years of noncompliance to High Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, two Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, would not be denied any longer. NYSRPA vs. the City of New York provided an opportunity to prevent the New York Government from continuously weakening the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court’s rulings would course through the rest of the Country, impacting those States that had enacted similar unconscionable, unconstitutional constraints on the exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment.

NYSPRA vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK: DECISION ON THE MERITS AVOIDED

In the Gun Transport case, Petitioners challenged a New York City rule preventing holders of restricted handgun premise licenses from transporting their firearms outside the confines of the City.  Petitioners claimed the rule violated the Second Amendment and sought both declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected Petitioners’ claim and they took the case up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The liberal wing of the Court, and likely Chief Justice John Roberts as well, were not keen on reviewing the case. They had no desire to take up any Second Amendment case they felt would serve, from their ideological perspective, of expanding the people's exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense.Of course, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch—Trump’s first nominee to the High Court, after the untimely death and, some would add, dubious circumstances surrounding that death—do not view Second Amendment cases as irrational or unreasonable attempts by Americans to expand the natural law right of armed self-defense. Rather, these Justices perceive Second Amendment challenges to Government actions constraining the exercise of a natural law right as opportunities to preclude the Government from constraining the exercise of a supernal right. It is the unconstitutional actions of the Government that demand adjudication by the High Court—a task that should be unnecessary and would be unnecessary if the States and the Federal Government would acknowledge the Bill of Rights instead of continually frustrating Americans’ exercise of their fundamental, unalienable rights.Although the Gun Transport case wasn’t the ideal case to adjudicate, as many others had wended their way to the Court years before, yet could not garner enough votes for review, this case was the best that could be achieved at the time.The Petitioners sought to have the case decided on the merits. They argued that, notwithstanding that they held a restrictive premise handgun license, they still had a fundamental right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm to a target range outside the City limits. Had the case been decided on the merits, the Court could have taken the opportunity to rule restrictive handgun carry licenses as presumptively unlawful. The liberal wing and Chief Justice Roberts would have none of that, and, likely, Roberts cajoled the newest member of the High Court, at that time, Brett Kavanaugh, to vote with him to forsake the opportunity the case gave them.The case didn’t just bother several members of the Court, it concerned Andrew Cuomo and other Anti-Second Amendment politicians who had made it their life’s work to make New York a veritable Gun-Free jurisdiction. And, Cuomo saw an escape route, and most of the Justices saw a pretext to avoid dealing with the case on the merits.Since the issue in the Gun Transport case pertained only to holders of restricted handgun licenses who, under New York law, could not lawfully carry a handgun outside one’s home for self-defense, there was the concern that the Court could come embroiled with the issue of armed self-defense outside the home. If so, that would impinge on the Sullivan Act itself. Neither the liberal wing of the High Court nor the Chief Justice, John Roberts wanted to deal with this. And Andrew Cuomo, the Governor at the time, and a virulent hater of the Second Amendment intended to do all in his power to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a case that could very expand the right of all law-abiding civilian citizens in New York to carry a concealed handgun in the public realm for self-defense, thus imperiling the century-old Sullivan Act at its core. Better, then, Cuomo realized, simply to redraft the State Gun Law and the Rules of the City of New York, to allow a holder of a restricted premise license to carry a handgun outside the environs of the City, albeit, in a locked container, with ammunition separated from the firearm. This would still preclude the use of the handgun for self-defense in public if the need arose, and the Sullivan Act would remain intact. Cuomo and the other Anti-Second Amendment zealot power brokers don’t like to weaken their own gun laws, but they could do so here, as it wouldn’t have a disastrous impact on the core of the Gun Law—inhibiting the vast majority of law-abiding New Yorkers from lawfully relying on a firearm for self-defense.New York City changed its Rules and the State reconfigured the law to avoid a direct threat to the Sullivan Act. The last thing anti-Second Amendment forces want is a high Court opinion that strengthens the Second Amendment. The City’s gambit paid off. In a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court held that, since the City changed the old rule, the case is moot, because Petitioners can now lawfully transport their handgun to a second home or shooting range outside the City. But can they really? What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? This will almost certainly embolden New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. And there is nothing to prevent the New York Government from countermanding the law once the High Court dismisses it. The Petitioners made these points and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch concurred, but they were two votes shy of reviewing the case on the merits. So, for a time, at least, the Sullivan Act was spared direct confrontation. The reprieve for Anti-Second Amendment zealots, both in New York, and elsewhere, was short-lived. Everything changed with Bruen.

NYSRPA vs. BRUEN: DECISION ON THE MERITS UNAVOIDABLE

Unlike the NYC Gun Transport case, the constitutionality of armed self-defense outside the confines of one’s home was now squarely before the High Court. Reconfiguring New York law to avoid a showdown was out of the question. There was no way the Hochul Government could finesse the Gun Law to avoid a High Court review of the case on the merits. And with three certain votes in favor of striking down the Sullivan Act, and with both Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh compelled to add a fourth and fifth vote, the High Court had a majority, necessary to defeat the Liberal wing of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts would look more the fool for siding with the liberal wing now, even if he likely wanted to. For to do so would be demonstrably inconsistent with his pro-Second Amendment votes in Heller and McDonald, and, as Chief Justice, he would prefer not to be situated with the losing side on any occasion, but certainly not on a case of this magnitude.And Kavanaugh would be compelled to side with the majority as he said as much in his concurring opinion in the NYC Gun Transport case. He made clear the Court would have ample opportunity to hear a Second Amendment case on the merits in the future, which he would support, and that day had come, even if he would prefer not to see it.Hochul and Albany were therefore on their own to devise a strategy to salvage the Sullivan Act. And, it would have to come after the fact once the case was decided on the merits. And since Bruen dealt squarely with State law, as it no longer had anything to do with New York City Rules, Mayor Adams would have done well to keep his mouth shut. He didn’t. Ever the lackey, under the thumb of Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, and discerning that it would be best for him not to disappoint Kathy Hochul, he would do what was expected of him; and that meant concurring with whatever the Governor had in mind. His own Press Release reflected that. On the official NYC website, Adams echoed the sentiments of both Hochul and of the State Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins. In so doing, Adams made clear and indisputable, if ever there were any doubt, that he vehemently disapproves of the civilian citizen's right to armed self-defense. He declared, “Put simply, this Supreme Court ruling will put New Yorkers at further risk of gun violence. We have been preparing for this decision and will continue to do everything possible to work with our federal, state, and local partners to protect our city. Those efforts will include a comprehensive review of our approach to defining ‘sensitive locations’ where carrying a gun is banned, and reviewing our application process to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license. We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West. One thing is certain: We will do whatever is in our power, using every resource available to ensure that the gains we’ve seen during this administration are not undone, to make certain New Yorkers are not put in further danger of gun violence. This decision may have opened an additional river feeding the sea of gun violence, but we will do everything we can to dam it.” See also the article posted on the website, Reason, on November 10, 2021, a week after the Oral Argument in Bruen.“Before he was elected mayor of New York City . . . , Eric Adams raised some eyebrows by saying he would carry a handgun to protect himself and any houses of worship he might visit. While those remarks were controversial, the real scandal is that ordinary New Yorkers cannot legally carry guns for self-defense—a privilege that Adams takes for granted as a former police officer.That double standard came into focus last week, when the Supreme Court considered a constitutional challenge to New York's carry permit law. Unlike the vast majority of states, which allow residents to carry guns in public if they meet a short list of objective criteria, New York gives local officials broad discretion to decide whether an applicant has ‘proper cause’ to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, speaking on behalf of the law's opponents, emphasized that applicants cannot pass the state's amorphous test by expressing a general desire to protect themselves against criminal assault. ‘In order to exercise a constitutional right that New York is willing to concede extends outside the home,’ he noted, ‘you have to show that you have an atypical need to exercise the right that distinguishes you from the general community.’That situation, Clement said, ‘describes a privilege’ rather than ‘a constitutional right.’ Most of the justices seemed inclined to agree.”Six Justices did agree—two of them, Roberts and Kavanaugh, likely reluctantly—the flipside of what occurred a couple of years earlier, where it was 6 to 3 that voted against the NYSRPA and individual gun owners in the disastrous “Gun Transport” case.

A SCHEME IS HATCHED!

Hochul and the Democrats in Albany, with their band of attorneys, conceived and executed a plan to salvage the Sullivan Act, which meant, by logical implication, sabotaging the Bruen holdings, albeit without appearing overtly that they were doing just that. Hochul and the other conspirators in her Government had ample time to plot a way around Bruen, notwithstanding the clarity and conciseness of the case, delivered in the first sentence of the Opinion. Obviously, someone alerted Hochul as to what to expect. Could it have been the same law clerk who had presumptuously and illegally released an early copy of the Dobbs decision to the Press? In aPress Release, dated May 3, 2022, printed in full by the Washington Examiner, the Chief Justice said he has “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.” Did the Chief Justice find the leaker? If so, he hasn’t reported it, which belies the sense of importance that he says he had placed upon it. See the article in the Federalist concerning it:“More than 100 days have passed since the infamous leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Americans are still no closer to finding out the identity of the leaker than the day the draft decision was published.”Deception and contrivance and false reporting and hiding findings seem to be the modus operandi of this Federal Government.But, concerning the Second Amendment—the importance the founders of the Republic, the framers of the Constitution, had placed on it is a matter always front in center. It is a matter as important to a tyrant who is as wary of the armed citizenry as the armed citizenry is wary of the tyrant. The matter of firearms is not a topic easily dismissed or swept under the rug. Tangible weapons in the hands of criminals and in the hands of a tyrant’s standing army—that may be used or have been used, or continue to be used, or will be used against the people—require arms in the hands of the people to counter the threat.Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party controlling majority in Albany see the law-abiding citizenry as a greater threat to themselves than the criminal element that is tearing down the community they are sworn to protect but do not. It is their design then, through their policies, to destroy society, just as on a National level it is the aim of the Democrat Party-controlled Congress and the Biden Administration to do the same to the Country. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court places a damper on both. It impacts New York immediately and directly, but it has a ripple effect across the Nation. Hochul and Albany meant to throw a wrench into the Bruen rulings.The scheme wasn’t perfect, and it really fooled no one—certainly not anyone who spends sufficient time to pour over the elaborate contrivance. But, it was the best they could muster, given the clear exposition of Bruen.Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Court majority, opined:“In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”The holding was concise, unambiguous, and categorical. But would it suffice to prevent a New York Government, that had a long tradition of constraining the natural law right of armed self-defense, from devising an end run around the holding, while ostensibly complying with the dictates of it? Apparently, in anticipation of just that possibility—and with Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett in agreement, and with two others, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the Chief Justice, John Roberts, in tow, if only reluctantly—Justice Thomas set forth an additional holding in the second paragraph of the opinion. He wrote, in pertinent part:“The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. . . . Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.”It would seem clear enough at least to a casual observer that the U.S. Supreme Court had covered two critical bases—seemingly sufficient to forestall Kathy Hochul and her compatriots in Albany from circumventing Bruen.Boiled down to its essence the Court’s first two holdings set forth in the first two paragraphs of the Opinion, established the following:

• The right of a law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun for self-defense exists beyond the confines of one’s home as well as in it; and
• New York’s Gun Law, requiring a person to justify a special need to carry a handgun for armed self-defense outside the home, is unconstitutional.

The implication of the first holding is that the right of armed self-defense, unconstrained by place, time, or circumstance, follows from the plain meaning of the Second Amendment for there is nothing in the language of the Second Amendment to suggest an American’s right of armed self-defense is limited.The implication of the second holding is that a showing of special need to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home is inconsistent with the natural law right of armed self-defense. A claim of simple self-defense is sufficient and that simple claim need not be stated, for it is logically implied in the language of the Second Amendment. To require one to assert self-defense to justify the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license would be redundant.Did Justice Thomas, et. al., adequately cover their bases? Apparently, they didn’t realize just how cunning Hochul and  Albany could be, and how advanced notice of the decision gave her Government ample time to defuse the import of the holdings.Even with the Court’s acute legal minds and an unshakeable desire and resolve to preserve the citizen’s natural law right of armed self-defense—a right both fundamental and immutable, unalienable and eternal—Justices Thomas and Alito, in particular, might not have foreseen the lengths to which Kathy Hochul’s Government was prepared to go to protect a 100 plus old Gun Law, the Sullivan Act of 1911, and the diabolical cleverness of the Government’s scheme to override Bruen even as her Government created the illusion of complying with it, by striking the phrase, “proper cause” from the Sullivan Act. She could work around that and has done so. The “Good Moral Character,” of little importance given the “proper cause” requirement, has been re-engineered to function much like the “proper cause” requirement.Thus, it may well be that Justices Thomas and Alito did know or did suspect that New York would disobey the rulings of the Third Branch of Government. For, did they not have firsthand knowledge of how lower State and Federal Courts, including those of New York had hitherto disobeyed the clear rulings of Heller and McDonald?That Bruen was needed at all to rectify the matter of prolific disobedience to Heller and McDonald serves as proof of the tenacity of Anti-Second Amendment State Governments as well as the tenacity of the Biden Administration and the Democrat-Party Controlled Congress, at the Federal level, to arrogantly dismiss the U.S. Constitution out-of-hand, even as it pretends to cohere to it, with its ludicrous claims of adhering to the Rule of Law and of claiming it is a steadfast defender of Democracy.It is interesting to behold that Democrats like to throw out terminology without ever bothering to define what they mean by it as if expressions like the ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Democracy’ are self-explanatory. They aren’t. But, by referring to these phrases, ad nauseum, and positing undying faith and passion in them, Democrats presume the American public will take them at their word, reflexively, like a sneeze or cough, as if they care deeply about the well-being of the Nation and the American people. They don’t. And that is exemplified by policies systematically designed to wreck the economy, demoralize the citizenry, weaken the Nation militarily and geopolitically, dismantle our institutions, and shatter the cohesiveness and stability of society. Nothing better exemplifies the danger wrought by the Destructors of our Nation and its Constitution, who pretend to be Defenders of both, than the inexorable disintegration of our Nation’s Bill of Rights, especially that of the Second Amendment.Consider——The Heller case of 2008 reaffirmed what all rational minds know: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. That the prefatory “militia clause” might mean the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a collective right flies in the face of the very purpose of the Bill of Rights. Apart from the dictates of the Tenth Amendment, referencing the doctrine of federalism underlying the relationship of the Federal Government to the States, the first Nine Amendments of the Bill of Rights codify the natural law rights of the individual and the Second Amendment is no exception.The militia clause—a dependent clause under the rules of English grammar—is not a thing that can, or does, stand-alone, for dependent clauses are not complete sentences: they don’t convey a complete thought.* The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the majority opinion in Heller, explained the prefatory, dependent clause, “a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State,” does not assert a limitation on the independent clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Rather, the prefatory clause provides a rationale for the independent clause that follows. Justice Scalia explained that the drafters of the Second Amendment knew that nothing less than a well-armed citizenry would serve as the best deterrent to tyranny emerging in the Federal Government. This was of great concern, especially to the Antifederalists, among the framers. They were justifiably wary of establishing a strong central government with its own standing army. Thus, an independent citizen army, unbeholden to a federal government, would have both the means and the frame of mind to deter tyranny if such should come to pass.Oddly, many academicians today ignore this or dismiss this. They argue that the Constitution’s framers could not have intended to create, in the Second Amendment, a mechanism through which the commonalty could overthrow their own Government. Therefore, any right to keep and bear arms had to be tied to a militia—but one that was constrained by the Federal Government itself. One academician says that the Federalists, among the framers of the Constitution—those who supported a strong centralized Government and a strong standing arming—intended for armed citizens, as part of a militia, to function under federal control. Can that be true? They write,“In the eyes of the Federalists, the past had proven that the militia, to be effective, had to be federalized. The discipline of militia members, in particular, was of paramount concern.  Federal authority over the militia would also create uniformity in arms and training. But of the two means of military power recognized by the document, a standing army and a militia, both were put under federal control.” Of course, today, militias as such, are under firm State and/or Federal control. These militias have transformed into ‘national guards.’” “The Inconvenient Militia Clause Of The Second Amendment: Why The Supreme Court Declines To Resolve The Debate Over The Right To Bear Arms,” 16 St. John's J.L. Comm. 41(Winter, 2002), by Robert Hardaway, Professor of Law at the University of Denver College of Law; and Elizabeth Gormley and Bryan Taylor, graduates of University College of Law 2001The writers go on to say, in support of the idea the Second Amendment must, on logical as well as legal grounds, only be construed as conferring a collective right to keep and bear arms:“One of the most commonly made arguments by the broad individual rights advocates is that the Second Amendment embodies some sort of right of insurrection. This is a difficult argument to sustain given the numerous, and sometimes explicit, provisions against insurrection in the Constitution. Perhaps the most obvious constitutional prohibition against insurrection is the treason clause which forbids making war against the United States. Armed insurrection obviously is making war on the United States. Therefore, far from embodying a right of insurrection, the Constitution explicitly criminalizes the act. Further, the militia clauses themselves deny any right of insurrection. One of the constitutional functions of the militia is to suppress insurrection. It strains credulity to believe that the same institution would be empowered with the right to engage in insurrection and the duty to suppress them. As one writer expresses, the Constitution cannot view the militia both as a means by which government can suppress insurrection and as an instrument for insurrection against the government. It must be one or the other. ‘The Militia Clauses make clear which one it is.’ Lastly, the militia was intended to implement the guarantee clause. This provision reflects Madison's desire to expressly guarantee the ‘tranquility of the states against internal as well as external dangers.’ The primary concern underlying the provision was to secure the ability to put down insurrections such as Shay's Rebellion. Taken together, these clauses ‘make it overwhelmingly clear that the Constitution was framed to forbid, prevent, and punish insurrection against its own laws - as, indeed, any constitution that claims legitimate authority must do.’ To assert a constitutional right of insurrection is fundamentally illogical. The Constitution could not embrace the means of its own destruction. As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, ‘it is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination . . . it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.’ The right of insurrection inheres intrinsically in all people, regardless of the government under which they live; it does not derive its sanction from a disputed interpretation of an amendment with an altogether different purpose.’” Id.It might be noted that the afore referenced law review article came out seven years before the Heller decision. AQ mentions this not to suggest that, perhaps, the writers would admit they were wrong in their thesis. Rather AQ mentions this because the writers would likely maintain they are correct and it's the U.S. Supreme Court authors of the majority opinion who are wrong. The entire thesis begins with the assumption that the antecedent dependent militia clause controls the import of the following independent clause and serves as a defining limitation of the right of that clause, i.e., that the people to keep and bear arms operates only as long as one serves in a State militia; and, as the notion of a 'state militia' has essentially been superseded by 'state national guard units.' The writers say, in that regard: “Of course, today, militias as such, are under firm State and/or Federal control. These militias have transformed into ‘national guards.’” The import of these assertions is not to be taken lightly. For, the writers allude to the idea that, since militias don't exist any longer, at least as they like to understand the meaning of the term, 'militia,' the Second Amendment is essentially nugatory, which means that it serves no function and, so, should be repealed. This is also the thesis of retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, and that of Justice Steven Breyer as well, although Breyer did well to refrain from mentioning that position in his dissenting opinion in Bruen. But there is more at stake here. The argument made has disturbing implications impacting the relationship between the American people and the Federal Government. The writers of the afore referenced article claim that the framers of the U.S. Constitution could not and would not under any circumstance conceive of a situation where the citizenry would have the right and obligation to dismantle the Federal Government.The argument made begs the salient question, of whether “insurrection” qua revolt or rebellion against tyranny is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when penning the Second Amendment. After all, didn’t these men once take up arms against a Tyrant, the British Empire? The writers of the above article would rather not deal with the implications of their own thesis and the attendant, and very serious consequences of that thesis. They merely dismiss out of hand that there could exist any moral, and legal, justification for the American people taking it upon themselves to dismantle an unjust Federal Government, i.e., a tyrannical Government, and bringing the servants of that tyranny to justice. These writers, so careful in positing an argument against what they refer to as insurrection, slither around how it is, or whether, the American people could rightly, legally, dismantle a Government that no longer serves the interests of the American people, and, in fact, operates contrary to the interests of the American people. But, let us here take a closer look at that thesis and consider the legal and logical consequences of it. We begin by asking——  Would the founders of our Republic be so naïve as to believe that the “Federal Government” they were devising could not itself—even with their best efforts to constrain a powerful, centralized Government—one day devolve into tyranny? And, if so, would not the American people have a right and obligation, then, to take up arms against that tyranny just as they had once taken up arms against tyranny? The Federalists, among the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who supported a strong centralized Government, would certainly be well aware of the threat to life, and liberty, and well-being of the American people, as were the Antifederalists who emphasized their concern and who emphatically demanded inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution to prevent such an event occurring. And the Federalists relented realizing the obvious truth. The Antifederalists would not leave it as a matter of faith that Government servants would adhere to the express limitations on the exercise of Governmental power set forth in the Articles of the Constitution.It hardly takes much imagination to recognize that the founders of our Republic and framers of our Constitution would be appalled, indeed horrified, to observe the powers that Government now wields—powers that go well beyond the strictures permitted by the Constitution, and this Federal Government doesn't deny it; in fact, perfunctorily acknowledges it and operates with abandon. And our Government is well on the road to tyranny if it hasn't already swung over into it.So, yes, the founders of the Republic did recognize and would agree that the American people would have a right to revolt against a tyrant. To argue otherwise is to infer that the people do not have a right to rebel against tyranny. The writers of the afore referenced law review article must have known the logical implications of their argument but felt it better not to acknowledge the flaw in their reasoning. It is one that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito made clear in Heller:Of course, Americans have the moral and the legal right—a sacred right and duty—to rebel against tyranny.But then, if the American people have both a right and a duty to revolt against tyranny, is that not to say that a Government that turns against its own people, has committed unforgivable violence against its people—a cardinal transgression against the Divine Creator as well. For tyranny of Government manifests as oppression and subjugation of a people and that destroys the sanctity and inviolability of the Human Soul. And that, in turn, amounts to sin against the Creator.Such violence, therefore, amounts to treason against the people. Is not the crime of high treason a two-way street, then? If Americans who rebel against a just and fair Government are justifiably, rightly to be roundly condemned and deemed traitors, and if they are to suffer the consequences merited for their egregious crime, is it not also so that an unjust Government that betrays its people should not be similarly deemed traitor against the people, and rightly rebuked for it? And would not that just rebuke include the dismantling of that Government and trial and punishment of those servants of the people who have—through their treachery and licentious betrayal of Oath to Country, and to Constitution, and to People—brought the Nation to ruin, and brought Constitution and people to harm? And ought not those disloyal servants suffer severely for their crimes, lest to forgo punishment serve to condone it. And if a Government is not to be considered a traitor to its own people, is that not to say the people are less to be regarded than the Government? But, in our Nation, it is the people who are Sovereign over Nation and Government and it is not the case that Government is Sovereign over Nation and people. If so, and if one remark that high treason is to be regarded as a crime against the sovereign, then wherefore is the argument to be made that no action of the Federal Government toward its people shall work as treason against them? What then is to be made of the assertion that the American people are sole Sovereign over the Government of the United States and that Government owes its existence and continued presence only by the will and consent of the Governed—the people who had created that Government to serve them. How is it that the servant, owing its existence and its duty to the people—the one true Sovereign—should entertain for itself that the people serve Government and the Government can do with the people as it pleases, even to oppress and subjugate them. Of what use is an electoral process at that point? To whom is it that the people can turn to as their elected representatives when those representatives are all of the same cloth—united against the people? Of what greater urgency and need exists then for armed revolt?Is not the tyranny of Government against its people, treachery of Government toward its people? If so, is not ‘tyranny’ then but equivalent to the term ‘treachery of Government’ and should not the term ‘traitor’ not apply with equal and bold force to that Government, any less so than to a person who would revolt against a just Government? Is not a “tyrant” but a “traitor’ to the people—certainly a people whom the founders pointedly ascribe the term “Sovereign” to, whom they could not and did not ascribe that term to when speaking of a tyrant who was Sovereign, namely, the King of England?Tyrants of course are the last sorts that would acknowledge that they are tyrants and would continue to deny that even as they are led to the gallows. Is it any wonder that tyrants such as those in the Biden Administration and in some State Governments would be oblivious to their own acts of treason against the people? Is it not curious that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, would proclaim that Americans who belong to “militias”—bands of armed citizens who are not connected with the “national guard”—are the greatest threat to the Nation? But is it not they, some of these servants of the people, rather than we, the People, who are the greater and graver threat to the Nation—to the Security of a free State?As can be seen through dissenting opinions in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, these Justices do not recognize the right of the people, as individuals, to keep and bear arms. Given the opportunity, these three cases would be overturned, marking the quickest reversal of U.S. Supreme Court thought in American jurisprudential history.At the State level, too, people like Kathy Hochul and those in control of the State Senate and Assembly in Albany, view the armed citizen as a graver threat to the State than common criminals and even well-armed and well-funded international criminal cartels. Strange that, but true nonetheless. Otherwise, her Government would have taken measures to bring these psychopaths and lunatics to justice. They don't! Ant that is telling. Thus, it is no surprise to see Hochul and Albany caustically attacking the High Court, with affected pieties, and insincere demonstrations of acquiescence to the Supreme Court's rulings. Who, indeed, has dangerous impulses here?Is it so beyond the pale for Americans to demand their right to armed self-defense against predatory creature, predatory man, and predatory Government? The High Court rightly admonishes Government actors who do not abide by the Constitution. The Court rightly ruled against the New York Government.Here, in New York, we see a Governor who claims by the power she exerts—as did her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo—justification to exert that power, as she pleases. It is all circular reasoning, albeit with real-world, not mere academic consequences. Hochul fails to recognize that she is expected to serve the interests of the people of New York, consistent with the State and Federal Constitutions. Affected pieties don't serve as an adequate substitution for serving the interests of the people of the State.Kathy Hochul’s Government, like several others, ignored Heller. And they were prepared to ignore McDonald too, until the High Court made clear that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to the States, no less so than to the Federal Government, through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. In New York, it is the Hochul Administration and the controlling Democrat Party Legislature in Albany that is acting the part of an unfettered out-of-control Tyrant.With the attitude of a tyrant—the Hochul Government and Legislature—behave with customary indignation at any authority that would dare dictate to them. But, the U.S. Supreme Court has done just that, dictating to the New York Government, that its Gun Law is inconsistent with the import of the Second Amendment, having found Petitioner’s case to have merit. Hochul and Albany aren't concerned about armed civilian citizens per se. Rather, they are concerned about what that armed self-defense represents: a threat to the Government itself. The New York Government has long abided lawlessness in New York, such coming from the criminal element. That lawlessness the Government will tolerate, perhaps even encourage. That criminal element poses no tenable threat to the Government. It is something the Government understands for that Government, too, like the omnipresent and ferocious and voracious criminal element, has become a law unto itself, unbeholden to New York's own Constitution and to its laws and to the Constitution and Laws of the United States Government. It has become lawless. A Government that refuses to recognize that it is the people whom it exists to serve, and not the other way around is a danger to the people and must be taken to task. The U.S. Supreme Court has done so. And New York isn't alone in its distrust of and its disdain for the common people.Somewhere in the last 250 years of our Nation’s existence, Governments at all levels forgot the fact of and the meaning of the American Revolution.Government tyranny has become the very thing the people must fight against. The Federal Government and many of the State Governments do not represent the will of the people, and care not at all for their needs; not anymore. These Governments, ironically, defer to the foreign dictators whom our Founders fought a successful war against. Back then, it was the mighty British Empire funded by the fabulously wealthy Rothschild financial clan. Today, it is much the same threat, albeit now restructured, reconstituted, as one even more powerful: the European Union and various supra-national constructs like the United Nations whom we are told do not wield any authority, but only advice. How is it then that the Biden Administration adheres to the pacts and tracts and treaties emanating from the United Nations that our Nation never signed, nor even discussed?The money behind these monstrous global entities belongs now, as in the past, to the powerful Rothschild family. The Rothschild clan and other mega-billionaires are working together to complete a transnational neo-feudalistic empire spanning the world, to replace all present western nation-states. The world of the 21st Century is shapingThe Rothschild family and its minions have extended their reach—through the vehicle of the central banking system—throughout the world. A world comprising two powers: a western neo-feudal empire and CCP China. A strong, vigorous, independent sovereign United States doesn't factor in that equation. It is in the process of disassembling.New York is its own little fiefdom—a Baron that owes allegiance to a Lord that doesn’t even reside in our Country.The purpose of  New York’s Gun Law, the Sullivan Act, was designed then as now, to constrain, and—as can be seen through further attempts by the Government, through time, to constrict and restrict the right of the law-abiding civilian citizens of New York to keep and bear arms ever further—eventually to curtail the exercise of the right, altogether. In her Press Release, upon official publication of the Bruen case decision, Governor Hochul made clear a passion to constrain the inherent right of armed self-defense, regardless of the rulings of the High Court. In both her tone and in the content of her messaging, Hochul conveyed a contemptuous attitude toward the High Court and made no attempt to disguise her contempt of the Court. Likely she is taking her talking points from others who pay for her campaign, and those who formulate her policies. She is essentially a messenger, and she is paid handsomely for doing the work of her benefactors, just as Biden takes his share of wealth from a shadowy network of benefactors. He has no compunction against selling out the Country. He has had plenty of decades of practice; nor does he mind mouthing platitudes, if he understands at all what it is he is asked to recite. So he informs the public that all is well and that he means well and everything will be just fine. He doesn't believe that he is capable of coherent thought any longer anyway. And the propagandists that feed him and his Administrators their lines, don't sound convincing, and it is not necessary that they do sound convincing to the public. The Federal Government is long past caring what the polity thinks anyway. It is only necessary that they obey. Meanwhile, the Country goes to Hell in a Handbasket.Further litigation and armed revolt are to be avoided. New York has an opportunity, through the electoral process, to throw out the petty tyrants, and vote into office people who respect the Constitution and the fundamental natural law rights of man. A vote for Lee Zeldin for Governor of New York is the most obvious way and the easiest way to turn the State back to its historical roots. So many people in New York and throughout the Country have been so conditioned to deny the truth before their eyes that they continue to reflexively vote into Office the same tyrants who do nothing to promote the well-being of the people and society. The Country was well on its way to recovering its security under Trump: economically, geopolitically, militarily, and societally. But the airwaves are now filled with negativity and our own tax dollars are being used against us. Americans must wake up to the truth and confront the lies and liars head-on. It just takes a little common sense and a leap of faith.It is far easier and much less time-consuming and expensive to prevent a petty tyrant from serving in Office in the first place than it is to attempt to remove a tyrant after the fact. California provides several textbook examples of what is to be avoided. New York should learn from this. How much more damage can New Yorkers be expected to take? How is it that so many people have taken leave of their senses—always believing that a better, safer, New York is just around the corner even as the truth illustrates something else entirely? And the not picture isn't an attractive one. And it won't become any more attractive if people keep electing the wrong people to Office. At some point, even the electoral process may well be denied to the citizenry. New Yorkers already have a good taste of Kathy Hochul and her brand of politics and politicking. It is no different than that of Andrew Cuomo. She shares the same set of beliefs; she conveys the same messaging, and she is backed by the same Globalist money. It isn't the average New Yorker that informs her policies and decisions. On crime, the right to armed self-defense, on abortion, Hochul packages her policies as candy; telling the voting public what she thinks the public would like to hear, but not what the public needs to hear. Between Kathy Hochul and Lee Zeldin, there is a world of difference. Each New York resident should ask: which world would he or she prefer to live in? ___________________________________ *Every child learns this, or, at one time, had learned this. That was before the lunatics took control of public education and proclaimed the dogmas of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” “Critical Race Theory,” and “Transgender Doctrine,” more important to the structural formation of young minds than developing a child’s own critical thinking processes, by teaching the core traditional subjects, like “reading, writing, and arithmetic,” and those subjects that instill in our youth a love of and an appreciation for our history, heritage, and ethical system of justice through which our Nation can continue to survive and thrive: a free Constitutional Republic.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

AMERICANS WHO FEARED TRUMP DANGEROUS TO OUR NATION AND THE WORLD NOW FACE THE HORROR OF FORCES FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER/“OPEN SOCIETY”

Americans should take heed of the actions of Trudeau’s Government: for what has been taking shape over there has repercussions over here.Biden is in bed with Trudeau. That fact should not be lost on anyone. The two are operating out of the same playbook and their policies as directed to the populations of their respective Countries have become demonstrably more heavy-handed since the Biden stooge walked into the Executive Suite of Government.Instead of openly and vehemently condemning Trudeau’s overbearing and illegal response to the Canadian Truckers’ protest, declaring martial law through the invocation of Canada’s Emergencies Act—that, incidentally up until the 15th of February 2022, had never been invoked—the Biden Administration demonstrated a noticeable and awkward silence toward it, establishing the Administration’s clear if tacit acceptance of it.Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said nothing about it; nor did Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki say anything concerning it.But, the unequivocal message—“My Administration agrees with you and stands ready to assist you,”—came out loudly and boldly and clearly through the Government’s propaganda news and media organs of the so-called  “Free Press.”This did not escape the attention of Constitutional law expert, Jonathan Turley, a civil libertarian of the classical sort, as is Alan Dershowitz, and not as the ACLU now pretends to be.On his website Turley roundly—and justifiably—condemned CNN and MSNBC commentators for their boisterous, haranguing oratory:“I have previously lamented what I call ‘the age of rage’ and how many seem addicted to rage in our society. That was evident this week as many vented against groups ranging from the Canadian truckers to the unvaccinated. CNN analyst Juliette Kayyem seemed to suggest vigilantism as a proper response to the Canadian protesters while James Carville said that he wanted to punch the unvaccinated. . . . The heated rhetoric highlights the danger of past demands from the left for censoring or prosecuting others for violent speech.On her Twitter account, Kayyem responded to a Wall Street Journal article on the gridlock caused by the truckers: ‘The convoy protest, applauded by right-wing media as a ‘freedom protest,’ is an economic and security issue now. The Ambassador Bridge link constitutes 28% of annual trade movement between US and Canada. Slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers, and move the trucks.’For his part, Carville longs for even more personal satisfaction, saying that anyone without a vaccine was a ‘piece of s–t’ and he wanted to punch them in the face.These snarling, violent comments are all-too-common in today’s environment. However, they also raise the question of how we treat violent speech. Various Democrats are calling for the disqualification of members of Congress, and former President Donald Trump, for their comments made before the January 6th riot. Some members have brought lawsuits over allegations that such speeches constituted incitement for insurrection.”Turley is right. Unfortunately, the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist propagandists easily sway public opinion by oversimplifying complex socio-historical issues to obtain a desired emotional response from the gullible public. Now jump ahead a few weeks.Consider the debacle over Ukraine. Through constant proselytizing by compliant media, see, e.g., an article from CNN, the American public is now overwhelmingly supportive of America taking increasingly strong measures against Russia. Such is the nature of propaganda:

• Simple simplistic, repetitious messaging and use of simple buzz words;
• Conveyed to the public via air of bold, flamboyant, boisterous, righteous indignation and anger;
• Reinforced through a series of graphic photographs—
• —All directed toward inducing, in the public, a mindless, rabid, one-note emotional response to the dictates of a Government that is simply manipulating the people for its own nefarious purposes and the public buys the nonsense——happily jumping off the Cliff like Lemmings. But, the precipice of this cliff is unlike any other. In a conventional world war, horrific as the first and second world wars were, a conventional world would be as nothing compared to a global thermonuclear holocaust.

Yet, it appears that this is where the world is headed. The response of the American public toward the debacle in Ukraine is just what the Rothschild Banking Dynasty puppetmasters want as they drum up public enthusiasm and support for ventures that operate against the common peoples’ interests, innocent Americans at home, innocent Ukrainians abroad, and, yes, innocent Russians, too—along with billions of other innocent people. The expansive reach, power, and influence of the Rothschild Dynasty along with its deca/centi-billionaire Neoliberal Globalist compatriots and minions, operate unchecked with abandon throughout the world. Although this is well-guarded, secretive, and insistently denied, the extensive wealth and power of these creatures is tangible, real, sinister, and venomous, and they have no reluctance in using their dominance to get what they want. And, the common people of the United States and Canada, especially, ignore this at their peril. The Rothschild Dynasty and their many captains and lieutenants control NATO, the global military arm of Europe and North America. And, they control the EU, their political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical arm. And, of course, they created the central banking system in the early 1600s, and it has since proliferated around the world, becoming monolithic and all-encompassing, with some researchers estimating their wealth to exceed 100 trillion dollars. See e.g., articles in csglobe.com, handlebar-online.com, and schengenvisainfo.com.  The shape of things to come shows jockeying for power among three trans-global dominant geopolitical forces: one, the so-called western “liberal-democratic” countries comprising, the EU, the Commonwealth Nations, and the United States; two, CCP China; and, three, Russia. You will note that CCP China and Russia have flexed their muscle most noticeably since the physical, emotional, mental wreck of a man, Joe Biden, was planted in the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. This didn’t happen on Trump’s watch. The world was safer and the U.S. was stronger: militarily, economically, and geopolitically. Under the Trump Presidency, the Nation regained its stature as a dominant superpower, and the U.S. engaged in no new foreign military ventures; nor did the world face conflicts on the world stage, the like of which we are seeing today.  The present crisis in Ukraine didn’t have to happen and wouldn’t have happened under a Trump Presidency. Trump did keep and—had he not been prevented from serving a second term in Office—would likely have continued to keep a lid on China’s global ambitions in Asia and the South Pacific; would have kept Russia contained and pacified, and would have kept the EU’s House of Rothschild in check. But, neither the Rothschilds and its minions, nor CCP China intended to be constrained by a world kept in fragile balance by Trump. China, intending to become a mighty empire in the 21^st Century, and the western alliance nations and nation-groups—comprising the EU, the Commonwealth Nations, and the United States, under the western neo-liberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist ruling “elites,” presided over by the House of Rothschild—had great and grave ambitions. So, China and the west’s ruling class hatched their plan to prevent Trump from serving a second term in office. This was necessary, for the American people, who had calmly slept as the Country was quietly, and inexorably and unlawfully being taken from them, were awakening to the monstrous treachery directed against them. The American people had come to realize their true potential under a Trump Presidency. They had reawakened to their heritage and to their Country’s rightful place in the world as a power to be reckoned with, an independent, sovereign Nation under the heel of no foreign power. And they gained awareness, as well, of their sovereignty over Government. CCP China and the Rothschild Dynasty would not stand for that; would have none of it.Having underestimated Trump’s fortitude and resilience, while in Office, impervious to elaborate, unprecedented, diabolical and reprehensible, attempts to unseat him—never before seen in the annals of American history—the Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist overlords went to work, hatching an ambitious plot to purloin the election away from Trump. The Attorney General at the time, William Barr, knew of this, but wouldn’t investigate obvious reasonable allegations and evidence for it. The legacy Press and social media ridiculed and dismissed out-of-hand, all mention of it, and censored all information about it. And the Courts, all the way up to the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court, would allow for no challenge to it.And, the collaboration of powerful, wealthy, well-organized forces did defeat Trump. And the American people and the peoples of the world are now paying the price for this. Through the machinations of China, the House of Rothschild, and fifth columnists here at home—in U.S. Government, academia, social media, business, and finance—the American people have what they wanted—a compliant milk-toast, ostensibly presiding over the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. Joe Biden is physically and emotionally weak; docile and obviously senile; irredeemably corrupt; wholly compromised. And this is the way Biden comes across to the American people, and to the peoples and leaders of the nations of the world. More to the point, this is the way Biden was meant to come across; is meant to come across. One sees this in his manner, his speech, in his bearing; in the way he carries himself. This debilitative state of mind, body, and spirit is precisely what a Country should not expect of a leader; certainly should not want in a leader. The American people do not deserve this. They do not deserve him. Should Americans and the rest of the world weep for Biden? Should we forgive him his catastrophic failings; his serious character flaws? No! Biden still has enough mind and brainpower remaining to know he is utterly unfit as a leader. Yet, he has allowed himself to serve as a placeholder, a messenger boy for the totalitarian forces lurking and operating behind the scenes who use him as a public face: a harlequin—beneficial for their purposes but harmful to the common people. Whither Russia? The Rothschild propagandists have presented Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in simplistic terms: a Manichean battle of GOOD vs. EVIL. The propagandists in the Press and social media have created the illusion of Ukraine as a free, independent, liberal democratic Country bludgeoned by a drunken beast, a despotic Russia, that thirsts for power and lusts for territory. This is the message the seditious Press presents to the public, and it is the message the puppet, Biden, delivered to the American people, and it is of a piece of what the American people witnessed in Biden’s inaugural address to the American people, and in what the American people witnessed in Biden’s recent State of the Union Address.HOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS SWAYED TO ACCEPT DANGEROUS POLICY DECISIONS THROUGH CAREFULLY CRAFTED MESSAGING“In Joe Biden’s inauguration speech [and in his recent State of the Union speech] we can find standard emotional and rational stratagems that form its persuasive strategy to obtain the public’s approval. The techniques and themes used by the President are the same identified in the modern principles of commercial advertising, of the persuasion theory and of the propaganda discourses, in particular from war propaganda. These techniques and themes consist in revealing a problem in order to suggest the solution, the repetition and the simplicity of the message, the use of a colloquial language and of significant and easily understandable symbols, the participation or the quote of testimonials, the bandwagon effect, the necessity of provoking emotional responses, the plain folks appeal, the card-stacking and the use of glittering words. The attention to the choice of the most persuasive words to express the author’s ideas, to defend an ideal and to restore American identity is impressive. These stereotyped formulas are also used to simplify situations with no need of argumentation.” ~ Abstract of the article titled, “Joe Biden’s Inauguration Speech: A Persuasive Narrative,” By Dr. Pier Paolo Pedrini University of Lugano Global Journal of Human-Social Science: A Arts & Humanities - Psychology Volume 21 Issue 4 Version 1.0 Year 2021 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Online ISSN: 2249-460x & Print ISSN: 0975-587Yes, Russia invaded Ukraine, and, given that fact, and with four years of venomous vitriol poured on Russia and Trump (curiously not so, with China), the American public has been psychologically conditioned to detest Putin and Russia—made all the easier where one Country invades another through military, naval, and airpower. But the motivation for Putin’s thrust into Ukraine, is, on reflection, not so easily dismissed as the irrational impulse of a crazed madman, as the mainstream Press portrays it. There is much more going on here. And if Putin is an evil player in this, there are others as well, not least of all, Joe Biden, and powerful forces behind the scenes that direct his words and actions and those of others in NATO and the EU. Something complex and sinister is afoot. There is a lot of blame to go around in the matter of the Ukrainian crisis. And the crisis of today in the European Theater is the outgrowth of events occurring twenty years ago.Regardless of how the shills and propaganda organs of the EU, and of the Commonwealth Nations, and of the U.S. “spin this,” what is transpiring in Europe, as played out, at the moment, in Ukraine, is a struggle between two behemoths, the Rothschild Dynasty and Russia. Both seek to accumulate territory in the process of empire-building, but, in Russia’s case, there is also the desire for security. The Rothschild Dynasty seeks to control all of Europe, and to contain, constrain and threaten Russia through its presence at Russia’s doorstep. Putin recognizes the threat from the House of Rothschild/EU and seeks to create a buffer between it and the Rothschild/EU through the acquisition of more territory in Ukraine and the Baltic region, hearkening back to the power of the Soviet Union, in the previous century. With recent talk of bringing Ukraine into NATO, Putin sees this as a further threat to the security of Russia, and an insult as well.IMPORTANT FACTS: RUSSIA AND UKRAINE IN THE 21^ST CENTURY

• CIRCA 2000——PUTIN ASKS TO JOIN NATO AND IS REBUFFED

“Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join NATO but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line ‘with a lot of countries that don’t matter’, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led NATO between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. ‘They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,’ he said.The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join NATO?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join NATO, they apply to join NATO.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining NATO ‘if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner’.He told Frost it was hard for him to visualize NATO as an enemy. ‘Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilized world.’” From an article in the British newspaper, The Guardian, November 4, 2021. 

• 2004——ORANGE REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE; NATO EXPANSION IN THE BALTIC STATES

“After the Orange Revolution street protests in Ukraine in 2004, Putin became increasingly suspicious of the west, which he blamed for funding pro-democracy NGOs. He was further angered by NATO’s continuing expansion into central and eastern Europe: Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania chose to join the alliance in 2004; Croatia and Albania followed in 2009. Georgia and Ukraine were promised membership in 2008 but have remained outside.” Id.

• 2010——U.S. OBAMA MEDDLES IN THE AFFAIRS OF UKRAINE

“There is an abundance of outrage in the United States about Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Multiple investigations are taking place, and Moscow’s conduct was a major justification for the sanctions legislation that Congress just passed. Some furious political figures and members of the media insist that the Putin government’s interference constitutes an act of war. One especially agitated House member even compared it explicitly to the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks.Such umbrage might be more credible if the United States refrained from engaging in similar conduct. But the historical record shows that Washington has meddled in the political affairs of dozens of countries—including many democracies. An egregious example occurred in Ukraine during the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014.Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was not an admirable character. After his election in 2010, he used patronage and other instruments of state power in a flagrant fashion to the advantage of his political party. That high‐​handed behavior and legendary corruption alienated large portions of Ukraine’s population. As the Ukrainian economy languished and fell farther and farther behind those of Poland and other East European neighbors that had implemented significant market‐​oriented reforms, public anger at Yanukovych mounted. When he rejected the European Union’s terms for an association agreement in late 2013, in favor of a Russian offer, angry demonstrators filled Kiev’s Independence Square, known as the Maidan, as well as sites in other cities.Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers considered reasonably free and fair—about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies [if one can say the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was fair and aboveboard; it wasn’t]. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking.Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R‑AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right‐​wing Svoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.” ~ From an article appearing in CATO Institute, on August 6, 2017, titled, “America’s Ukraine Hypocrisy.” 

• 2014——“THE EUROMAIDAN” EVIDENCE OF U.S. INVOLVEMENT TO OVERTHROW YANUKOVYCH

“McCain’s actions were a model of diplomatic restraint compared to the conduct of Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. As Ukraine’s political crisis deepened, Nuland and her subordinates became more brazen in favoring the anti‐​Yanukovych demonstrators. Nuland noted in a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation on December 13, 2013, that she had traveled to Ukraine three times in the weeks following the start of the demonstrations. Visiting the Maidan on December 5, she handed out cookies to demonstrators and expressed support for their cause.The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post‐​Yanukovych government. The U.S‑favored candidates included Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that ‘Yats is the guy” who would do the best job.Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine’s lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country—and a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nations—to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval.Washington’s conduct not only constituted meddling, it bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer‐​term basis. Nuland stated that ‘I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary.’ She added that what Yatseniuk needed ‘is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.’The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s political turbulence. Pyatt stated bluntly that ‘we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political transition].’ Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that the vice president’s national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related that she told him “probably tomorrow for an atta‐​boy and to get the details to stick. So Biden’s willing.’Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal government.A February 24, 2014, Washington Post editorial celebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow Yanukovych. The ‘moves were democratic,’ the Washington Post concluded, and ‘Kiev is now controlled by pro‐​Western parties.’It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland‐​Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country—especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro‐​Russian government—an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’s blessing, but apparently with its assistance.” Id. ~ From article appearing in CATO Institute, on August 6, 2017, titled, “America’s Ukraine Hypocrisy; see also article of March 3, 2014 in the Leftist news organization “Democracy Now.”See, also, the article in “Ordo abc chao,” “Former US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testifying during a hearing on Policy Response to Russian Interference in the 2016 US Elections before the Senate Intelligence Committee at Capitol Hill in Washington (June 20, 2018)January 5, 2021, it was reported that, to serve as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, then President-elect Joe Biden would nominate Victoria Nuland, who had a complicated history of involvement in exacerbating tensions in Ukraine, by aligning with far-right and Neo-Nazis groups, in pursuit of the US and NATO’s interests in the region. An article in Salon, titled ‘Who is Victoria Nuland? A really bad idea as a key player in Biden's foreign policy team,’ explained:Who is Victoria Nuland? Most Americans have never heard of her, because the U.S. corporate media's foreign policy coverage is a wasteland. Most Americans have no idea that President-elect Biden's pick for deputy secretary of state for political affairs is stuck in the quicksand of 1950s U.S.-Russia Cold War politics and dreams of continued NATO expansion, an arms race on steroids and further encirclement of Russia.  In addition to serving as US Permanent Representative to NATO from 2005 to 2008, Nuland has also been a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Putin has come to recognize that the United States and NATO have made use of Western NGOs and social media attacks, orchestrated from abroad under the pretext of supporting democracy, combating electoral fraud or the corruption of the targeted regimes, to catalyze uprisings such as the Color Revolutions and the Arab Spring. The leading NGOs include the NED, as well as the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House, which are largely supported by government funds, and billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF). The NED, an organization often described as an accessory to American intelligence, and which has been financially supported by Richard Mellon Scaife, who has long-standing ties to the CIA and also funded the Heritage Foundation. The first president of the NED confessed to the Washington Post that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” Acknowledgment of America’s actions has resulted in a growing worldwide trend of governments seeking to limit and delegitimize foreign funding to local NGOs, including not only Russia, but also India, Ethiopia, Hungary, Qatar, Egypt and Israel. At home, the United States’ actions are excused by the perception that the imposition of democracy is not objectionable because it is not just an American, or Western ideal, but a universal one. As indicated by Robert W. Merry in The Atlantic, given the sizeable expenditures that go into such projects, such intrusion ‘is a foreign-policy issue that deserves more attention than it is getting in American discourse.’ Even if these accusations were to be made public, the general view is, as Merry noted, ‘that these NGO activists are merely doing what comes naturally to those who believe American democratic structures represent universal values that should be embraced universally throughout the world.’ However, numerous critics have confirmed that NGOs have ‘acted as interest groups rather than as promoters of universal standards, and as tools of US foreign policy rather than as local representatives of the ‘global conscience’ or ‘transnational civil society.’ The truth is that the US State Department cannot divulge what are covert foreign policy tactics, and the work of NGOs provide them plausible deniability.’ [Also note connection with the Rothschild/Soros ‘Open Society’ agenda] Formerly the Open Society Institute, the OSF was founded in 1993 by Soros to financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media. In 1991, the Soros Foundation Budapest merged with the Fondation pour une Entraide Intellectuelle Européenne, an affiliate of the CIA’s Cold War front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). Open Society Institute was created in the United States in 1993 to support the Soros foundations in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.” And see the articles in Adara Press and stuartbramhall.wordpress.com. The last article points to a documentary about the 2013 CIA sponsored coup in 2013. {SURPRISE— “SORRY: THE DOCUMENTARY NO LONGER EXISTS”}

• 2022—UKRAINE AS A MEMBER OF NATO—UKRAINE’S WISH AND RUSSIA’S NIGHTMARE.

See February 15, 2022 article in Al Jazeera:“The future of NATO, the transatlantic security alliance, is at the centre of the standoff between Russia and the West over Ukraine.Moscow wants guarantees that its neighbour, a former Soviet state, will be permanently barred from joining the United States-led alliance. It has also called for NATO to cease all military activity in Eastern Europe, blaming it for undermining security in the region.But Western leaders have rejected those demands. They have argued the Kremlin cannot be allowed an effective veto on Kyiv’s foreign policy decisions and defended NATO’s ‘open door policy’, which grants any European nation the right to ask to join.Amid the deadlock, here are five things you need to know about NATO:The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949, in the aftermath of World War II.The alliance was initially part of an effort by the US and its European allies to deter any expansion of the then-Soviet Union (USSR) and reduce the possibility of conflict on the continent by encouraging greater political integration between its powers.In the decades since, it has steadily expanded its orbit, bringing a swathe of central and eastern European states into its ranks after the USSR collapsed.This enlargement has troubled Moscow, which is wary of the Brussels-headquartered alliance edging ever closer to its borders and hemming it in from the West.NATO is comprised of 30 member states.Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the US were its founding members.The newest member state is North Macedonia, which joined in 2020.Three so-called partner countries – Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia – have declared their aspirations to become part of the alliance, which says its purpose is “to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means’.Ukraine has repeatedly stated its intention to become a NATO member state – an objective that is written into the country’s constitution.Joining the alliance would boost Ukraine’s defensive strength, because of NATO’s principle of collective defence. That principle – set out by Article 5 in NATO’s founding treaty –  means an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies, committing them to protect one another.In 2008, NATO leaders promised Ukraine it would one day be given the opportunity to join the alliance. But despite deepening cooperation in the years since, there is thought to be little chance of that happening any time soon.Western powers are yet to be convinced Kyiv has done enough work to eradicate corruption and meet the other political, economic and military criteria required to enter the alliance, as set out in its 1995 Study on Enlargement.NATO’s members may also be wary of Ukraine joining their ranks while tensions with Moscow remain high, as such a move could draw them into a direct conflict with Russia in the event it launches an attack, because of the collective defence principle.On Monday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the issue was ‘not on the agenda’ following talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, despite Ukraine’s president restating his country’s membership ambition.All 30 NATO allies must unanimously approve a new country becoming part of the alliance.Putin has said it is now time for NATO’s waves of expansion to be reversed and for the alliance to guarantee that Ukraine never be allowed to become a member.He argues that the West has betrayed Moscow by breaking alleged verbal commitments made at the end of the Cold War that NATO would not expand eastwards. The alliance denies that any such promises were made.In a show of force, Russia has massed more than 100,000 troops around Ukraine’s borders and sent sweeping security demands to Washington and NATO.In response, the alliance, the US and its European allies have been scrambling to negotiate with Moscow and de-escalate the situation.But the high-stakes diplomatic efforts have borne little success. Washington and NATO have rejected the Kremlin’s central demands – that the alliance cease all military activity in Eastern Europe and Ukraine be barred from membership – while Russia has refused to budge on its requests.As tensions continue to simmer, Western leaders, including US President Joe Biden, have made clear they will not send troops to defend Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion.But several of Kyiv’s allies in NATO, with the exception of Germany, have supplied Kyiv with weapons as it ramps up preparations to repel a potential incursion. Meanwhile, NATO has moved to reinforce its eastern flank with additional troops and military hardware.” ~from an article in Al Jazeera, February 15, 2022.______________________________________One burning question is: whether and to what extent sanctions on the Russian Central Bank can choke the financial life-blood out of Russia?” See articles in Economic Times. China is watching the Ukrainian conflict carefully. How that unfolds will impact the timing of and the nature and manner of CCP China's insinuation/incursion/invasion into Taiwan.  Notice how the U.S. has been reduced to a minor player in the remaking of geopolitical dominance in the world since Biden took office. The U.S. has become a docile little lamb. And that has emboldened both CCP China and Russia.The Rothschild Dynasty’s propagandists have thrust, into the psyche of the American public, a particular message: The Ukrainian people are fighting for freedom and liberty against a dangerous, monolithic, bestial aggressor, Russia. The purpose of this messaging is to get the American public on board with the game plan: war in Europe. This propaganda is as palpable and as insidious as it is ingenious. And, for this purpose, guns are now seen as a good thing. Vladimir Zelensky urges his people—both old and young—to take up arms against Vladimir Putin. And the Ukrainian police and military are now handing out “weapons of war,” i.e., selective fire rifles and submachine guns, to the commoners, like hotcakes. Isn’t that fascinating? The news media here at home, isn’t suggesting that guns are such a bad thing now even as one must wonder how a person who has never handled a firearm before would know how to handle a selective fire or fully automatic rifle. Breitbart says:“The Ukrainian Parliament greatly expanded the right to bear arms on the eve of the full-scale Russian invasion. A day later, when Russian troops began assaulting multiple major Ukrainian cities, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced the government would give anyone willing to fight the Russian military a weapon, no questions asked.Reznikov issued an update, shared by the Ukrainian armed forces on social media, stating that 18,000 firearms ‘and corresponding combat kits,’ meaning ammunition, were in the hands of Ukrainian citizens, and again inviting anyone willing to fight against the invasion to ask for weapons.”Apparently, when fighting for the benefit of the Rothschild dynasty, guns in the hands of the common people are okay. And any thought of a person accidentally shooting him or herself in the foot or of transforming from a Dr. Jekyll character into a psychotic Mr. Hyde and going on a rampage is of no moment. See ABC News report and report from Armstrong Economics on the arming of Ukrainian citizens.  See also report in Conservative Daily News ———:“Prior to the attack, Ukrainian officials took steps to help Ukrainian civilians protect themselves.‘Ukraine’s parliament on Wednesday voted to approve in the first reading a draft law which gives permission to Ukrainians to carry firearms and act in self-defense,’ Reuters reported.The 30-day emergency order, National Review reports, would ‘grant citizens the right to bear arms.’ It would also allow the government to conscript Ukrainians between the ages of 18 and 60, ‘adding nearly 200,000 troops to the country’s defense.’‘Next Time, Bear Arms Earlier’Permitting Ukrainians to arm themselves is a sensible measure. But as Charles Cooke points out at NRO, ‘it’s also a bit late.’While Ukraine has relatively loose gun control laws by European standards, estimates suggest only about 1.3 million firearms exist in the country, which has a population of some 43 million. This diminishes the chances of Ukrainian civilians being able to offer serious resistance, an idea that is hardly far-fetched, Stephen Gutowski points out at The Reload:‘. . . the history of warfare is rife with examples of smaller, weaker, and less organized forces besting even the greatest militaries in the world. From the American Revolution to Vietnam, Iraq, and multiple wars in Afghanistan, it isn’t difficult to find templates for how a Ukrainian resistance could eventually prevail if Russia attempts to capture and hold it.’It’s wonderful Ukrainian officials are finally extending the natural right to bear arms to its people. The only tragedy is that it took so long. Speaking on CNN, Nina Lvovna Khrushcheva, a professor of international affairs at the New School in New York, also said small arms could be decisive.‘If every Ukrainian takes a gun, Russians don’t have a prayer,’ she told John Berman. ‘I mean the military can fight, but . . . Ukrainians are really ready today.’Ukrainian leaders apparently agree. The government on Thursday took the unusual step of issuing thousands of automatic weapons to civilians, following the issuance of its emergency order. Unfortunately, the likelihood of serious resistance is low because the Ukrainian government embraced the right to bear arms so late.” —And what if Ukraine joins the EU, asks the leftist rag NPR? That will definitely serve to extend the Rothschild empire, but at what cost to stability in Europe and the world?  Is this supposed to deter Putin, as Rothschild-paid toady-commentators posit, or will it simply heighten Putin's resolve to take control over the entire Country? In fact the question is ridiculous. One major reason Putin invaded Ukraine was as a direct response and not unreasonable anger to the CIA/State Department-sponsored/instigated Euromaidan uprising of 2013. But, that little fact is absent from any discussion in Congress and in the seditious mainstream media. Yet, that fact is critical to understanding the present European crisis. Perhaps if the American people were presented with all the pertinent facts, they would not be a bit more circumspect in their harsh judgment of Putin. But, that would work against the agenda of the Neoliberal Globalist House of Rothschild and Soros and their minions. Recall the points made in this article, supra. Consider: the EU is the political, social, and economic arm of the Rothschild dynasty. NATO is its military arm. Although not every member of the EU is a member of NATO, nonetheless, the EU has developed its own military as a parallel construct to NATO to protect all EU member states. See article in worldview.stratfor.com. And see article in eeas.europa.eu. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/Likely an EU military arm would at some point merge with NATO. See article in americanprogress.org. By the way, as pointed out by the website influence watch, “The Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAP Action), established in July 2003 by longtime Clinton family confidant John Podesta, liberal billionaire George Soros, and a handful of other former Washington, D.C. Democrats and Clinton administration officials, is a leading force in progressive media as the publisher of the left-wing blog Think Progress.” This Soros/Rothschild NGA is pushing to embroil the U.S. into the thick of the Ukraine/Russia conflict. The U.S. has never faced off against Russia or China directly, and for good reason. Each of these Nations has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the world many times over. That doesn't faze Soros and the Rothschilds in their lust to control all of Europe, and much of the rest of the world. But, the American people should see these creatures for what they are: ruthless, greedy, wrathful killers, no less so than Putin or Xi Jinping.Not surprisingly, the Soros/Rothschild machine is tied to the Democrat Party. See article on the website, Legal Insurrection.“The Center for American Progress (CAP), the George Soros funded Democratic messaging machine, runs the aggressive Think Progress website.Think Progress is obsessed with attacking the Tea Party movement as racist, the Koch Brothers as evil manipulators, and Clarence Thomas as corrupt. Think Progress blogger Matthew Yglesias helped ignite the false story that Sarah Palin’s electoral map was connected to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.Think Progress is the public face of CAP, dominating news cycles with its relentless attacks on anyone who opposes Obama.CAP, which was run for years by former Clinton adviser John Podesta, now is run by a former Obama campaign staffer, Neera Tanden.Now the White House is bringing a senior CAP strategist Jennifer Palmieri into the White House to help prepare for the 2012 campaign.  As reported by Glenn Thrush at Politico:The White House is bringing onboard high-octane Clinton administration  veteran Jennifer Palmieri , a top official at the progressive Center for  American Progress think tank, to beef up its communications unit heading into  2012, POLITICO has learned.Palmieri , who currently serves as president of CAP’s political action fund  and as a senior vice president at the parent organization, replaces former  deputy communications director Jennifer Psaki, who left for the private sector  earlier this fall.A senior Obama campaign official now runs CAP and Think Progress.  A senior CAP strategist now helps run the 2012 campaign from inside the White House.  The full embrace of CAP and Think Progress by the White House is just another sign that 2012 will be the nastiest campaign ever, with the truth the first victim.The merger of the White House and Think Progress is just about complete.  Think Progress is in control, or is the Obama campaign, or is there no difference anymore?”Naturally, the messaging is geared to impress the American people that, Putin's incursion into Ukraine is destined to fail. Below is a recent bit of propaganda put forth by the Soros Globalist Open Society Think Progress website:“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has turned into a quagmire for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia is now engaged in a war it cannot win. No matter how events play out on the battlefield, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a strategic disaster for Russia.The inept Russian military advances and the strong performance from Ukraine’s forces have given Ukraine an incredibly dangerous weapon in war: belief. Ukrainian forces have fought valiantly and withstood Russian incursions. Ukraine has now mobilized as a country to fight and have imposed significant losses on Russian forces. Though it is difficult to assess casualty figures, NBC reported that U.S. and Ukrainian officials both estimate nearly 6,000 deaths compared to official Russian figures at nearly 500. Even if the numbers at the lower end are accurate, that would still amount to a substantial toll. The losses for Russia may worsen, as the war shifts to a more violent phase, with Russian forces trying to take major Ukrainian cities, where they will likely face tremendous resistance.U.S. and Ukrainian officials both estimate nearly 6,000 deaths compared to official Russian figures at nearly 500. Even if the numbers at the lower end are accurate, that would still amount to a substantial toll.Even if Russian forces abruptly take Kyiv or destroy Ukraine militarily, such tactical victories on the battlefield will do little to help Russia govern Ukraine. Politically, Ukraine is lost for Russia. Potential military success won’t make this any less of a political disaster for Russia. It is not just the military resistance to ‘Russian forces that should worry Putin—just as significant are the peaceful protests that are playing out in small towns “seized’ by Russian forces. It is very hard to see how a pro-Russian puppet regime will govern the country. Any installed regime will need the support of a massive security apparatus to terrify the population, arrest dissidents, and brutally suppress any insurgency. There is little doubt that Putin would be willing to proceed down this path. But it is difficult to see how he can do so practically. The military force sent to invade Ukraine might be large enough to take the country, but it is not large enough to govern it.”To control Ukraine, Russia will have to have support from actors on the ground—politicians, police, and other security forces. In the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the United States had some significant popular support from the oppressed Shia majority and was removing a reviled dictator. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see widespread Ukrainian acceptance of a Russian occupation and a pro-Russian leader. Comprehensive Russian military success on the battlefield, coupled with significant financial enticements, might entice some in Ukraine to support such a regime. But given that Ukrainian society has already mobilized for war, there will doubtless be people that keep up the fight and resort to an insurgent campaign to increase the costs of Russia’s occupation. No matter what, Ukraine will be a huge economic and military drain for the Kremlin.”But, who are the Rothschilds and Soros attempting to convince here? Putin or the American people? Putin won't be deterred. And, it is clear from the above commentary, that the House of Rothschild and George Soros know that Ukraine will fall to Russia, and that Putin does not intend to stop at Eastern Ukraine. He intends to take over the entire Country. For Putin this would mean, one, creation of a buffer zone from the EU and NATO onto the doorstep of Russia, two, extension of Russia's own empire; and three, payback for the CIA/U.S. State Department Euromaidan coup that brought a Rothschild puppet into control of Ukraine after deposing Putin's own puppet, Yanukovych, and replacing him with the CIA/U.S. State Department/Rothschild puppet, Turchynov. The Rothschild disinformation machine says that the Euromaidan was a popular protest that had nothing to do with foreign interference. See, the following narrative from euvsdisinfo.eu:“Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative depicting the 2013-14 protests in Kyiv as a coup d’état orchestrated by the West. There was no coup d’état in Ukraine. The onset of the Euromaidan protests was a spontaneous and endogenous reaction by numerous segments of the Ukrainian population to former President Yanukovych’s sudden withdrawal from the promised Association Agreement with the European Union in November 2013. The protesters’ demands included constitutional reform, a stronger role for parliament, the formation of a government of national unity, an end to corruption, early presidential elections and an end to violence.” The Rothschild disinformation machine says that the Euromaidan was a popular protest that had nothing to do with foreign interference. But the CIA would hardly advertise its dirty work. But its MO is all over this and it isn't the first time. See article on CIA involvement in instigating protests in Chile and in Iran, infra.Unlike the afore-referenced article, there is a well-researched and well-reasoned essay by Martin Armstrong on Ukrainian history, from the early 21st Century to the present, on his website Armstrong Economics, that also makes light of CIA involvement in the Euromaidan. Armstrong stresses the corruption endemic in Ukraine that is its own clear evidence of little need for the CIA to topple Yanukovych, as there was reason enough for the people to be sufficiently enraged by the Yanukovych regime to get rid of him, but the Nuland conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt doesn't negate the inference of CIA involvement, as western Neoliberal Globalist expansionism throughout the EU and in much of the rest of the world, together with a lengthy history of U.S. State Department/CIA/Rothschild involvement in empire-building around the world, is well established and not to be denied. The U.S. State Department/CIA/Rothschild wanted Yanukovych gone, and, with it, Kremlin influence, and the Neoliberal Globalists would do whatever was required to help that along.  And, one must wonder how Zelensky, who, as Armstrong says, is a comedian and actor with no prior political experience happened to become prime minister isn't adequately explained. And, it turns out that Zelensky is as ruthless and as corrupt as any of his predecessors. Quite some comedian that Zelensky!Armstrong writes, “After Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power in early 2014 during the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, the chairman of parliament Oleksandr Turchynov was appointed to the role of acting president. The Ukrainian people were very upset for they believed that there would be no real change. You MUST draw a line between what the people did and what the West did afterward. These people who attribute everything to an all-powerful CIA plot have NO personal knowledge of anything and spew out their opinion as if it were fact. The whole “Fuck the EU!” comment by Victoria Nuland phoning with Geoffrey Pyatt was reported on February 7th, 2014 and it only illustrates that there were efforts to gain control of the situation in Ukraine, but it does not demonstrate that the CIA organized the revolution from the start. Yanukovych fled Ukraine on February 22, 2014, just about 3 months from the beginning of the protests.Yanukovych was an oligarch and his police were shaking down businesses and forcing them to pay his two sons. He was running Ukraine the same way oligarchs ran Russia. You obey their commands or you die. If you had a business that was really doing well, Yanukovych and his sons would confiscate it. That is what caused the people to rise up, it was nothing the CIA managed to do. I had personal friends on the barricades. I was deeply concerned for their safety and was in regular contact offering my advice.I can tell you that the West installed the leaders thereafter and the people were told if they dared to revolt against them, they would lose all support from both the EU and the USA. The puppet president, Oleksandr Turchynov served as the acting president from February 23 until June 7, 2014, and was the only person in Ukrainian history to serve in the role. During his tenure, Turchynov was addressed as “acting president” by other Ukrainian politicians and the media.This was followed by a questionable 2014 election which took place on May 25th, with businessman Petro Poroshenko claiming to have won just over 54% percent of the vote. Yulia Tymoshenko was the runner-up with around 13%. Poroshenko was sworn in as president on June 7th, 2014. Poroshenko was a Ukrainian billionaire businessman known as the ‘Chocolate King’. However, our direct sources at the time in the East made it plain that they were unable to vote as the polling stations were destroyed by the pro-Russian terrorists/tourists. Those who would have voted in the East may have voted for Poroshenko because the general feeling was they needed a President who would have a majority vote with no run-offs to prevent civil war.Nonetheless, Poroshenko was also a seasoned politician. He has served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2009 to 2010, and as the Minister of Trade and Economic Development in 2012. From 2007 until 2012, he headed the Council of Ukraine’s National Bank. He is pro-West for economic freedom. The fact that he was a billionaire who has created businesses rather than inherited them or filled his pockets like Viktor Yanukovych, was good for he was seen as someone who would not rob the treasury and b beyond potential bribes. Yanukovych was not poor, but he was not a businessman in reality. Still, Ukraine’s east remained caught in a torrent of violence that was maturing into a civil war that we are really seeing today. This was a major challenge that tested Poroshenko who had promised to navigate between Russia and the West. But the fighting continued as the separatist rebellion in the Donets Basin continued. Poro­shenko said at the time:“The first steps of our entire team at the beginning of the presidency will concentrate on ending the war, ending the chaos, ending the disorder and bringing peace to Ukrainian soil, to a united, single Ukraine,” at a victory rally Sunday. “Our decisive actions will bring this result fairly quickly.”Poroshenko has also said he wants to lead Ukraine to closer ties with the European Union. During his speeches, Poroshenko on numerous occasions has called the war in East Ukraine a “Patriotic War”, yet did not initiate implementation of martial law. Nevertheless, the violence that prevented many citizens in eastern Ukraine from voting, demonstrates the old anti-democratic attitude there. It is their way or no way – sheer dictatorship. Separatists in the region had vowed to disrupt the vote, and they largely succeeded in shutting that down knowing they would lose. If the vote would have been for leaving Ukraine at the time, then they would have made sure the people voted. But that was not the case.Putin said a day before Ukraine voted that Russia would “cooperate with the authorities that will come to power as a result of the election,” but he added that he continued to consider Yanukovich the legitimate president of the country. Eventually, on June 18, 2015, Yanukovych was officially deprived of the title of President of Ukraine retroactively.Poroshenko set up an offshore company in the British Virgin Islands to shelter his taxes from the sale of his company. Leaked documents from the Panama Papers from 2016 revealed that Poroshenko registered the company, Prime Asset Partners Ltd, on August 21st, 2014. He denied any wrongdoing and his legal firm, Avellum, overseeing the sale of Roshen, Poroshenko’s confectionery company, said that “any allegations of tax evasion are groundless”. The anti-corruption group Transparency International believes that the “creation of businesses while serving as president is a direct violation of the constitution”. His name was cited in the list of politicians named in “Paradise Papers” allegations.This allegation of tax evasion arose during the 2019 election which took place on March 31st, with a run-off on April 21st. As a result of this election, Volodymyr Zelensky, a former actor and comedian with no prior political experience became the sixth President of Ukraine with 73% of the popular vote in the run-off against the incumbent Petro Poroshenko.Within months of the election, on December 20th, 2019, Ukrainian law enforcement raided both Poroshenko’s party headquarters and gym on the orders of President Zelensky who has turned out to be ruthless and a questionable head of state. The raid was intended to eliminate any possible influence of Poroshenko going forward. It was used to launch criminal investigations focused of alleged theft of servers with classified information and tax evasion which is now always called money laundering. Zelensky outright accused Poroshenko of state treason, aiding terrorist organizations, and financing terrorism due to allegedly organizing the purchase of coal from separatist-controlled areas of Ukraine together with pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk. Poroshenko denied the allegations, calling them “fabricated, politically motivated, and black PR directed against [Zelensky’s] political opponents”.One thing that no serious historian would quibble about is the nature of the Ukrainian Government. It is corrupt to its core, and if the Country is to be described as a democracy as the Press in this Country constantly informs Americans, then there is nothing about democracy to recommend it. Ukraine is a textbook example of the failings of any notion of direct democracy as a form of Government that Democrats incessantly wax poetic about. It is mob rule. And, if the U.S. is to take its cue from Ukraine, this Country will become much like it. That is reason enough for Americans to usher the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Democrats out of Congress and contain the beast of the Administrative Deep State with all appreciable speed.The Neoliberal Globalist Rothschild elites have used the Ukrainian/Russian debacle to entangle the United States more fully into the spider web of the EU/UN conglomerate, and are also using the crisis in Ukraine to deflect from the serious problems at home on every critical policy issue. There is nothing for the American public to be content about it in the Biden/Pelosi agenda. And embroiling the U.S. in the affairs of Europe will do nothing to extricate our Country from our own problems and will only draw us into a serious catastrophic reckoning with Russia that will draw us and the world one step closer to a nuclear catastrophe. By inserting its military into Ukraine did Putin fall into a Rothschild trap, binding the U.S. more closely with the EU and bringing Ukraine inevitably into the fold of the EU? The Rothschilds pushed Putin against a wall. And innocent Ukrainian people are paying the price. And, more Europeans, as well as Americans, may well pay the price for the Neoliberal Globalists' grandiose ambition to control the entire seemingly free world: the quest to bring to fruition an extensive world-wide neo-feudal empire going under the peculiarly innocuous name of the Open Society. If the Rothschilds deliberately pushed Putin's back to the wall on Ukraine, he didn't have much of a choice as to how to extricate Russia other than to move against it, as failure to do so would have seen that nation eventually becoming an EU and or NATO member anyway, and Russia would be facing nuclear-tipped missiles looking down its throat. This could all have been avoided if the CIA/U.S. State Department hadn't instigated or, have, at the very least a hand in the Euromaidan protest in 2013. But, Americans have seen this all before. It is the Modus Operandi of the Rothschild-backed CIA/U.S. State Department policy arm of global conquest and it does nothing to promote world stability but, rather, for the benefit of short-term financial gain and all for the hope of long-term geopolitical gang, global instability is the ultimate result. Look to history. See, e.g., article in the Mosaddegh Foundation.

“The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup) saw the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953 and the installation of a military government. This coup was orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project. The result of this event was that under the direct orders of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the administration of the country got out of the hands of the parliament to find itself under the supervision of an illegitimate government.  The establishment of this power was under major support of its foreign allies until its overthrow in 1979.

In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh, who led the oil commission of the parliament. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) under license, and was only a source of little revenue for the country. Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s as a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism. Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically. Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the previous U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.” See also article on the website History.

American propaganda messaging and film played up the regime of the Shah of Iran as an example of modern industrialization in a third-world Country. It was nothing of the sort. Underneath the veneer of democracy and modern industrialization the Country was a brutal torture chamber. And, the result was something much worse than a regime under the Socialist, Mosaddegh, whose great crime, was a cooperative relationship with the Soviet Union. Soon the U.S. and Europe, tired of their puppet, instigated or simply allowed matters in Iran to get out of hand. And, worse than either the Shah or Mosaddegh before him, Iran fell into a ruthless theocracy under the Ayatollah Khomeini. See article in the New American. And the U.S. is suffering the consequences from that, for over forty years now.Also in the 1950s, the CIA engineered a coup in Chile that brought the brutal dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet to power.And some sources say that the CIA was also instrumental in placing Iraq's Saddam Hussein into power:“US intelligence helped Saddam's Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.” See also GPF archive:“The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment.The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed ‘vigorous and confident,’ according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by NEWSWEEK. Rumsfeld ‘conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad,’ wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries.Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the-theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions.FORMER ALLIESRumsfeld is not the first American diplomat to wish for the demise of a former ally. After all, before the cold war, the Soviet Union was America's partner against Hitler in World War II. In the real world, as the saying goes, nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests. Nonetheless, Rumsfeld's long-ago interlude with Saddam is a reminder that today's friend can be tomorrow's mortal threat. As President George W. Bush and his war cabinet ponder Saddam's successor's regime, they would do well to contemplate how and why the last three presidents allowed the Butcher of Baghdad to stay in power so long.The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No single policymaker or administration deserves blame for creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons. But it happened.America's past stumbles, while embarrassing, are not an argument for inaction in the future. Saddam probably is the ‘grave and gathering danger’ described by President Bush in his speech to the United Nations last week. It may also be true that ‘whoever replaces Saddam is not going to be worse,’ as a senior administration official put it to NEWSWEEK. But the story of how America helped create a Frankenstein monster it now wishes to strangle is sobering. It illustrates the power of wishful thinking, as well as the iron law of unintended consequences.”The history of CIA/State Department machinations in the affairs of other Countries is long, disheartening, ignoble, and, ultimately, disastrous for our Nation's long-term security. The very notion of ‘regime change’ as foreign policy is presumptuous and arrogant, and, regardless of how the Press spins it, any relationship to the desire to promote this, thing, ‘democracy,’ is a damnable lie. The CIA/State Department toadies of the House of Rothschild wish to maintain control of Ukraine, but the reason for it has nothing to do with promoting democracy which doesn't exist in Ukraine anyway. The goal is to extend the reach of the Rothschilds' control over the remains of western nation-states. A ruthless dictator is far easier to control than that of a civil libertarian leader whose goal is less his own glorification, and more the motivation of the denizens of his Country to succeed in a myriad of fields. A neo-feudal empire cannot long survive where the average citizen is empowered to control his own destiny and seeks to ensure that nothing his Government does will interfere with control over his own selfhood. The larger a feudal empire grows, the more rigid and uniform in structure it must be. The Neoliberal Globalists view billions of commoners as random bits of energy that have to be brought under a strict, regimented system lest the entire system become unwieldy and collapse as people seek to make their own way in the world to maximize their personal potential. That was the basis for the success of the United States for centuries and that is precisely what the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalists don't want. The Biden Administration's policies are all directed to dumbing down the population for the purpose of maximizing control over the populace.And, what do such policies do for the American people? Nothing beneficial for them. But, don’t we have a say in our own destiny? President Trump wanted to keep our Nation neutral, thereby strengthening it against a takeover by either the House of Rothschild or China. That singular policy objective has gone by the board under the Biden Administration, whose policies, not surprisingly, mirror the objectives of the United Nations and the EU, and do not benefit the American citizenry.Both the Rothschild Dynasty and CCP China had their own reasons to shunt Trump and the American people who supported him aside, and that is exactly what has happened. A strong, independent, sovereign United States has no place in a Collectivist Dystopian world.Those Americans who thought Trump dangerous to the security of the Country have ironically opened themselves up, and the rest of us along with them, to true danger, immeasurable grief, and horror, at the hands of the toadies of both Xi Jinping and the Rothschilds who are both vying for control over the U.S. _________________________________WHERE IS THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD HEADED UNDER THE “PUNCH AND JUDY SHOW” THAT THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD—THE UNITED STATES—HAS METAMORPHOSED INTO?Controlling information access, curbing dissent, curtailment of privacy, destroying the right to own personal property, reducing the commonalty to a state of abject poverty through Federal Reserve monetary policy and U.S. Department of Treasury fiscal policy machinations, insinuation into the commonalty’s health and financial records, and confiscation of the commonalty’s firearms—these are the vehicles through which the House of Rothschild its minions intend to bring to fruition their grandiose supra-transnational, multicultural, neo-feudal empire spanning the globe: a new world order qua “Open Society.”A massive global Triumvirate is taking shape, an arrangement among three powerful blocs:

• The Rothschild Dynasty’s “Free World”/“Open Society,” consolidating power and control over the remains of the EU, the Commonwealth Nations, and the Countries of North and South America
• CCP China, controlling Asia, the Indo-Pacific Region; 
• Russia, controlling its great landmass and the Baltic Region of Europe, extending its own empire and hoping to create a firm buffer against the weight of the Rothschild Dynasty’s Euro/Atlantic global empire. See article in Carnegieendowment.org

Africa, the Middle East region, and the Arctic and Antarctic regions, along with “Space Supremacy,” are up for grabs.Can the commonalty of Canada and the United States retain sovereignty and independence as the Rothschild western neo-feudal Global empire and CCP China clash for dominance over North America? Our best chance to do so would have been with Trump. That is not possible with the present Administration, whose goes are antithetical to an ascendant, strong, United States.The common people of Canada have no control over the greater world, as fought over by the Rothschilds, CCP China, and Russia. But, if the concept of sovereign independent nation-state is to survive the coming cataclysm as both CCP China and the Rothschilds fight for domination over North America, it is incumbent on the common peoples of both Countries that they first recognize the vise-grip around them. They have caught on to the grand scheme—saying “enough already.”The Canadian people realize that Justin Trudeau is merely a “pretty-boy,” effeminate sop; a figurehead, controlled by and buffeted by both the House of Rothschild and CCP China. Neither of those two powers have any interest in securing the welfare of Canadians. The common people of Canada are simply viewed as expendable dross to the Rothschields and to China.And Americans are presently stuck with Joe Biden: a vacuous husk, barely functioning, barely able to communicate intelligibly the script handed to him, but serving as a convenient focal point for the Country as the Rothschild Dynasty consolidates control over all the apparatuses of the Federal Government and attempts to exert complete control over the States in defiance of the doctrine of federalism.But, the citizenry of the U.S. and the Canadian subjects of the Crown in Canada have one strength that the Hoi Polloi throughout the rest of the world don’t have. They are armed. And both the Trudeau Government and the Biden Administration intend to disarm their Country’s citizenry, as they must although this is easier said than done. Yet, the fact remains: the Rothschild neo-feudal empire/“Open Society” cannot come to fruition until all sovereign nation-states collapse. And that cannot happen either to Canada or to the United States as long as the common people are armed.Both we, the common people, and the Neoliberal Globalist ruling elite know that the world is at a crossroads; an inflection point.The Globalist elites must suppress armed resistance. This is no easy task.  Canadians and Americans alike are becoming justifiably increasingly anxious and restless at the clear loss of their fundamental liberties.Clearly, the Globalist overlords want and need to exert dominance over the two major Nations of North America as they have gained dominance over most nations of the EU. But it is much more difficult. Canada, a British Commonwealth Nation, while tied to the English Monarchy is not tied to the EU. And the Government of the U.S. is tied neither to the English Monarchy nor is it tied to Brussels.The impact of the American Revolution of 1776 cannot be convincingly denied, nor ever overturned through overt means, i.e., through a Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Counterrevolution.Rebellion against tyranny—the predicate basis for the American Revolution is firmly rooted in the soul of most Americans and cannot be easily removed; nor can the American Revolution be overturned easily through covert means. And, while the Bill of Rights of Canada says nothing of a right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is arms they do in fact bear and will not easily surrender them, even in the absence of a well-defined natural law tradition of a right of self-defense against tyranny through force of arms.The U.S. is different. We have such a tradition. The Globalist puppetmasters know this full well and they have, through time, constructed, developed, and implemented elaborate, comprehensive, and intensive social engineering programs to destabilize American society and to disassemble societal institutions grounded in the right of the people to bear arms against tyranny. And the American people have seen that tyranny is in evidence through the erosion of fundamental freedoms and liberties.Through the implementation of intensive and expansive psychological conditioning programs designed to rewire the psyche of the American citizenry, Americans are being methodically conditioned to repudiate their history, heritage, culture, and Christian ethos. Much attention has been directed to and considerable energy expended in attempting to undermine the public’s veneration for their fundamental freedoms and to undercut their undying belief in the value of liberty and eradicate the very notion that the armed citizenry could in fact defeat a determined Government in battle. Americans did succeed once before against a formidable and ruthless power and, if the people retain their will, they can do so again.To weaken the American people's resolve and to undermine their faith in the sanctity and inviolability of Self upon which the will to resist tyranny proceeds, is a time-consuming, and costly enterprise.Even with advances in psychological and neurological conditioning and even with the means to target hundreds of millions of people through the vehicle of the “smartphone” and internet, the forces that crush entire countries and people alike may still fail to destroy the will of Americans. For, once the concepts of freedom and liberty take hold in the psyche of the individual and in one’s ancestral memory, they are difficult things, indeed, to dislodge._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

AMERICA'S BILL OF RIGHTS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF COLLAPSE

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

PART THREE

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

PART FIVE

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

A MARXIST COUNTER-REVOLUTION THREATENS THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THREATENED ON INDEPENDENCE DAY

PART ONE

WHO SHALL SECURE THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

We begin with one simple basic, indisputable, but melancholy truth: No Branch of our Government cares deeply about preserving and strengthening the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; neither Congress; nor the U.S. Supreme Court; nor, for that matter, the Chief Executive of our Nation, President Donald Trump.Sure, there are outliers in Congress and on the High Court who seek to preserve, protect, and strengthen the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, but they are few in number; pathetically few in number; and President Trump’s own stand on the Second Amendment has been lukewarm at best. Yes, the President claims to support the Second Amendment. Like all politicians, he knows how to pontificate, and he does so better than most. But what has he done to set his lofty, grandiose words to action? The only concrete Second Amendment action he has taken that we can recall was one decidedly against buttressing our sacred, inviolate right.Do you remember what President Trump did? He ordered the DOJ to revise the definition of ‘machine gun’ to include bump stocks in the legal definition. The resulting change distorts decades of industry and military usage and understanding of the expression, ‘machine gun.’ Regardless, Trump ordered the DOJ to follow through with this change. He did this ostensibly to placate those folks who don’t want the American citizenry to own and possess firearms at all; to mollify those maniacal ideologues who have a visceral abhorrence of firearms; who harbor ill will toward those who wish to exercise their God-given right to own and possess firearms; and who will not rest until they have: one, banned civilian ownership and possession of firearms; and two, have collected all firearms and ammunition from American civilian citizens; and three, have destroyed all civilian caches of firearms and ammunition, imprisoning those who they deem hoarders of firearms and ammunition; and, four, have erased the language of the Second Amendment from the U.S. Constitution and from all lexicons.The appetite of those Destroyers of our Nation who would crush the American people into submission will never be sated until all thought and action have been brought under complete control through massive indoctrination and confiscation of all firearms from the commonalty.In an Arbalest Quarrel article posted on December 31, 2018, we cited President Trump’s memorandum directed to the Attorney General, who, at the time, was the useless, milquetoast, Jeff Sessions. President Trump wrote, in part:“ ‘After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices. Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns. Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of ‘machine gun’ under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal.’”And, what became of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity?On February 18, 2018, the Arbalest Quarrel wrote,“The ‘Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017’ (115 H.R. 38) amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms. Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC), introduced the bill on January 3, 2017. The bill passed the House by Roll Call Vote of 231-198, on December 6, 2017. It was sent to the Senate one day later, where it was read twice and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Trump supports it. The NRA supports it. And rank and file law enforcement officers support it too. But there has been to date no further action on it. The bill sits in limbo. Its prospect of passage is, at present, low. Why is that?” Did Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, harbor doubts about a national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law? We know McConnell can get things done when he wants to. But apparently McConnell didn’t want this.Perhaps, the Senate Majority Leader was waiting for a signal from President Trump to proceed, grounded on Trump’s stated policy position on the Second Amendment. Do you remember what President Trump originally had told the American public about the fundamental right of self-defense, and, particularly, what the President had to say concerning his position on national concealed handgun carry?The Arbalest Quarrel remembers well what Trump said.In our December 31, 2018 post, we cited Trump’s imperious words that,“ ‘The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then, surely, we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.’ ~ Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms”Sadly, these were just the pompous, pretentious, empty, disingenuous words of a politician. In that same Arbalest Quarrel post, we cited to an article appearing in the Washington Examiner that reported: “ ‘President Trump told Republicans on Wednesday they should not include a measure that allows people with concealed carry permits in one state to carry across state lines in a comprehensive gun bill.‘ ‘I think that maybe that bill will one day pass, but it should pass separate,’ Trump said during a bipartisan meeting at the White House. ‘If you’re going to put concealed carry between states into this bill, we’re talking about a whole new ball game. I’m with you, but let it be a separate bill.’ ’” The President weaseled, giving, at best, only lukewarm support for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation.Mitch McConnell likely interpreted Trump’s words to mean the President wasn’t behind national concealed handgun carry legislation, and, so, McConnell wouldn’t support this measure either. McConnell thereupon allowed the bill to die in Committee; And die it did, and that is the last anyone has seen of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity up to this very moment in time.What does this tell you? A Republican U.S. President and a Republican Senate—with both House and Senate in Republican Party majorities at that time—cared little, if at all, about preserving and strengthening the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms.Recall that in the 2018 Midterm elections the Radical Left Democrats took control of the House. National concealed handgun carry legislation became a dead letter and will remain so. Republicans had their chance and squandered it. Obviously they do not hold the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in high regard.And the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to defend its own Heller and McDonald case precedents demonstrates that, apart from a few Justices, the High Court has little or no desire to preserve and protect the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.In the upcoming General Election, the Radical Left Democrats intend to keep control of the House, gain control of the Senate—which will escalate New York Senator Chuck Schumer to the Senate Majority leader position—and regain the White House. If all this should transpire, the safety and well-being of the entire citizenry will be at substantial risk. The American public is getting a foretaste of this now as fanatical, rabid, dangerous Marxist and Anarchist protestors, rioters, arsonists, and looters run amok, given a free hand to destroy the very fabric of a free Constitutional Republic, and, in the process, jeopardizing the safety, security, and well-being of us all.What this means is that, despite a timorous, timid Republican-controlled Senate, and an irresolute President, this is the best we can hope for at the moment.Neither Senator Mitch McConnell nor President Trump will take affirmative steps to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, fortunately, they seem reluctant, at the moment at least, to take steps to severely weaken the Second Amendment.A neutral stance is the best we can expect from either of them. That will have to suffice given the appalling prospect for Americans if the Marxists prevail in the upcoming General election.

AS PUBLIC ORDER DEVOLVES INTO MASS DISORDER, EXPECT CALLS FOR TOTAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT

What does the present “summer of love,” as the Mayor of Seattle refers to the violence happening in Seattle and throughout the Country, portend? We are seeing it: a Marxist Counter-Revolution, long-simmering, now boiling over into a full-on Civil War.If ever the right of the people to keep and bear arms had critical import, it does so now; today, at this very moment. But the ruthless Globalist forces fomenting violence do not want to have to contend with an armed citizenry dead-set on preserving a Free Constitutional Republic.So, don’t be surprised to see a concerted attempt by Marxist State leaders calling for suspension of fundamental rights, especially the right embodied in the Second Amendment, in a Marxist led Government.We expect that Radical Left State and local Governments, sympathetic to the destruction of a free Republic, will call for a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms, citing a public emergency, as thousands of rioters, looters, arsonists, vandals, muggers, and murderers cause disruption across the Nation—destruction that these Marxist Governments not only allow to happen but actively encourage.So, then, the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the article, as set forth in the title of the article, is this:It falls to the American people, themselves, to secure their fundamental, unalienable, immutable, and illimitable right to keep and bear arms, thereby preserving and protecting the autonomy of the individual, and the integrity of selfhood, and maintaining the sovereignty of the American people over those serving in Government who would dare usurp power for themselves.The sanctity and inviolability of our Nation’s history and heritage are outrageously attacked from those within our midst. And all this occurs on the eve of our July 4, 1776, Independence Day Holiday. There is much irony in this._____________________________________________________

A NATION LOST: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF THE 18^TH CENTURY DEVOLVES INTO A COUNTER MARXIST REVOLUTION OF THE 21^ST

PART TWO

The germination of a powerful Nation and a free Constitutional Republic took hold on July 4, 1776, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. A tremendous conflict ensued for control of the American colonies.King George III of England was the visible face of the threat to a Nation yet to be. But the true power behind the throne of King George III was invisible. The true power rested with the secretive, powerful Rothschild clan that provided the financial resources for the English monarchy.In the clash that followed, King George III and the Rothschilds lost. It was a bitter loss. But King George III and the Rothschild international bankers lost much more than control over the colonies. They lost control over both the untapped mineral resources available to the colonies and the massive, fertile geographical region that extended from the Atlantic Ocean on the East Coast to the Pacific Ocean on the West Coast, and that extended northward to Canada and southward to the Gulf of Mexico; and they lost control over the colonies whom they sought to integrate into a unified Global empire. But now, that ambitious goal would lie, not dead, but dormant.King George III would rant, and rage, and fume and he would die and be forgotten. And the power of the English monarchy would wane, as would the might and power of the British empire.But the Rothschild clan would not die, and the Rothschilds could not be forgotten since few ever knew they existed—a hidden den of vipers at the center of every European Country. And, through the centuries they would amass ever greater power, draining the wealth of European Nations for themselves. But the loss of the American colonies would never be far from their mind. And, they machinated and plotted and waited, seeking an opportune time to have their revenge.The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The United States became viable, taking its first breath with ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. And, at that moment, the United States of American became an independent, sovereign nation and a free Constitutional Republic. The ratification of the Bill of Rights followed in 1791.Ratification of the Bill of Rights not only confirmed the inherent power of the American people over the three Branch Federal Government system the founders created, but cemented the Sovereignty of the American people over that Federal Government.It was understood among the founders that the government they sought to construct would be one of limited powers, operating only by the grace and consent of the American people, as all other powers and authority, not exercised by a central “Federal” Government, would reside in the States and in the people.In the next 200 years the United States became a mighty Nation; the most powerful on Earth, made possible through the drive, ingenuity, and resourcefulness of the citizenry, and through the Nation’s access to abundant natural resources, waiting to be tapped.During the intervening years, decades and centuries, as the power of the United States would wax, the English monarchy would wane and the once-mighty British empire would diminish and wither.But unbeknownst to most populations comprising Western Civilization, the power of the satanic offspring of the Rothschilds would also wax; their power and wealth increasing exponentially through the vehicle of and their singular control over the central banking system, as conceived and implemented through their founder, Mayer Amschel Rothschild.The Rothschilds would extend their global financial reach throughout the world with one goal ever in mind: the creation of a one-world political, social, cultural, and financial system of governance over which they would reign supreme.And, as the age of monarchical empires came to an end, and as the age of independent nation-states is drawing to a close, the one-world Government scheme envisioned by the Rothschilds began to take shape; sharpening to crystal clarity through the creation of a new artificial construct: the European Union. The EU had its origins in 1945, at the conclusion of the Second World War, and would become concrete with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, on November 1, 1993. And the commonalty of Europe had no idea that a noose was slowly tightening around their neck, through the secretive machinations of a few men, all of them controlled by the Rothschilds.The Rothschild clan intends to merge more and more nation-states into the EU, on the road to their creation of a one-world governmental construct.Had the colonies lost the American Revolution, America’s resources would now be a prized asset, bound up in the Rothschild portfolio; and the entire geographical region would be merged into the EU; and the American people would be subjugated. But that would be no easy task; after all, the Rothschild clan lost the American Revolution. Yet they never accepted that loss.They were patient; and, through the centuries, they engineered their plan to regain access to America’s resources, and to gain control over the apparatus of America’s Government, and to gain control over America’s institutions and people. But their plan for conquest would not involve an external military invasion. Not this time. It would be accomplished through stealth, subterfuge. An elaborate plan took shape but it would take a couple of centuries to execute. The Rothschilds, through their toadies, would insinuate themselves into every major organ and institution of our Nation.Yes, the Rothschilds had failed to destroy a budding nation, that, at the time of the American Revolution, existed only as a germinating seed, two-plus centuries ago, but the Rothschilds could still emerge victor, and have their revenge.The Rothschilds have waged a quiet, but no less tangible war to destroy the United States, from within. The Rothchild clan’s scheme was all going according to plan, but the election of Trump threw a temporary wrench into that complex scheme, as the Rothschilds did not expect Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton. Very few expected this. Trump might not be as amenable to their control as were the Bushes, and the Clintons, and Barack Obama.After two centuries, dealing with the festering loss of control over “the colonies,” these excruciatingly secretive, fantastically wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, and abjectly ruthless, wily, and cunning Rothschilds, along with their Generals, a cadre of Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist companions, were growing impatient, and angry. They had all demonstrated infinite patience, but their patience had worn thin. They would wait no longer. They have had enough from these unmanageable, intractable Americans.Recently they unleashed their agents: the dead souls and carrion beasts of the underworld to wreak havoc across our Nation—ravaging and pillaging and laying waste to our Land; destroying with complete abandon and with alarming speed our irreplaceable National treasures, the wondrous monuments to our glorious past; desirous even of destroying the icons of our Nation’s Christian heritage; threatening the lives of innocent Americans; erasing all traces and vestiges of our history and culture, anything and everything that might remind Americans of their ancestral past; of their founding fathers’ vision of a Nation as a free Constitutional Republic where the American people are sovereign. But those American people must now be corralled, brought to heel.With the U.S. economy sorely weakened by a Global Pandemic, courtesy of the Xi Jinping of China, it is no longer certain that Trump can secure a second Term in Office. But it was the killing of a black petty criminal by a white psychopathic police officer, caught on video, that could yet more assuredly turn the tide in the Rothschilds’ favor. That killing, caught on video, would be the pretext for fomenting violence across America, bringing the Nation literally to its knees.What would commence as a protest, predicated on the ridiculous charge of systemic police violence targeting blacks, metastasizing into an imbecilic claim of systemic race hatred existent throughout the Nation since the Nation’s inception, has devolved into an explicit call for a Marxist counter-revolution, the purpose of which is to destroy the very underpinnings of the United States as a free Constitutional Republic and independent Nation-State under the sovereign control of the American people, themselves.There is no getting around the danger facing our Nation today. Its very survival as a free Constitutional Republic is at stake.The smug insufferable Globalist Rothschilds—through their captains and lieutenants in Government, industry, media, and academia—are no longer even pretending to mask their intentions. They aim to annihilate every vestige of our free Republic, including the very memory of it: our historical record.Those doing the bidding of the Rothschilds, who have ingratiated themselves with the Rothschilds will be richly rewarded with money and power. But those Americans who have been duped into believing the need for radical change in our Country will learn too late, that they have bought more than mere “change” to this Country, in having acquiesced to the mob. They have ensured subjugation and penury for every American.And no one in Government is truly lifting a finger to stop this; not Republicans in Congress, nor the President. Are they resigned to the Nation’s dire fate? The response to the social and political crisis unfolding throughout our Nation has been limp, at best.Perhaps nothing can be done to stem the overthrow of a free Republic, because the Government, so riddled with saboteurs, is reduced to impotency. Our one and last fail-safe? The armed citizenry!­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________________________________________________________

INDEPENDENCE DAY HERALDS IN A MARXIST COUNTER-REVOLUTION

PART THREE

With Independence Day only days away, this Country can hardly be in a celebratory spirit, as the very words, ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriotism’ are treated like obscenities.We witness two-legged predators laying waste the Land, destroying property, intimidating innocent Americans, causing bedlam and mayhem. The police, under fire, are ordered to stand down. Government cowers. Law and Order break down everywhere. The seditious Press and Radical Left members of Congress, along with Radical Left State Governors and City Mayors give their blessing to the perpetrators of this violence.In this topsy-turvy climate, we see New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo telling Americans that attacks on monuments are merely an example of “healthy expression.” Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan blathers, “We could have the summer of love;” and Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf bellows, the city will investigate “nooses found on trees” as hate crimes. Yet the police, having investigated Mayor Schaaf's ridiculous assertions found those “nooses” to be merely ropes placed on tree limbs by an individual, several months ago. That individual, a local Black man, no less, intended these ropes to be utilized merely “as exercise equipment,” as reported by PJ Media. One can only wonder whether this radical Marxist Mayor was relieved at this news, or annoyed by it. She should be ashamed. But, these Marxists never are ashamed or embarrassed by being found out and called out for making absurd and dangerous remarks, that serve only to provoke more violence and civil unrest. But, then, that is their aim, isn't it? They just go about making further outrageous remarks to foment yet more division and divisiveness among Americans, and audaciously, irresponsibly, and unconscionably blame President Trump for the injuries to innocent people and damage to property they, themselves, cause.What is manifesting before our very eyes cannot reasonably, rationally be deemed to amount to mere peaceable assembly protected under the First Amendment. It is anything but that; and it is at once disturbing and absurd to behold. Is the control of the Globalist Rothschilds over the machinery of our Federal, State, and local Governments that complete that they can orchestrate wholesale upheaval to our Nation?Americans are witnessing the methodical, inexorable overthrow of their Government in real-time. It is all by design and all orchestrated by the trillionaire Rothschild clan and its legions of toadies that have, through the decades, infiltrated our Government at every level; have infiltrated the academia; have infiltrated the corporate sphere, and have infiltrated the Press.Instead of stopping this outrage—stopping it fast, and stopping it hard—our Government sits idle, committing suicide. And the seditious Press, under the control of the Rothschilds through the clan’s captains and lieutenants actively, avidly encourages the overthrow of our Nation.Serious crimes against the Nation are occurring before our very eyes and the Government does nothing to bring these criminals to justice. The crimes occurring openly, contemptuously, defiantly against us, the American people, are numerous. And among those crimes, we see the most serious of felonies imaginable, yet committed with aplomb and abandon. They include——18 USCS § 2381 (Treason) Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.Note: the crime of Treason appears prominently in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, as well. The Founders viewed the crime—treachery to one’s Nation—as the most serious crime, and so, one crime, and the only crime, that is set forth expressly in the U.S. Constitution.18 USCS § 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy) “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”18 USCS § 2383 (Rebellion or Insurrection) “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

THE COLD AMERICAN CIVIL WAR BREWING SILENTLY IN THE 20^THCENTURY IS BURSTING INTO THE HOT CIVIL WAR OF THE 21^TH

The silent and secretive, malignant, and malevolent Destructors of our Country, the Rothschild family of international bankers Rothschild family still reside in the shadows but we see their agents all around us.These agents of destruction and terror include Marxist, Communist, Socialist, and Anarchist groups, most prominently of late: Black Lives Matter and Antifa, along with their sympathizers and various similar and affiliate organizations. These agents also include members of Congress and the people in State legislatures and State Governments. And they include employees of the federal Bureaucracy, the “Administrative Deep State;” along with legions of Radical Left individuals in the academia, and in the Press. And they include several Billionaire Chiefs of companies in the technology sector.We see the intelligence and internal police apparatuses’ M.O. in this, too, as the moles hidden within these organizations have employed tools and techniques to enlist tens of thousands of otherwise decent, but uninformed Americans, to join mindlessly in the destruction of their own Country, as a powerful nation cannot be undone without enlisting the aid or acquiescence of a majority of Americans.The Rothschild clan has built up its forces over time—a massive, intricate interweaving, interlocking network of governmental and multinational corporate groups, including media organizations and the academia. And the horrific colossus they have nourished is bearing its poisonous fruit, causing violence and fear across the Nation.National Guard forces are nowhere to be seen; and State and local police forces have been ordered by their Radical Left Governments to stand down or are being disbanded altogether.What more can occur before this Nation topples into ruin?We are awaiting an order from State and local officials that, for the sake of  “public order” and “ public safety,” it is necessary for those Americans who possess firearms, to surrender them to the local authorities.Expect to hear that order coming down sooner or later. As with Governmental orders pertaining to the Chinese Coronavirus Pandemic—a mere dress rehearsal—expect that this one, too, a far more audacious one will be attempted through executive fiat.After all, with criminals and terrorists running amok, and the police neutralized, the last thing any of these Marxists would want or need are armed citizens banding together to protect self and family; to bring some semblance of order back to American society.The Second Amendment remains the quintessential “fail-safe” to preserve a free Constitutional Republic from encroaching tyranny; and we may very well need to exercise it.The armed colonists, the Minutemen of the American Revolution, gave us our independence from tyranny. We, the Minutemen of the 21st Century, may well be called upon to gather our arms to preserve that independence.___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TRUMP, UNSHACKLED BY REPUBLICAN PARTY DISUNITY, REMAINS STRONG TO WIN!

TRUMP, UNSHACKLED BY REPUBLICAN PARTY DISUNITY, REMAINS STRONG TO WIN!“. . . if the populace had any intelligence at all, the world wouldn’t be in its present condition. . . .” ~Captains And The Kings, by Taylor Caldwell, Part One, Chapter 24, page 260 (Doubleday & Company, Inc.)(1972)

INTRODUCTION

WHAT AMERICA GAINS THROUGH A TRUMP VICTORY IN NOVEMBER IS A RETURN TO SANITY; AND THE RETURN TO TRADITIONAL GOALS; AND A RETURN TO THE IDEALS OF OUR NATION AS HELD AND PROMOTED BY OUR FOUNDERS—IN SUM: PLACING THE NEEDS OF OUR NATION FIRST, NOT CONFLATING THE NEEDS OF OUR NATION WITH THOSE OF OTHER NATIONS AND WITH OTHER PEOPLES; AND IN EXTOLLING THE PRINCIPLE THAT WE ARE A NATION THAT RESPECTS AND HONORS THE  SANCTITY OF EACH LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN; AND THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE INHERENT RIGHT OF EACH LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN TO LIVE HIS LIFE UNHINDERED BY GOVERNMENT AND FREE FROM THREAT OF GOVERNMENT RETRIBUTION FOR HAVING EXERCISED HIS OR HER RIGHTS UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS—THAT EACH CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE.

The American public remains abysmally unaware of the danger posed by a Clinton Presidency. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have wreaked havoc with the economy, with our security, with our health care system, with our social and educational institutions, with our Constitution—in fact—with our National Identity. We are a unique people with a unique history, with a unique perspective on life, and with a unique way of life worth preserving. We are a Nation that places value on the individual and awards individual effort. These ideas are central to Donald Trump's political philosophy as one can deduce from an analysis of his speeches. But Clinton and Obama don’t agree with that philosophy. Their political philosophy devalues the individual. Their political philosophy subordinates the worth and sanctity of the individual to that of the collective, of the hive. We hear Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama express these alien, anti-American ideas in their own speeches. We see these alien, anti-American ideas expressed in their policy directives. They pontificate. They lecture Americans. They treat Americans in a condescending manner, drumming their drivel into the public's psyche through simplistic slogans, catchy phrases, and sanctimonious sermons. The mainstream media is their willing, treacherous accomplice in all of this, heralding, trumpeting the bizarre messages of Obama and Clinton and those like them, who seek to undermine the importance and sanctity of the individual and the sovereignty and independence of this Nation. Obama and Clinton suppress as subversive anything that is incompatible with the goals, aims and directives of their silent, secretive partners and benefactors who seek ever more control over the lives of Americans.Obama and Clinton, in accordance with the directives of their secretive partners and benefactors denigrate the notions of individual initiative, individual drive, and individual effort. Obama and Clinton seek to rework, reshape the American public in the mold of sameness. They seek to erase our sacred rights and liberties as heresy for those rights and liberties are grounded on yet one more basic and sacred right they cannot and will not abide: the right of the individual to be individual. Trump displays the very attribute of individuality that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and their benefactors and partners seek to stamp out, must stamp out if their goal of a New World Order is to succeed; and the powerful and corrupting influences at work in this Country and in the world at large know this very well. Through the tool of the mainstream media, they do everything in their considerable power to attack, demean, and discredit Trump—to discredit the right of the individual to be, in that person’s thought and actions, individual.

PART ONE

NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, IS MORE IMPORTANT, MORE CRITICAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THIS NATION THAN THE PRESERVATION OF OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES—ALL TEN OF THEM—AS CODIFIED IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS. THESE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE NOT TO BE IGNORED, REFUTED, DEBASED, SUPPRESSED OR DIMINISHED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, BY EXECUTIVE FIAT, BY INTERNATIONAL LAW, OR BY OPERATION OF FOREIGN PACT, TREATY, UNDERSTANDING, OR AGREEMENT.

The primary, primordial right of the individual to be individual is embodied in our jurisprudence, in our Constitution, in the very existence of our Nation. We are the only Country in existence, founded on the sacred principle that the rights and liberties of this Nation’s citizens are not privileges, granted to the people through the grace of the State, but natural rights, preexistent and preeminent in the people themselves. Our Nation is also founded on the principal that the federal Government exists by grace of the People to serve the People. Government does not exist by its own grace; and the American People are not subjects or indentured servants of the State: they are not to be perceived as such and they are not to be treated as such. America’s citizens are individuals in whose hands, and in whose hands alone, ultimate power and authority resides. But, we don’t hear these points recited by our present President, Barack Obama, or by the Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Hillary Rodham Clinton.For all their pretentious pronouncements, Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama forbear from remarking on the import of our sacred rights and liberties. They forbear on remarking, that the power and authority residing in the American People is preeminent; that such power and authority given to the federal Government is by grant of the people; that such power and authority that Government has is limited; and that such power and authority the Government has exists to serve the People, not the other way around. Why do you suppose that is? The question is rhetorical. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don’t talk about this. They don’t talk about our sacred rights and liberties in any meaningful way. They slither through any discussion of the citizenry’s sacred rights and liberties and they dismiss altogether any suggestion that ultimate power and authority resides in the American People. They do so because they mean to exercise power and authority for themselves, as regents on behalf of the puppet masters—the silent and secret masters who control them. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton muffle criticism and muzzle those who speak out in defiance to the lies and hoaxes they perpetrate on Americans. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton muffle criticism and muzzle those who dare point to the Obama and Clinton puppets’ callous disregard and contempt for Americans’ rights and liberties; for the callous disregard these puppets have for the Constitution and for the rule of law; for the callous disregard these puppets have for the security and well-being of this Country’s citizenry.

PART TWO

THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC WOULD FIND THE ETHICAL SYSTEM PROPOUNDED BY AND PROMOTED BY CLINTON AND OBAMA REPUGNANT TO THE FOUNDERS’ CONSCIENCE AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE IMPORT AND PURPORT OF THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS.

Obama and Clinton assert they know what is in the best interests of the American People. Their notion of what is in the best interests of the American People is grounded in the ethical theory of utilitarianism, which looks at what is deemed to be in the best interests of society as a whole, as a collective. The problem with this notion is that it is antithetical to the founders’ ethical system. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this in an article posted on our site on June 1, 2015, titled, "Guns, Knives, and Occam's Dangerous Razor." In codifying our rights and liberties, the founders of our Republic emphasized the importance of the individual, not the collective. But Obama and Clinton don’t like that idea. It gets in the way of their ability to interfere with and to interject themselves into the lives of average law-abiding Americans. For, if Obama and Clinton are going to create and implement policies grounded in notions of what is best for the collective—consistent with the principals of socialism and communism—then the needs and interests of the individual cannot and must not be factored into the mix.It is through the natural, inalienable rights and liberties codified in our Bill of Rights that the individual’s needs and interests—not those of the collective—may be expressed—and may be expressed free from Government control and interference.Indeed, Obama and Clinton argue that the exercise of individual rights and liberties is archaic. The individual is expected to give up any pretense of such individual right or individual liberty. He or she must do so for the benefit of society as a whole—for the benefit of the collective. Obama and Clinton operate as if the Bill of Rights doesn’t exist.Similarly, Obama and Clinton don’t mention that ultimate power resides in the American People because that fact is inconsistent with the Imperial Presidency. Through this notion of an Imperial Presidency, Obama has sought to accumulate ever more power in the Executive Branch at the expense of the other two Branches of Government. He obliterates the suggestion that our Constitution is structured on the governing principal that ultimate power and authority resides in the American People, not in the Federal Government, and certainly not in one Branch of Government. Clinton’s view of the Imperial Presidency would build on Obama’s.President Obama and Hillary Clinton have contempt for our rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights. They have contempt for the Separation of Powers doctrine, reflected in the first three Articles of our Constitution. And, they have contempt for the fact that ultimate power and authority resides in the American People, not in the Government.As evidenced in their political philosophy, in their foreign and domestic policy directives, in their utilitarian consequentialist ethical system, which our Nation’s founders never ascribed to, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton respect not our Constitution, or our system of laws, or our traditions, culture, and history. They are both, at heart, Globalists and Internationalists, not Nationalists. For Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the expressions, ‘Nationalism,’ ‘National Pride,’ and ‘National Identity,’ ‘Protectionism,’ ‘Isolationism,’ and ‘Non-interventionism,’ ‘Secured Borders,’ and ‘Immigration Quotas,’ are vestiges of an earlier time, having no import today. Indeed, for Obama and Clinton such expressions are pejoratives.What the Arbalest Quarrel provides for you in this multipart series article is a comprehensive look at the nature of the stakes. We provide you a view of the political landscape that you won’t find in the mainstream media. We don’t paint for you a pretty picture here; but the conclusions drawn follow from the facts as we see them. We welcome your comments.

PART THREE

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DELIBERATELY DISTORTS THE GRAPHIC IT DRAWS OF TRUMP. IT RAISES TRUMP’S PECCADILLOES TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMES WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CRIMINAL CHARGES OR CIVIL TORT LAWSUITS; AND NO CRIMINAL INDICTMENT OR CIVIL ACTION IS FORTHCOMING AGAINST HIM. INVERSELY, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S ESTIMATION OF CLINTON’S MISCONDUCT IS, FOR THE MOST PART, ALL FLOWERS AND SUNSHINE. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONVEYS THE IDEA THAT CLINTON’S FEDERAL FELONIES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN NON-ACTIONABLE “MISTAKES” NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE THAT CLINTON INTENTIONALLY OR THROUGH GROSS NEGLIGENCE COMMITTED SEVERAL FEDERAL FELONIES, AND DID SO REPEATEDLY, AND DID SO OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

The mainstream media does not set the record straight. Rather, the mainstream media is the greatest enabler of and for the unlawful policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The power the mainstream wields, as guaranteed to the Press under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is all for naught. The sacred right is squandered. The mainstream media refuses to discuss the serious issues of the day. The media treats politics as entertainment, no more important than a sports event or celebrity show, perhaps even less important. The media, at the behest of the wealthy powerful, secretive, globalist interests that control them, treat the public to fluff and nonsense.Realizing how ridiculous it is to have endorsed a criminal for President of the United States, namely Hillary Rodham Clinton, the mainstream media finds it useful to attack her opponent’s character rather than to pay serious attention to the idiocy of their endorsement of Clinton. So, the mainstream media offers distractions for public consumption, raising embarrassing episodes in Donald Trump’s past, blowing those episodes up to major imbroglios as if to suggest that anything in Trump’s past could truly compare to the horrific conduct of Hillary Clinton: mishandling confidential government information, lying to federal investigators, selling out this Country for personal gain, and allowing Americans to die because it is inconvenient to send American troops to protect them. Hillary Clinton has committed felonies. The Nation has suffered because of them; lives have been lost. But, Trump’s personal indiscretions—none of them prosecutable crimes and certainly not felonies—are deemed by the Press to be worse. Fancy that!Clinton has harmed this Country. She has placed its citizens at unnecessary risk. She has placed this Nation’s system of laws and jurisprudence at risk. She has placed this Nation’s institutions at risk. She has shown her utter contempt for our Country’s Constitution, and she has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the rights and liberties of American citizens under the Bill of Rights. Hillary Clinton has broken federal law both intentionally and through gross negligence. She has committed serious crimes. She has done so repeatedly and through an extended period of time. Not improbably, she still does. Yet, Americans are to believe, as professed by the mainstream media, by political pundits, by policy analysts, by news commentators, and by her supporters—albeit wrongly—that Clinton is fit to hold the Office of President of the United States and that Donald Trump is not.But, on the measure of misconduct, whose sins are greater, really? Clinton’s criminal misconduct is not unimportant or irrelevant. Many commentators point to the fact that Clinton has, to date, not been indicted, as if to suggest or to expressly assert she committed no crime. But failure of prosecutors to indict does not entail, either in law or logic, that a crime has not been committed. There are often many reasons prosecutors do not indict a person on criminal charges even if prosecutors have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. In the case at hand, it is not beyond the realm of reasonable inference that the U.S. Department of Justice was prepared to indict Clinton but was pressured not to. That suggests our Government has suffered a quiet coup d'état. If so, what is at stake for the American People in this election is not simply a choice of different political philosophical viewpoints: Democratic or Republican? No! What it is that is at stake in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election suggests something no less critical than the greatest ordeal to face this Nation since the American Revolution: Americans either retake their Country that totters, now, at the brink of dissolution or Americans suffer the loss of their Country forever.

PART FOUR

THE CORRUPTING FORCES AND INFLUENCES THAT CONTROL THE INNER WORKINGS OF THIS COUNTRY AND THAT SEEK TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO AT ALL COSTS ARE AFRAID OF TRUMP.

As the 2016 U.S. Presidential election grows near, mainstream media, including major newspapers, like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and major broadcast networks, namely and particularly, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX News Channel, mislead the Public to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with providing fair, unbiased reporting of the news. They do so endlessly, relentlessly, tirelessly, and tediously. Trump draws flak from the billionaire donor class, from international globalists, multinational conglomerates, and from neoliberal economists. He draws flak from President Barack Obama, and from Obama’s wife, Michelle. Trump draws flak from Hollywood moguls and film actors. He draws flak from the Communist Party USA, from Democratic Party leaders, and from Clinton followers.Each, in his or her or its own way, seek to displace Trump and place Hillary Rodham Clinton in the White House, using every sleight of hand and subterfuge, every dirty trick, every artifice, every psychological methodology and propagandist tool at their disposal—anything and everything to nudge the public to accept Hillary Clinton as the best choice, the inevitable choice—the legitimate choice, the only real choice for U.S. President.If Hillary Rodham Clinton, by hook or crook, as the case may be, as the case certainly is, successfully claws her way to victory in November, it will be through no small help of her vast army of surrogates, benefactors, and enablers. If she secures the U.S. Presidency, she will lead this Country to its destiny. But that destiny is one the average American would find both unfamiliar and most disagreeable: the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, the end of the rule of law, and the end of this Country as an independent, sovereign Nation State. The Clinton family will make out just fine. They will be paid handsomely by their Globalist Benefactors as they sell this Country out, for pennies on the dollar, like privateers and hucksters who sell off the assets of a company for their own personal gain, heartlessly casting the employees out into the void, leaving the company a dry, empty husk.In their effort to promote, for U.S. President, the most corrupt politician this Country has ever seen, Hillary Clinton, those individuals and groups, who seek to sit their puppet, Clinton, in the Oval Office, attack the Republican Party candidate, Donald Trump viciously and unconscionably. They do so on specious, spurious grounds. They drum up titillating material to thwart Trump’s campaign because they know his policy issues are rational and sound but detrimental to their goals of a tightly nested confederation of Western member nations—all of them ruled through a single technocratic governing European body, the New World Order, presided over by trillionaire international bankers: the Rothschild clan.The Rothschilds have pulled out all the stops. The clan overtly supports Hillary Clinton for President, as acknowledged by the New York Times, and as the Arbalest Quarrel has written about in an article posted on our site, on September 12, 2016, titled, "Hillary Rodham Clinton: The Candidate Of Choice Of The Secretive, Powerful, Incredibly Wealthy Internationalist Rothschild Family."The proponents of the New World Order have their own Agenda. It is one contrary to the well-being of and continued sanctity of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation.

PART FIVE

DO CENTRIST REPUBLICANS SECRETLY SUPPORT THE AGENDA OF CLINTON’S SUPPORTERS AND BENEFACTORS?

WHERE ARE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS TO BE FOUND? WHY HAVE THEY NOT COME TO TRUMP’S AID?What we find difficult to understand and vehemently take exception with are attacks against Trump by many Congressional Republicans. Do they not realize that, by attacking Trump, they are playing into the hands of Clinton’s supporters and benefactors, especially the Rothschild clan? From their actions we can only surmise that Congressional Republicans who speak out against Trump share, if tacitly, the sentiments of those who actively support Clinton. And, those Congressional Republicans who remain silent, who fail to take a stand to support Trump, are nonetheless complicit in the condemnation of Trump and, so, no better than those Republican Congressmen who speak out, overtly, against him.No Republican Congressman can sit idle, inconspicuous in this, riding the waves quietly like a jellyfish. The American People are not fooled. There is no place for reticence here, not when the very survival of our Country, and of our Constitution, and of our very way of life is at stake.

WHAT DO CLINTON’S BENEFACTORS WANT? WHAT ARE THEIR AIMS AND THEIR WISH FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY?

The attacks against Trump are vigorous, wearingly repetitive, and unremitting. What do these individuals and groups support? They support globalism, multiculturalism and neoliberal free trade agreements. They support constraints on freedom of speech. They support reduction in, if not outright elimination of, the rights and liberties of American citizens—those rights and liberties existent in our Nation’s citizenry as natural rights, as codified in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.Those who attack Trump support de facto if not de jure repeal of the Second Amendment right of the People to keep and bear arms. They support abortion on demand, open borders, and general amnesty for illegal aliens. They support federal control of State police forces, extension of federal powers and authority, and concomitant reduction in the powers reserved to the States through the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The individuals and groups that attack Donald Trump support subordination of the U.S. Constitution and subordination of our body of laws and of our jurisprudence to the laws of other nations and to foreign jurisprudence, consistent with the dictates of the UN and with international pacts, treaties, and mandates. Yet the subordination of our laws, our Constitution, our jurisprudence to those of other nations, or to the dictates of foreign courts and to international courts, and to foreign tribunals, is anathema. Such notion is in contradistinction to the precept that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law and U.S. jurisprudence supersede those of any other nation and supersede the dictates of orders of foreign courts and foreign tribunals.Our Constitution mandates the absolute supremacy of our laws and legal system. It does not allow the ceding of our Nation’s legal authority and dominance to anyone. It mandates the independence and superiority of our laws and our Court Orders over any ruling and any holding of any foreign court or foreign tribunal. It mandates dominance over the rulings and orders of international courts, over the rulings and orders of courts of other nations, and over the rulings and orders of any foreign tribunal or foreign administrative panel, regardless of any suggestion by treaty, or pact, or UN or EU decree to the contrary.Those individuals and groups that attack Trump support growth of the Welfare State and the continuation of deficit spending. They support elimination of the death penalty even for individuals convicted of the most despicable, heinous crimes. They support affirmative action and absolute federal control of public school education. They support expansion of the power of the Federal Reserve which they believe is a vital institution of Government even though it isn’t a Governmental institution at all but simply a private entity.The very existence and power wielded by the Federal Reserve System of Banking has devastated the financial well-being of this Country while enriching the international central banking consortium that operates to enslave us, the international Rothschild banking clan—a family that, collectively, holds trillions of dollars in assets. With the financial power the international Rothschild banking family wields, this one international family of bankers has controlled, through the centuries, up to the present time, the financial system of the world. Through the central banking system that the family’s Patriarch, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, created in the eighteenth century, and which has served the family well through the centuries—at the expense of the nations where these banks operate, leaving nations bankrupt—these privately held central banks operate in every corner of the world, in virtually every major nation on this planet. Like a black hole in the center of every galaxy in the universe, the Rothschilds, through their banks, control the destinies of nations, vacuuming up the lifeblood of each nation to fill their own coffers, leaving each nation bone dry.The individuals and groups that attack Trump support vast expenditures of taxpayer monies to foreign countries, absent proof of benefit to our own Country. They support endless war, and continued and costly foreign interventionism. They promote entangling—rather than untangling—foreign alliances.Such policy and philosophical goals, objectives, positions, and initiatives undermine the core values, principals, and traditions of our Country. Such policy and philosophical goals, objectives, positions, and initiatives undermine our Country’s economic well-being and physical security. Worst of all, such policy and philosophical goals, objectives, positions, and initiatives undermine the continued independence of and sovereignty of the United States. Hillary Clinton supports them, declaring her support openly, avidly. Donald Trump does not, and powerful interests both here and abroad know this. That’s why they want Hillary Clinton seated in the White House, not Trump. Hillary Clinton’s benefactors, first and foremost, the Rothschild clan—extraordinarily wealthy, all-powerful, secretive, immoral or otherwise amoral corrupting interests and influences at work in the world today are concerned—actually frantic with worry—over a Trump victory in November. But, average, law-abiding Americans have more to fear from a Clinton victory in November. After Brexit, Clinton’s benefactors do not intend to lose their control of the United States Government. They are controlling this U.S. Presidential cycle with the fury and frenzy of a shark attack.Through the power of the Office of the Chief Executive and as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, Hillary Clinton would, if elected U.S. President, command vast Governmental resources. She will be in the position to bend and violate our laws to benefit herself personally, to benefit her benefactors, to benefit her family, and to benefit the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation—all at the expense of the well-being of and the security of the American people, and at the expense of and well-being of U.S. interests. To get a handle on the corruption inherent in the Clinton Foundation. See the  “Clinton Cash Documentary Movie” (in full) on youtube.  See also the New York Post article on Clinton corruption, dated August 3, 2016, titled, "New revelations show a nation for sale under Hillary Clinton." All the while Hillary Clinton will claim her interests are to be equated with America’s interests—that they are the same, when in fact they are not. Such is the viewpoint of despots the world over, throughout history.

PART SIX

BARACK OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON DO NOT REPRESENT THE NATION’S  INTERESTS OR THE NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE; THEY FORCE A BIZARRE, ALIEN AGENDA ON OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE—AN AGENDA AT ODDS WITH OUR TRADITIONS, OUR HISTORY, OUR CONSTITUTION, AND THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN FOR THIS NATION BY AMERICA’S FOUNDERS.

President Obama has, throughout his Presidency, slowly, insidiously—often beneath the threshold of the American public’s conscious perception—insinuated an alien idea into the American psyche, and upon that idea he has, on behalf of the puppet masters to whom he has silently, secretly declared his true allegiance, the international Rothschild clan, betrayed his oath of Office; betrayed his duty to serve our Country; and betrayed his duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution.The idea germinating in the American psyche, as promoted by Obama, stated succinctly, is this: Americans are citizens of the world, not merely citizens of America. Obama, on behalf of his benefactors, has sullied a basic precept, namely that each Nation has a unique history; its own set of laws; and its own core values. That means each nation is to be left alone and to its own devices unless that nation aggressively interferes in the internal affairs of and in the security of another nation.That means, too, we, Americans, are not to interfere in the affairs of other nations unless those other nations interfere in our affairs or in our security, or with our clearly defined interests. And if such other nation interferes in the affairs of our nation or endangers the security of our nation, then we may deal with that nation directly and harshly, and with finality. We have done so in the past and we should return to that singular policy stance now. Obama doesn’t adhere to that policy position because he doesn’t adhere to the sanctity of the Nation State. He suggests the very concept of the Nation State is, at that concept exists today, destructive to world peace.Obama has made his position poignantly clear, during his last speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2016. See, Obama's last speech to the UN General Assembly, delivered on September 20, 2016, as posted by the White House, on its own website. Obama says,  in pertinent part, “This speaks to a central question of our global age: whether we will solve our problems together, in a spirit of mutual interests and mutual respect, or whether we descend into destructive rivalries of the past. When nations find common ground, not simply based on power, but on principle, then we can make enormous progress. And I stand before you today committed to investing American strength in working with nations to address the problems we face in the 21st century. . . . On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century. If we lift our eyes beyond our borders – if we think globally and act cooperatively – we can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the post-World War II age.” On the surface, through a superficial appraisal of Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly, the speech appears eloquent and innocuous and, to some listeners, no doubt, even uplifting. Yet, dig deep into an analysis of that speech, and the ugly underbelly of the policy aims set forth in Obama’s speech come to light. The insidious goals of Obama’s puppet masters, whom Obama owes his allegiance, are cloaked in moralistic terminology, as illustrated in Obama’s speech to the UN General Assembly. Yet, the central premise of the speech contains a frightening portent. Obama speaks of subordinating our Nation’s needs and using our Nation’s resources for the ostensible benefit of a nebulous world community. Obama’s seemingly lofty political message to the UN General Assembly this past September paraphrases a Marxian World Political Economy Doctrine, albeit one with an interesting twist. Instead of promoting the destruction of Nation States through the rise of international labor, Obama promotes a political and economic schema that would bring to fruition the dream of the Patriarch of the international Rothschild clan, Meyer Amschel Rothschild.The Governments of the major nations of the world, under the secret directive of the Rothschild clan, must cede economic and political control, and, eventually, they must cede social and lawmaking control. True power already resides in an integrated, intertwining, interlocking network of central banks. Eventually all decisions would emanate through a hidden cabal of powerful international financial robber barons, who, in turn, are ruled by and who receive their directions from the trillionaire banking Rothschild clan.In either scenario, be it a Marxian world political economic system ruled by labor through its international representatives or, as we see materializing, a world ruled by and under the Rothschild central banking system, and Rothschild technocrats  the destruction of the United States as an independent, sovereign Nation is assured. But, Barack Obama doesn’t talk about that. The social engineering program he employs, at the behest of the puppet masters, the Rothschilds, is subtle.Slowly, through the mainstream media, as a tool of social conditioning, Obama has conditioned Americans to accept the new precept, set forth more fully, thusly: Americans are citizens of the world and that, as citizens of the world, we must embrace the needs of and the dangers faced by those peoples of other nations, and that our citizens must suffer the needs and dangers of those others, though we be not the cause of such needs or sufferings of others; and that we, Americans, must accept the needs or sufferings or dangers, of other peoples of other nations in the world, willingly, obligingly, because it is the moral thing, the “right thing” to do.Americans are expected to accept this as our new precept, our new credo, even a mantra—one to replace our Nation’s precept as set forth in the Preamble to our Constitution, proclaiming our “Nation State” to be sacred and inviolate; proclaiming the duty of the leaders of our Country to abide by the constraints imposed in the Constitution.

PART SEVEN

OUR CONSTITUTION’S PREAMBLE MAKES PLAIN THAT THE NATIONS CONCERNS RESIDE WITH THE NATION AND WITH THE CITIZENRY OF THE NATION; THOSE CONCERNS DO NOT EXTEND TO NATIONS AND PEOPLES BEYOND OUR SHORES. WE SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN THE AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS, AND THEY, FOR THEIR PART, MUST NOT INTERFERE IN THE AFFAIRS OF OURS.

The core purport of our Nation as a unique Nation is set forth, thusly, in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”Nothing in our Constitution—certainly nothing in the Preamble, the Articles, or the Bill of Rights, the components of our Nation's Constitution—says, overtly, tacitly, or tangentially, that our Country is to be the police force of and the caretakers of the rest of the world. Yet, Obama’s ethical posture, and that of Hillary Clinton, as heralded by the mainstream media, is to do just that: to become the police force and caretakers of the world, to ignore the very import and purport of our Constitution. The posturing of these imposters, masquerading as concerned leaders of our Nation, displays their arrogance, the danger they pose to preservation of our Constitution and free Republic, and the harm they would callously inflict on our citizenry under the guise of promoting civil harmony, piety, and decorum in the affairs of our Nation.Yet, by interfering in the affairs of other nations and other peoples —which Obama sees merely as a benign coordinating of efforts with other Nations to ensure peace—we are inviting other nations and savage actors to wage war against us, and to interfere in our internal affairs. Hillary Clinton would continue the use of our Nation’s armed forces as a wrecking ball, plowing through the world, causing anger, resentment, and rage—all the while claiming that this Nation is working with other nations to maintain peace in the world. The existent dangers in the world today belie the stated objectives. Obama and Clinton argue, essentially, that we must foment unwinnable wars in order to maintain the peace. The blatant absurdity of this pronouncement—this doublespeak—should be lost on no one. The unrest and upheaval present in the world today was planned all along. Obama and Clinton play the American public for fools.Through the resulting confusion—one engineered quietly behind the scenes by the Rothschild clan—the resulting breakdown of law and order in the Nation States, including our own, leads inexorably and inevitably to the ultimate breakdown of the foundation of Nation States. For Americans, we witness the breakdown of our Nation State.By opening the floodgates of our Nation to millions of refugees, irrespective of the dangers posed to our Nation and to its citizenry, Barack Obama suggests that we, Americans, as citizens of the world, should adjust to the new reality, to share in the dangers posed to citizens in any other part of the world. He doesn’t say this but his actions support that idea. Hillary Clinton accepts the precept. If she secures the U.S. Presidency, her foreign and domestic policies will be influenced and informed by it. The danger to the safety and security of our citizenry is prescient; it is expected; it is even desired. And the American people will suffer for it.The public sees the breakdown of law and order. Hillary Clinton’s response: suspension of our Bill of Rights and, in particular, suspension of the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. She declares martial law. The foundation of our Nation fractures. Our Constitution, our system of laws, and the social and economic structure of our society all begin to crumble. Clinton engineers plans for the creation of a new Constitution—one consistent with those of the Countries of Western Europe. The affairs of our Nation become intertwined with those of other nations. We lose our National identity. We lose our Country.Obama’s new precept contradicts the inviolability of the ‘Nation State.’ The new precept is inconsistent with our Constitution, because it weakens our Constitution. Insinuation of the new precept into the design and implementation of foreign and domestic policies engenders the erosion of our institutions, of our laws, of our economy, of our culture and history, of our very identity as a unique and sovereign Country—one in which the citizens control Government and control their destiny—one contrary to the dictates of those powerful, internationalist interests who see our Country as part of a greater whole, a carbon copy of the others. To these individuals, to the Rothschilds, nations are politically identical to each other. The strength of all nations engenders relinquishing of individual national identity. This is, as the Rothschilds see it, as they want it, and as they plan for it. Through each nation’s contiguity to the other and in each nation’s political, economic, and social structure, each nation is essentially a carbon copy of the other. The goal is to dissolve the very concept of national unity, of national identity, of national pride. No nation is unique or is to be perceived as unique. Rather, each nation state must conform to the other, having the same  ideology, the same currency, the same constitution and set of laws, perhaps even the same language, identical—overseen and managed by one world government, abutting each other seamlessly like dozens of tessellating cubes. Individual history would be erased. National identity would be erased; culture, heritage, ethos--all amorphous, none unique.Under the new schema of political thought engendered by Obama, the concept of the ‘Nation State’ is archaic, obsolete, as is our Constitution. As liberal-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had infamously asserted, in her remarks to the Egyptian Government, on February 6, 2012, in an article, titled, “Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn’t use U.S. Constitution as a model,” as posted by Fox News Politics, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”  Apparently, the United States Constitution—one that has stood the test of time, as attested to by the greatness of our Nation—is no longer good enough for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Our Constitution is to be discarded like an old lease agreement, redrafted, and replaced with one that better reflects her own judicial, political, and moral philosophy, and her own jurisprudential concerns. Imagine Justice Ginsburg lecturing and scolding the founders of our Republic!Consider what the new Constitution would look like if Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and past Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, and President Barack Obama, and Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, all had a hand in redrafting the U.S. Constitution—one they see as more fitting for the 2lst Century.If Donald Trump wins the U.S. Presidential election, he will upend the Apple Cart of the imposters and destroyers of our Country and its Constitution. Trump's Presidency will mark a return to sanity, a return to traditional values, principals, and precepts—those held by the founders of our Nation. Hillary Clinton, though, will build on Obama’s legacy. Obama and Clinton hope that the familiarity of it is something they can build on it as this Country moves further away from its historical roots.

PART EIGHT

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE, HILLARY CLINTON, HAVE TWISTED AND CONTORTED THE SACRED PRECEPTS OF OUR NATION BEYOND ANYTHING OUR FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED OR CONDONED.

The United States that exists today is something alien to anything our founders envisioned. What Obama and Clinton envision for our Country is abhorrent. They would use—have used—our armed forces to promote causes and interests that do not ensure the security of this Nation but, rather, endanger it.Obama and Clinton use advertisement firms, they use the mainstream media, they use speech writers, they use communication specialists, they use psychologists and propagandists, and they use social engineers to market their toxic policies and toxic brand to the American People. They market their poisonous policies and their initiatives as something palatable, even nourishing. The fact remains, their foreign policies and initiatives have weakened the security of our Nation.The Clinton and Obama economic trade policies are just as disastrous. Clinton and Obama spring them on the American people suddenly and offer them to the public as something as inviting, even necessary. Yet, NAFTA has devastated our domestic economy. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP)—drafted over several years in secret, that the public has only recently heard about—and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—also drafted over several years in secret that few people even know about—both of which Clinton will sign if she becomes President if these trade pacts cross her desk—and make no mistake about the fact that she will sign them—will essentially end comprehensive manufacturing of quality products in this Country. Ever more struggling small and medium size businesses will cease to exist as the multinational conglomerates squeeze them out of existence.Hillary Clinton will work, quietly, behind the scenes, to make sure TTP and TTIP are actualized. She will do so because Obama seeks to have them implemented. She will sign them because she intends to pursue Obama’s policies if she becomes the next U.S. President. She will sign these trade pacts because they are her trade pacts as well, as she helped draft them. She will sign these trade pacts because the Rothschild family wants to see them implemented. Yet these trade pacts are designed not only to weaken our economy further, harming American labor and small business, but are also designed to weaken our Nation’s laws, our Constitution, our entire legal system, subordinating America’s sovereign interests to another entity entirely—one comprising an interlocking collective of foreign nations and foreign holding companies—a collective, ruled by the Rothschild clan, governed by the clan’s underlings, financial and political technocrats. These technocrats do not consider themselves and are not--in any reasonable sense of the word 'citizen'--citizens of the United States; nor are they--as Obama and Clinton would make Americans--"citizens of the world;" nor do not owe allegiance to any nation. They certainly do not owe their allegiance to the United States. Their allegiance is to the shadow world government, with the Rothschild clan at its head.These foreign intrigues, entangling alliances, liberal immigration policies, and disastrous trade policies, all reflect a trend toward subordination of American interests to the interests of a new amorphous confederation of nations, resulting in the transferring of our wealth, our resources, and even our lives to foreign interests, foreign pursuits, and foreign goals. Obama and Clinton tell us, duplicitously, disingenuously, and hypocritically that America’s sacrifices are necessary because they promote worthy causes. But, what worthy causes are they talking about, and worthy to whom, and for what purpose, and to what end?

PART NINE

HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN, PRINCIPAL LEADER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, HARMS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND HARMS THE NATION BY DENOUNCING TRUMP

Why has House Speaker Paul Ryan, the leader of the Republican Party, spoken out against Trump? Having denounced Trump, he acknowledges his tacit support of Hillary Clinton. He cannot reasonably deny this, much as he may like to.Paul Ryan’s pious pronouncements against Trump are insupportable. They are reprehensible. Trump is guilty of nothing more than braggadocio. That isn’t a crime. But, that simple fact is lost in the noise generated by Clinton’s supporters, enablers, and surrogates, and further fanned by the flame of the machinery of the mainstream media. But, there is, for all the commotion, no basis for concluding that Donald Trump has engaged in prosecutable criminal conduct. Clinton’s supporters, enablers, and surrogates have not demonstrated otherwise because they cannot, much as they would like to.Clinton’s supporters and benefactors have dug deep into Trump’s past, and what they have come up with, ultimately, is merely nothing more than a man’s bravado, based solely on a private discussion between two men, which the mainstream media, to its shame, broadcast to the world. A parade of women, coming out of the woodwork of late, obviously as a result of the release of the private tape and almost certainly at the behest of Clinton’s supporters, hangers-on, and benefactors—alleging sexual assault by Trump—does nothing, in the insinuations, to support an actionable basis for a civil lawsuit, much less a crime.What the American public is witnessing is nothing less than a massive smear campaign, conceptualized and orchestrated by Clinton’s staff and by her benefactors to prop up their puppet and to draw attention away from her own failings, which, on balance, are much more serious, and have been much more harmful to this Country and to Americans than anything that Clinton’s supporters, staff, and benefactors have manufactured or can manufacture against Trump.Whatever one is to make of Donald Trump’s conduct, it pales in significance to that of Hillary Clinton. The F.B.I. was not—is not—interested in investigating Trump for malfeasance, for no allegations are forthcoming that Trump has done anything that would suggest he had harmed the interests of the United States or that he would ever wish to harm the interests of the United States. No one can make any such claim for Hillary Clinton, for she has harmed the United States and she has done so repeatedly and callously through a lengthy period of time. Hillary Clinton has committed crimes, serious crimes against this Country and against the American people. The Arbalest Quarrel has detailed those crimes in several articles. We draw your attention to two in particular: one posted on August 17, 2016, titled, "Pay to Play: The Clinton's Open Secret and Silent Purpose;" and a second on September 26, 2016, titled, "Hillary Clinton: A Flawed Character for Those Who See the U.S. as Flawed."   But the mainstream news media has precious little to say about Clinton’s crimes. Why is that? The mainstream media uses their resources, 24/7, smearing Trump over matters that don’t come close to the misconduct of Hillary Clinton. For, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has endangered the security and well-being of this Nation and her actions have directly or indirectly harmed many Americans, including those that worked under her. One can only wonder at the damage she’d do to this Country as U.S. President, of the damage she is capable of doing to this Country and to American citizens.Curiously, if Hillary Clinton applied for a job with the F.B.I., her application would be denied out-of-hand. She is a security risk. That is plain and irrefutable. Given that simple truth, it defies credulity to believe she can be trusted with our Nation’s secrets—secrets she would have at her disposal as U.S. President.If Hillary Clinton loved our Country and truly had remorse for her past actions, she would not run for political Office. She would realize how shameful it is for her to consider running for any political office, let alone that of the highest Office in the Land.Obviously, Hillary Clinton has no remorse. She is utterly shameless. Clinton disingenuously says of her past criminal conduct that she has made mistakes and that she takes full responsibility for her actions. But what do those assertions even mean? What are the consequences of her criminal behavior? If nothing, then whom is she attempting to flatter with her feigned, half-hearted attempts to appease?  Is Clinton reproaching herself because she is sorry for committing serious crimes, even now that she, apparently, no longer has to fear retribution through criminal indictment on charges of committing federal felonies, thanks to our illustrious Department of Justice that has shirked its responsibility to mete out justice? Or, is Clinton exclaiming her concern over the fact that she has been caught and seeks to avoid the one repercussion of her criminal misconduct she truly fears, loss of the U.S. Presidency that she lusts for?Clinton’s expressions of concern are, like all of her other public pronouncements, nothing more than self-serving, vacuous platitudes. Clinton and the mainstream media know this. Yet, the mainstream media refrains from calling Clinton on the carpet for her empty, disingenuous remarks.

PART TEN

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MALIGNS TRUMP’S CHARACTER, BUT IT IS CLINTON’S CHARACTER THAT THE MEDIA SHOULD IMPUGN.

Hillary Clinton is a repugnant individual. Many who support her know this, yet may vote for her anyway because they seek to benefit personally from her position as President of the United States and/or they share the same goals. She is the darling of the abhorrent Rothschild clan.But, Hillary Clinton is also a sociopathic personality. That’s her nature. It is implied in her actions, in her words, in material she would like to suppress, and in material she has suppressed or intentionally destroyed. Hillary Clinton is also temperamental, vindictive, treacherous, duplicitous, and incapable of sympathy or empathy for others. She is subject to angry outbursts and diatribes. She is psychologically unstable and likely suffers from one or more neurological pathologies.Clinton is much like a viper. Yet, one doesn’t hate a viper for being a viper. One understands it is in the nature of a viper to cause harm. That is the essence of its character. So, how do we handle a viper? Well, we do not place a viper in a position where it can do harm. We mind it closely. We look for the possibility it may strike without notice. We contain it. We know its venom can kill.If we can forgive Clinton, it is because she, like a viper, is an inherently flawed character, altogether beyond redemption. But that does not mean or extend to supporting her candidacy. But, what we cannot, must not, forgive are those individuals who enable her. And, the worst of the lot are individuals like Paul Ryan. Republicans, like Paul Ryan, should know better. But they are amoral individuals, proverbial opportunists, more concerned about their personal success, accumulation of personal wealth, political survival, and personal well-being than for the well-being of the Country they are sworn to serve.Because politicians like Paul Ryan are not beyond redemption, they are worthy of our condemnation. We rightfully despise them when they fill the air waves with their false piety. They are hypocrites. They earn our condemnation.The Arbalest Quarrel has said, some time ago, in an article posted on our site, on February 18, 2014, titled, "Truth and Hypocrisy: 'Bill Of Rights' Betrayal." Hypocrisy is the worst behavior. Hypocrisy is, sadly, ubiquitous in politics. It need not be. It should not be. But, it is so.

PART ELEVEN

HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN TURNS HIS BACK ON DONALD TRUMP AND, IN SO DOING, TURNS HIS BACK ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND ON THE COUNTRY.

In asserting he will no longer campaign for Trump, Paul Ryan has turned his back on the Republican Party and, more, he has turned his back upon the Country. Ryan may not like Donald Trump but Trump is the Party’s candidate for U.S. President. Republicans nominated him. Trump won the right to represent the Party. He fought hard for the nomination, against a large field of well-funded often very bright and, in a couple of cases, brilliant politicians. He did so fairly and squarely. Moreover, Trump singlehandedly raised tens of millions of dollars for the Party. Yet the Party bites the hand that feeds it.Republican Party officials are poor gamesmen. They play to lose, not to win. They should take their cues from the masters of Chess, for politics is like Chess. Chess is a complex game, as is politics. A grand master knows when to sacrifice a lesser piece to gain advantage. A grand master knows he must sacrifice Pawns. But he will also sacrifice Knights, Bishops, and Rooks to gain a tactical advantage.Occasionally, a grand master will even sacrifice his Queen, the most powerful game piece on the board. He will do so to gain strategic advantage, dangerous as that move is. But, neither grandmaster nor novice will sacrifice his King. He cannot. He must not; never. That’s axiomatic. For, once the opposing side knocks out the King, that signals, checkmate: game over.Paul Ryan, a political grandmaster, or seemingly so, should know that, by sacrificing his King—the Republican Party nominee for U.S. President, Donald Trump—he is not placating the opposing side and he is not making his own position secure. Ryan will never be able placate the other side. He should know this, and he has not ensured the security of his own position. Rather, he has simply capitulated. He has thrown in the towel. He has checkmated the Republican Party. He has conceded the game, without a fight.The other side’s King—Hillary Clinton—is safe. Her Party supports her even if many in the Democratic Party base do not. But, unlike the game of Chess that impacts no one but the players, the political game of Chess may have dire ripple effects. If Hillary Clinton secures the Presidency for the Democratic Party, the impact of the Democratic Party victory will have immediate effects on this Country and those effects will not bode well for this Country or its citizenry. The effects will definitely not bode well for this Country or its citizenry.Paul Ryan’s vociferous denouncement of Trump has set in motion the machinery that may allow Hillary Clinton to succeed to the White House. If she does, she will decimate our Country, and much of the blame for that will fall in great measure to the actions of Paul Ryan.The Arbalest Quarrel has predicted the resulting diminution or destruction of the Republican Party if the Republican Party did not stand together. We pointed out what could befall a Party that does not stand together. We discussed this in an article we posted on our site, two years ago, on November 9, 2014, titled, "The Arbalest Quarrel's Take On The Midterm Election Results."  And, on August 22, 2016, in another article posted on our site, titled, "The Opera Won't Be Over 'Till the Fat Lady Sings'--In Federal Court--And The Opera Isn't Over Yet." In that article we mentioned that our fear had come to fruition. The present, multi-series article builds on the previous two articles, setting forth with particularity the catastrophe that will befall the Republican Party and this Nation if Hillary Clinton secures the U.S. Presidency in November. The impact of a disintegrating Republican Party will be seen in the disintegration of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State.If Hillary Clinton wins the election, she will destroy the Nation. Of that, there is no doubt. The House Speaker may think that a Republican majority in Congress can work with Clinton; can negotiate with her; contain her. Again, he should know better, but does not.Hillary Clinton is incapable of restraint. If Clinton cannot bend Congress to her will, she will make law through Executive fiat. She would use Executive Orders in defiance of Congressional Statute, just as Barack Obama has done, but she will do so even more frequently, with greater fervor, and with greater negative consequences for the American People. Anyone and everyone Clinton appoints to operate the federal bureaucracy she will control with an iron fist.Clinton will only appoint toadies, thousands of them to fill a bloated Government bureaucracy. Clinton’s nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court and to the lower federal Courts will be those who share her philosophy, who agree with her social goals. Justice Scalia’s legacy will be undone.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on the danger posed by Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. Garland is someone whom Clinton would support. See our article, dated, March 18, 2016, titled, "Justice: For Or Against The Second Amendment? A Commentary On President Obama’s Nominee For Associate Justice On The U.S. Supreme Court: Judge Merrick Garland.”If Paul Ryan and other House Republicans, along with Senate Republicans, think they only need to maintain Republican majorities in both houses of Congress to contain Hillary Clinton, to contain Congressional Democrats, and to maintain control over the Legislative process—that they are in a better position to do so once they sacrifice Trump—they are sorely mistaken. Such thinking is misguided. Those Congressional Republicans who think their reasoning sound would do well to see a psychiatrist for clinical evaluation. They would do well, too, to see a psychologist for an IQ test, for both their rationality and intelligence are sorely in question.Why do we say this? We say this because Congressional Republicans who denounce Trump have weakened their hand. We explain as you continue reading.

PART TWELVE

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS WHO FAIL TO SUPPORT TRUMP ARE MAKING A POOR CALCULATION FOR THEMSELVES, FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND FOR THIS COUNTRY.

If Congressional Republicans believe they can cede two Branches of Government—the Executive and Judicial Branches—and still maintain control over the Government simply by holding majorities in one Branch of Government, the Legislative Branch—and there is no assurance of that—they are making the poorest of wagers. The payout is low—simply one Branch of Government is secured, when two Branches might have been secured: the Executive and Judicial Branches of Government; and the risk of irreparable damage to this Country is high if they lose the wager: Democrats will then control all three Branches of Government.One comes away thinking, and rightfully so, that Paul Ryan and others like him are merely concerned about holding onto their seats and onto the fringe benefits and perks that go with their lofty position as Congressmen, notwithstanding and regardless of the loss of Republican Party control of the Executive and Judicial Branches of Government. They may think that, by sacrificing Trump, their chances of holding onto their seats are higher even if Democrats ultimately hold more seats in each House of Congress. If so, these Republican Congressmen should lose their Congressional seats. They don’t deserve to retain them.Ryan and other Congressional Republicans presumably know that Clinton has a distorted view of our Country’s history, of its traditions, of its values, and of its culture. She will stamp this Country with her own sociopathic personality if she secures the Office of the Presidency.During the Democratic Party campaign for the U.S. Presidency, up to the present moment, Hillary Clinton has kept a very low profile. But refraining from making public appearances does not mean Clinton has a quiet persona. That is deceptive. If Clinton secures the Office of the U.S. Presidency, heads will roll, and the Country will itself be turned on its head. If House Speaker, Paul Ryan, can’t see this, or if, perhaps, he chooses not to, he should step down as House Speaker.Apparently, Ryan doesn’t care who ultimately secures the U.S. Presidency. For, if Ryan did truly care about safeguarding this Country’s future, he would stand steadfastly with Trump and, in doing so, he would lead other Republicans to do so by his example.Ryan, as Republican House Speaker, would be, and should be, expected to take all possible measures to prevent the very possibility of Hillary Clinton ever winning the White House. By speaking out against Trump, though, Ryan is probably gambling on Clinton winning the election, anyway. But, by speaking out against Trump, that act can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.If Ryan thinks that Clinton has a better chance of winning the Presidency, regardless of what Ryan does, and if he is simply attempting to get into her good graces by speaking out against Trump now, before the votes are counted, that may backfire on him. Moreover, he is acting despicably. Indeed, by speaking out against Trump, Ryan must want Clinton to win. He must count on Clinton winning the election in November. If so, that is even more despicable.But, the notion that Ryan wants Hillary Clinton to win the U.S. Presidential election is the logical inference for one to draw. It is the only rational inference for one to draw. For, Paul Ryan must know that, if Trump wins the election—even if Ryan thinks the possibility of that is remote—Ryan’s relationship with Trump will be acrimonious, bitter, poisonous, probably irreparably damaged. Thus Ryan must assume that, given his negative comments against Trump, he will have a decent relationship with Clinton if she secures the U.S. Presidency. Through negative comments directed at Trump and by refraining from saying anything negative about Clinton—The House Speaker is cautiously, calculatedly sidling up to Clinton. Ryan must be secretly, silently hoping for a Clinton victory, having openly, and clearly, and unabashedly rebuffed Trump.But, if Ryan’s calculations are wrong, and Trump does secure the U.S. Presidency, then Paul Ryan would probably have to forfeit his position as House Speaker. He would obviously lose the position of House Speaker if Democrats obtain a majority. But, Ryan likely would have to forfeit his position as House Speaker even if Republicans maintain control of the House. He would either be forced to forfeit the House Speakership or, at least, he would be encouraged to do so because Trump likely would have little to do with Ryan thereafter.But a Trump Presidency would not bode well for the Clintons either. Circumstances for the Clintons would be substantially worse than what happens to befall Paul Ryan.If Trump secures the Presidency, Hillary Clinton and her wayward husband, Bill, would both likely face federal felony charges. Their lives would be relegated to: one, attempting to preserve for themselves the tens of millions of dollars they made, illicitly, selling out this Country; and, two, working with their legal team, attempting to avoid incarceration in federal prison for tens of years. Each of them can then say, and truly mean it: “I take full responsibility for my actions.” Yes, you do, Bill! Yes, you do, Hillary!

PART THIRTEEN

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS WHO EXPRESSLY ATTACK TRUMP OR WHO SNUB HIM THROUGH THEIR SILENCE ARE ALL HYPOCRITES.

Congressional Republicans, like the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, are quintessential hypocrites, pretending to care about the Party and their Country, but looking out only for themselves. Instead of standing behind the Republican Party nominee for U.S. President, they castigate the nominee. Paul Ryan and other House and Senate Republicans—mostly, if not invariably, the leaders and power brokers, consisting of Party Centrists and Statists—believe, erroneously, that they can maintain Republican majorities in the House and Senate, and that they can protect themselves and the Republican Party, all the while throwing Donald Trump to the wolves. They are wrong. Rank and file Republicans won’t forgive them, nor will millions of other good Americans who will suffer under a Clinton Administration.Paul Ryan and other Centrist, Statist Congressional Republicans fail to understand that the power of the Republican Party would operate most effectively by seating a Republican in the White House. Donald Trump is not a traditional Republican, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The Republican Party has become ossified. That is evident. Donald Trump brings a fresh outlook to the Party. He holds to conservative values. He would help bring our Nation back to its traditional roots.Those Republicans resigned to having Clinton in the White House demonstrate their own weakness as representatives of the American people and of their particular constituencies. These Legislators cannot lead the Nation through capitulation. They cannot, reasonably, expect the Republican base to support them. They may have signed their own political death warrants. If they wish to commit political suicide, then fine. As individuals, we can tell them, “good riddance.” But, in their position of power it means they have also signed the death warrant of the Party and, worst of all, they have signed the death warrant of the Country. That, however, is altogether unacceptable.This Country cannot suffer, should never be compelled to abide a criminal and sociopath for U.S. President. That is odious and abhorrent.This Country and its citizenry cannot and ought not to suffer a person whose stated policy objectives are destruction of both the Bill of Rights, the undercutting of the security and well-being of the American people, and the undermining of the independence and sovereignty of the United States. Yet, Paul Ryan, and other Republicans of his ilk believe they can somehow preserve the Party and the Nation with Hillary Clinton at the helm. That is patently absurd. Have these Congressional Republicans lost their senses?Conceivably, Centrist Republicans and Statists not only expect Hillary Clinton to win the Presidency, they secretly want her to win. Centrist Republicans and Statists would want Hillary Clinton to win the U.S. Presidential election because they believe Clinton would implement foreign and domestic policies they are actively supportive of or, at least,  definitely amenable to, which the Republican base, clearly, is not, having nominated Donald Trump for U.S. President. If so that suggests an irreparable schism between Centrist Republicans and Statists and the Republican Party base. This idea may not be far-fetched. After all, the Party faithful, the power brokers of the Party, the Centrists and Statists, fully expected Jeb Bush to secure the nomination. Trump was expected to be merely a foil for Bush just as the Democratic Party power brokers fully expected for Bernie Sanders to be a foil for Hillary Clinton. Neither political Party truly appreciated how weak their favorites for nomination really were.Among Republicans, Jeb Bush represents the interests of the Centrists and Statists, the power brokers and Party leaders. Jeb Bush certainly supports the TTP and TTIP—trade agreements that are harmful to the economic well-being of the Party’s base and to the Nation as a whole. Trump actively campaigned against these trade pacts. Jeb Bush, along with the Centrists and Statists of the Party, strongly supports them.Jeb Bush, whom the power brokers of the Party, the Republican Centrists and Statists, had hoped would secure the Party’s nomination, also supports immigration reform. Immigration reform is coded language. Immigration reform means general amnesty for millions of illegal aliens who reside among us--among them members of criminal drug cartels. Those who support immigration reform also support the continuation of open border policies, notwithstanding their assertions to the contrary.To Democrats, immigration reform means votes for their Party. To Republican Centrists and Statists—the power brokers of the Republican Party—immigration reform connotes dirt cheap labor and that inevitably hurts American workers—able craftsmen. So, Jeb Bush supports immigration reform. Jeb Bush represents the interests of the Party's power brokers. Trump and the Republican base do not.Jeb Bush and the power brokers in the Republican Party, the Centrists and Statists, also support continued use of the armed forces for unwinnable wars. That translates into substantial wealth for defense contractors as that, for them, is sufficient to support a purpose for war.Hillary Clinton is in the same camp as the Centrist Republicans and Statists when it comes to use of the military to line the pockets of the defense contractors. Making defense contractors wealthy is not a legitimate use of our armed forces. We should use our armed forces circumspectly. For use of our armed forces inevitably means loss of American lives. We should ask, "is our national security really at risk?" If so, then we consider deploying our armed forces. If the answer is, "no," then we shouldn't.Trump is not reluctant to use America’s armed forces but, he believes, rightfully, we should do so with the intention to win a war or other armed conflict. If there is any doubt about our ability to win a war or other armed conflict or, if our goals are not clear and cannot be made clear, to the American People—and, first and foremost, if our National Security isn’t threatened—then we should not be getting into wars or any other armed conflict.Trump is not a fan of the Big Banks, whom the American public had to bail out and may have to do so yet again. The power brokers in the Republican Party, the Centrists and Statists, are strong supporters of the big banks as is, of course, Hillary Clinton.The disturbing but unavoidable conclusion to draw here is that many of the aims and concerns and desires of the Centrists and Statists of the Republican Party are identical with or, at least, closely aligned to those of the Centrists and Statists of the Democratic Party but are not the aims or concerns of the Republican base. In fact, the policy goals of the Centrists and Statists of both political Parties are all too often detrimental to the well-being and security of our Nation and its citizenry. The average American knows this. Recognizing this, the Republican base, average hard-working law-abiding Americans, have through their support of Trump, made clear that they have had their fill of both the Bush family and of Centrist and Statist Republicans who have operated for many years merely to serve their own narrow interests and feeding, through receipt of tax-payer dollars, their own shallow desires, ignoring entirely the plight of average Americans and demonstrating callous indifference to the well-being of and security of this Nation.The Republican Party has done little to contain and to restrain Obama as he proceeds on his merry escapades. The Republican Party has made clear, through its attack on Trump and overt or covert support of Clinton that it has misused the loyalty of its base, consigning it to Hell. Between Centrist and Statist Republicans and their counterparts in the Democratic Party, there is, then, little to distinguish the two. More, one may remark, how similar they both are to one another.Hillary Clinton represents the interests of the power brokers of both political Parties. She is out of touch with the American public. But the Centrists and Statists of the major political Parties don’t care about any of that. They care only about plodding along same tired road—one that benefits them and their benefactors—the ruthless international globalist power brokers—but harms the Country. The continued independence and sovereignty of our Nation is threatened, the lives of average law-abiding Americans become ever more tenuous, and small business in this Country simply vanishes, becoming but a footnote in economic textbooks.

PART FOURTEEN

TRUMP IS THE ONLY HOPE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OUR COUNTRY.

Only one thing can save the Republican Party and the Country now, and that is a Trump victory in November. The Republican leadership must support Trump. But, if they think that Trump doesn’t represent the interests of their Party, they should keep in mind that the Party doesn’t belong to them alone even as they have treated it as if it did belong only to them. But, they are wrong. The Party belongs to the millions of Americans who voted them into Office and can, just as easily vote them out of Office. The Republican leaders will be in for a rude awakening if they don't come to their senses and consider the needs of their base and the well-being of the Nation, which take precedence over their own narrow, selfish interests. The Republican Party that seeks to maintain itself as it has existed for many years, simply benefiting a few, and rotting from within, will be left to wither away, as it deserves to.Republican Congressmen must stand behind Trump. In standing steadfastly behind Trump, Congressional Republicans are supporting a free Republic; they are supporting the rights and liberties of the American citizenry under the Constitution; they are supporting our unique history, our culture, our heritage, our morality, and traditional American values; they are protecting the security of our Nation and our citizenry; and they are guaranteeing the preservation of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation. All this goes out the door if Hillary Clinton secures the U.S. Presidency.Do Paul Ryan and other Republican leaders honestly believe they can protect this Nation and its People if Clinton were ensconced in Office? If so, they are deluding themselves. For, once Clinton secures the U.S. Presidency, she will appoint thousands of individuals who will respond to her every wish, her every desire—and none of it will bode well for either this Country or its People. Even if Republicans can maintain majorities in both Houses of Congress—which is highly doubtful absent Party unity—Clinton will pacify Congress. Through her Imperial Presidency and through her control of the entire federal Judiciary, she won’t need to negotiate with a Republican Congress. She will do essentially whatever she wants. She will bypass Congress whenever necessary to do what she pleases.Who in Congress can defy Clinton? Congress has shown its ineptitude in failing to ensure that Clinton would be brought to justice. If Congress fails to control Clinton’s excesses before she secures the U.S. Presidency—and to date Congress has shown incredible cowardice to act—on what logical ground can the public believe Congress will be able to rein Clinton in after she secures the U.S. Presidency?For a person who sees herself above the law and with the means to act with impunity as if she were above the law, and has shown, as we have seen firsthand, that she is, for all intents and purposes, clearly above the law, as the U.S. Department of Justice has shown itself to be powerless to bring her to justice, and as Congress has failed to exert its own power to bring a criminal to justice, who, then, in Congress will be able to constrain Hillary Clinton from committing the worst excesses once she succeeds to the Presidency? If there is none in Congress who will bring Clinton to justice now, before she succeeds to the Office of the U.S. Presidency, why should the public believe Congress will be able to constrain Clinton once she assumes the mantle of the highest Office in the Land?If Politicians have learned anything about any of the Clintons, it is that they have no compunctions about breaking the law. Politicians should know they cannot contain a viper—neither Congressional Democrats, nor Congressional Republicans. Hillary Clinton will rule with force, with impunity. Only a Trump Presidency can prevent a horrific future for our Country.Yet some Republicans, not content simply to drop their support for Trump, have had the gall to call for Donald Trump to give up his bid for the U.S. Presidency. Instead, they should have long ago called for Hillary Clinton to give up her bid for the U.S. Presidency. They could have done so. They should have done so, given substantial evidence of serious criminal misconduct on her part when she served as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.

PART FIFTEEN

CLINTON CAN STILL BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE BEFORE THE ELECTION BUT CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST ACT NOW!

House Republicans should have supported the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, introduced by U.S. Congressmen, Michael Turner and Rick Allen. The Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act compels integrity in Government. Had the Act passed, independent Counsel—free of the baggage of the political appointees of the Justice Department, specifically, James Comey and Loretta Lynch—would surely have indicted Hillary Clinton on federal felony charges. Clinton’s bid for the White House would never have come to fruition. It could not.What happened? Why is it we never hear about the Act? Why is the Act suspended in Committee? Why hasn’t the Act come before the full House for discussion, debate, and a Floor vote? The Arbalest Quarrel attempted to ascertain what became of the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016 that, if passed, would have mandated integrity in Government. We wrote a letter to the sponsor and co-sponsor of the Act, asking them for an update on the status of the bill. We posted the letter, on August 27, 2016, within an article, titled, "The Foundation of Justice Undone By The Foundation, Clinton." To date, we haven’t heard a word from any member of Congress.It isn’t too late for House Republicans to move on this Act, but time is rapidly running out. They show they can act quickly when they want to. After all, they acted very quickly in denouncing Trump. Those Republicans who have denounced Trump can still redeem themselves. But, will they do so? Do they have the moral courage to stand with the Party, to stand with the American People, to stand with this Nation? Do they have the courage of the founders of our Nation?Trump certainly has shown courage. He stands proudly with our founders. Trump alone has openly expressed the need for a Special Prosecutor to reinvestigate Hillary Clinton’s federal crimes. Is he the only individual with the backbone to insist on integrity in Government? He would demand integrity in Government once he became President. He would make certain that Clinton would be called to account for her crimes against this Nation and against the American people. He would make certain the U.S. Department of Justice is called to account for its failure to indict a high Government official on a multitude of felonies. He would maintain our Nation as one of law and equal justice under our Constitution and system of laws.Donald Trump shows courage, fortitude, his mettle. He shows that, if necessary, he will stand alone to uphold our Constitution and that he will uphold the rule of law even as those in his own Party seem afraid to do so. He shows, by way of his good example, that he definitely has Presidential character. In that regard, he is unlike Hillary Clinton, whom one rarely hears from. She stands well back in the herd of her benefactors, campaign officials, and image makers. Everything she does and says is carefully orchestrated and choreographed. What the public sees—what the public is allowed to see of her is nothing more than a façade, a mask, an illusion. She is Medusa. Her character is poisonous. Once in Office, her true capacity for unleashing a Hell in this Country and on this Earth will be readily apparent. At that point, though, it will be too late—much too late—for Americans to do anything about her.So, Republicans must act with haste. They must act now on the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016.With passage of the Act even at this late date independent counsel could reinvestigate Clinton’s criminal misconduct, bypassing the corrupt or compromised Department of Justice. Independent counsel would have authority to indict Clinton on federal criminal charges. She would have to step down. Why hasn’t Congress acted?Trump’s failings pale compared to the irresponsible, shameful, duplicitous, illegal, treacherous activities of Hillary Clinton. The mainstream media, in shameful misuse of the power of the Press under the First Amendment, manipulates public opinion. It endorses Clinton, a flawed character, who has exhibited ineptitude and lack of acumen in her Cabinet level position as Secretary of State and who has conducted herself shamefully, criminally. The Press either shamefully ignores this clear and irrefutable fact or more shamefully defends and praises Clinton’s abominable record and conduct. The Press then unabashedly, heatedly goes after Trump with all the tact and subtlety, and with all the respectfulness and thoughtfulness of a dog chowing down on and devouring a hunk of meat. But, having no legitimate basis to attack Trump on logical, rational grounds, as Trump can and would represent the interests of this Nation adeptly, the mainstream media resorts to trickery—inflating innocuous events beyond sensible bounds and spreading scandalous lies and rumors—doing this to inflame public opinion against Trump, appealing to the public’s emotion rather than to its intellect.The mainstream media is intellectually dishonest, and Congressional Republicans are irresponsibly falling for the nonsense spouted by a disreputable Press. They are allowing themselves to be played for fools, and it’s the Republican Party and worse, this Nation and its citizenry that will suffer for the lack of courage of the Republicans to act.If a catastrophe is to be avoided, Congressional Republicans better get their own act together and they better do so quickly. If they do not, they would do well to realize that, if Donald Trump loses the election, he won’t go down alone. The Republicans will likely lose the House and the Senate.

PART SIXTEEN

REPUBLICANS SACRIFICE THEIR NOMINEE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT TO THEIR PERIL AND SHAME.

By willingly, unconscionably, duplicitously, irrationally sacrificing the Republican Party’s leader, its “King” (Trump), there is no win and no draw for Congressional Republicans in this political rendition of the game of Chess. The Democrats have no wish to sacrifice their “King” (Clinton), although having a criminal as their nominee brings disgrace to the entire Party. But, they don’t care. They know that, if Democrats control the Executive Branch of Government, they also control the Judicial Branch, because Clinton’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee—a nominee that Congress, at some point, will have to confirm—will give the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court, a fifth vote—a majority. The Senate Judiciary Committee cannot hold off the confirmation process indefinitely.Yes, there is nothing in the Constitution mandating that any set number of Justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. But, if Hillary Clinton secures the U.S. Presidency, the full brunt of her Office and of the mainstream media will come to bear to compel the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a Confirmation Hearing on her nominees. Once the Senate Judiciary Committee does hold a Confirmation Hearing, it is inevitable that one of Clinton’s nominees, be it Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, or, otherwise, someone like him, will be confirmed sooner or later—probably sooner—as the ninth U.S. Supreme Court Justice. That ninth seat will give the liberal wing of the High Court the majority it needs to transform society into that image Hillary Clinton sees and ordains for it.Among the first couple of cases to be overturned—probably the first couple of cases ever to be overturned within just a few years of their precedential holdings—will be the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases: District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008); and, McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 320, 177 L. Ed.2d 894, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5523 (2010).  The decisions of the high Court’s liberal wing will influence the outcome of critical cases and, so, change the makeup of our Nation’s culture for decades. Democrats may also control one or both Houses of Congress. In that event, Democrats will have won the Grand Trifecta.

CONCLUSION

Democrats know without doubt the Republican Party is in disarray and the Republicans have done nothing to suggest to Democrats otherwise. The Republican Party has done nothing to demonstrate to Democrats and to this Nation, that the Republican Party is united. The Party has ceded the political Chess game to them.The ceding of the U.S. Presidential election, the capitulation of the Republican Party to its opponent, before the voting even takes place, is unprecedented and unforgivable. The Republican Party is, at this juncture, at this critical moment in our Nation’s history, with the U.S. Presidential Election just around the corner, vanquished, thanks, in no small part, to the actions of Paul Ryan and other Republicans who have behaved like him.The vanquishing of the Republican Party is bad enough surely. But, we Americans will have lost our Country, and that will be infinitely worse. There will be no return match for House and Senate Republicans. There can’t be. It will be much too late for that; for them and for us.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON’S INTEREST IN THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IS MOTIVATED BY CRASS SELFISHNESS, NOT LOVE FOR AND SERVICE TO COUNTRY

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: THE CANDIDATE OF CHOICE OF THE SECRETIVE, POWERFUL, INCREDIBLY WEALTHY INTERNATIONALIST ROTHSCHILD FAMILY

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

 “Rory knew all about this Invisible Government which decided the destinies of nations, their survival or their obliteration, for his father had told him. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘They are all bastards,’ Joseph had told his son. ‘They are without doubt, the wickedest men on earth, though I am sure they would be astonished to hear they were wicked. They might even be outraged. . . . The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes!’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They were a criminal conspiracy, but they did not consider themselves either criminal or conspirators. They were businessmen, realists. What gave them power was, in their eyes, virtuous and righteous and reasonable, for who was more worthy than themselves to control and manipulate the world of men. Someone had to rule, and who better than men of intellect, money, strength, and unemotional judgment.” Part 2, Chapter 3, pages 475 through 479, passim, Captains and the Kings, by Taylor Caldwell There are ignoble, dishonorable influences and forces at work in the world today. These forces and influences have been at work in the world for some time. They are not benign. They are not kind. They are not benevolent, compassionate, or forgiving. They are terrible, immoral, dispassionate, corrupting, and evil. They act deliberately, calculatingly, and coldly. They are well-organized and ruthlessly efficient. They have introduced and continue to promote chaos into Western Civilization, generally, and into our own Nation, particularly, as they work toward their singular goal: the breakup of the ‘Independent, Sovereign Nation State’ and, further, rendering the very concept, incoherent. And, what is a ‘Sovereign Nation State’? It is one operating under its own supreme Constitution, beholding to no other Nation and subordinate to no other Nation, organization, person or persons, or entity of any kind. A Sovereign Nation State is one whose first interests and concerns are those that pertain to and adhere to the well-being of the Nation and to the well-being of the Nation’s citizenry, and not to that of any other Nation, or people, or to the world at large. A Sovereign Nation State is one whose policies, foreign and domestic, are framed to benefit the Nation and its citizenry first. A Sovereign Nation State is one that embraces a unique heritage, identity, culture, common currency, and common language. A Sovereign Nation State is one whose laws are never subordinated to or abrogated to those of any other Nation or group of Nations or to a political or economic entity or interest of any kind. A Sovereign Nation State is one that could not even conceptually allow for a treaty or pact with another Nation or group of Nations or geopolitical or corporate interest group to subvert or subordinate the Sovereign Nation’s system of laws and jurisprudence to the dictates of any treaty or pact that the Nation’s Government might enter into.Today, though, the idea of adherence to the importance of the notion of, ‘Sovereign Nation State,’ is considered antiquated, xenophobic, even obsolete. So it is, the dismemberment of our Sovereign Nation marches forward to end, possibly, finally, in a whimper, not a bang—nary a word of protest; not a shot fired in her defense—the results of a quiet, insidious, invidious coup d’etat—the end result being not a change of government for this Nation but the very destruction of the Nation as an independent, Sovereign State. The end of our Nation as an independent, Sovereign Nation State is the goal of those who propose a New Order for the Western Nations of this World. There exist supremely powerful, well-organized, extraordinarily wealthy interests who wish for this—indeed, who have been and who are presently actively working for it. But they do so always in the shadows, forever in the shadows. These shameful, depraved influences and forces seek to create a new political and economic and legal paradigm for Western Nation States. This new paradigm would consist of a federation of global financial and mega-corporate interests that operate in every sphere of life, dictating domestic and foreign policy for all Western Countries under their control. They would rewrite laws and draft new codes of conduct. Such rights and liberties that exist would be those they deign to bestow or withhold, at their pleasure, on individuals—subjects, essentially indentured servants, and not citizens, in this new polity. The EU is a manifestation of the early stages of a dramatic shift in the political contours of Countries—of what it means for a Country to exist as a Country. Is that in store for our Country as well? The answer is, “yes.” If the U.S. completes the TransPacific Partnership (“TPP”) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”), the U.S. will have moved one step closer to the fulfillment of the agenda of those sinister influences and forces that seek to dismantle the U.S. as an independent Sovereign Nation State.You don’t hear of these sinister influences and forces very often, or directly. They quietly machinate and conspire and contrive behind the scenes. You hear of them, at best, infrequently and, then, only obliquely—through a casual comment here or there in the newspapers or on the airwaves. Yet these sinister influences and forces control the destiny of nations.The dire effects of the powers they wield and exert are manifested through the puppets in Government they own and control.In the United States, they have been operating through the U.S. President, Barack Obama. They have, these past several months, been priming and grooming his replacement, Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom they have promised as Obama’s heir apparent. The most notorious of the puppet masters is the Rothschild clan. The Rothschild family has spread its tentacles throughout the world, not least of all in this Country. The artifice of privatized central banking is the basic mechanism through which they hold entire Nations hostage.Is there a connection or link between the Rothschild family and Hillary Clinton? Consider: the New York Times—in a September 3, 2016 article titled, “Where has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich”— reports that “Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a backer of Democrats and a friend of the Clintons’, made sure attendees did not grill Mrs. Clinton at the $100,000-per-couple lamb dinner Mrs. Forester de Rothschild hosted under a tent on the lawn of her oceanfront Martha’s Vineyard mansion. “‘I [Mrs. Forester de Rothschild] said, Let’s make it a nice night for her [Hillary Clinton] and show her our love,’ Mrs. Forester de Rothschild said.” Is it not singularly odd that the NY Times, a fervent supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, would wish to explicitly report a link between Clinton and the so-called “elites” in society and is it not especially odd that the NY Times would bother to report the saccharine sweet sentiment of Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild at the dinner Rothschild hosted for Clinton?Does not that NY Times article undercut the notion her campaign incessantly trumpets that Hillary Clinton cares about the welfare of the masses? Does not that NY Times article simply, candidly, and, in fact, glaringly illustrate that Clinton cares for no one but those whom she may personally profit from; those from whom she has received and continues to receive an overabundance of personal wealth; those for whom she owes all the fawning praise she has ever received and the trappings of power she could ever hope to obtain; those whom, alone, are capable of fulfilling every lustful ambition her insatiable soul craves?Didn’t the also-ran candidate, Bernie Sanders allude to these very points, during the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential debates, berating Clinton for the inconstancy of her message, the inconsistency of her remarks, the hypocrisy of her words in relation to her actions? Did Sanders not make the point that a person who rakes in tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars from donors can’t reasonably, rationally serve the interests of both the extraordinarily wealthy—those who dwell in the most rarified aethers, who have promoted her, paid her way, bought her the station in life she holds—and everyone else, who toils and drudges in the muck below? Would Clinton dare betray her benefactors? Of course not. But it isn’t the monies of the wealthiest few among us who will be assisting the laziest and least deserving among us, including the illegal aliens who shouldn’t be here at all. Whom do you think that task will, ultimately, fall upon?Hasn’t Donald Trump perceptively pointed out that, when one person gives another person money—especially, considerable sums of money, or some other thing of great monetary value—the giver expects the taker to give something in return? Is that not the foundation of all dealings, whether in business or government—the quid pro quo—“I give you something; you give me something in return?” If so, how can one realistically believe that Clinton would—or reasonably could, even if she wanted to, and she most certainly doesn’t—give everyone “a fair shake?” That is incongruous, mind-boggling.But, then, it is mind-boggling to consider that any average, rational American citizen would actually wish to raise a person to the status of President of the United States on the drivel Hillary Clinton spouts. Even more mind-boggling is the thought that some Americans would seriously consider positing a person, such as Hillary Clinton, in the White House, when clear, substantial and substantive evidence supports a finding that Hillary Rodham Clinton has violated federal law—multiple federal laws, and multiple counts of law-breaking under each of those laws—and all of them extremely serious breaches of conduct. The Arbalest Quarrel discusses this matter at length in a series of recent articles posted on this site.But, why would a major newspaper, such as the New York Times support a candidate for the U.S. Presidency whose respect for our Constitution and our laws is non-existent; who breaks our laws cavalierly; and who dismisses, out-of-hand, any suggestion that her actions require close scrutiny? And, why would a major newspaper such as the New York Times draw the public’s attention to Clinton’s obvious connection with the notorious, international Rothschild family of bankers, in the first place? We discuss this in Part 2 of this Article.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: AN INDIVIDUAL WILLING TO LAY WASTE A COUNTRY, ITS PEOPLE, ITS CONSTITUTION

PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

“From nowhere came the memory of what he had been taught in random religious lessons concerning the Revelations of St. John, who had prophesied these men and had written that one day they would rule the world entirely, and that none could buy or sell without their permission, ‘both small and great, rich and poor, free or bond.’ Was it the mark of the Beast that men would have to wear on their foreheads? Rory could not remember, and his smile became more respectful and even a little tender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .To obtain what they had plotted for so long, from grandfather to father to son, they must first throw the world into chaos, dismantle governments, incite violence and fury among the mindless masses, cause enfeebling wars which would weaken any nation ready to contest with them, raise up tyrants who would subdue the people, destroy the validity of nations’ currencies. Then, in the general catastrophe they could exert their unbelievable power and assume command.” Part 2, Chapter 3, pages 480 through 481, passim, Captains and the Kings, By Taylor CaldwellOne may reasonably infer the NY Times, a media giant though it be, is, as with Hillary Clinton herself, but a lackey of the secretive, immensely powerful, and fabulously wealthy Rothschild family and that, as a lackey of the Rothschild family, the NY Times would not publish anything that might alert the American people to the truth. And the truth is that the people of the United States no longer control their Government—that they have not controlled their Government for some time; and that the international Rothschild family of bankers is prepared, soon, to throw off the illusion that there exists at all a Government of the United States that belongs to the people of the United States.The publishers of the New York Times certainly would not dare suggest that the federal Government does not take its orders from the American people. To even suggest that would require explicit permission from the Rothschild family.The Rothschild family controls the federal Government, and therefore, holds dominion over the American people. The matter of ending the charade that this Government does not take orders from the international Rothschild banking cartel is at hand.If Hillary Rodham Clinton actually wins the coming U.S. Presidential election, the NY Times and other major mainstream newspapers will likely slowly begin informing the American people that the Sovereignty of the United States and the sanctity and inviolability of the U.S. Constitution and the supremacy of our Nation’s system of laws are all rapidly drawing to a close. The American people will then know, clearly and categorically, and without any doubt, that powerful, evil, insatiable interests do in fact exert rapacious control over the vast machinery of global finance and global trade, of which our Nation, the United States, is one component—an important component to be sure—but one component, nonetheless. The American people will learn from the mainstream media of plans of the Rothschild family and its underlings to remake our Country, consistent with the aims and desires of the international banking class.Our Country has been weakened by incessant, unwinnable wars. The rights and liberties codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights are faltering. The Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable searches and seizures clause is blatantly ignored. The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is on shaky ground, supported essentially by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions—case law that will—not may—be overturned if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States and her nomination to the Supreme Court is confirmed.The First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause is held hostage by those invoking the standard of political correctness—a dubious notion at best and one that has no basis in our law, in our jurisprudence, or in our traditions, and is a thing altogether antithetical to the right of free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment.The lazy among us claim a right, defined nowhere in our Constitution or our laws, to be fed, clothed, and housed through the labor and taxes of others. And, the illegal aliens among us claim a right to remain here when, under our Constitution and our laws they have no such right to be here at all. Yet they claim the problem rests with our laws, not with them; and the media heralds their irreverent, audacious call—the emptiness of that call which is exposed by the absence of any supporting statute, by the absence of case law precedent, by the absence of cohesive logical argument, and by the absence of any coherent ethical standard.Perhaps the Rothschild family, through the NY Times, is testing the waters. The Rothschilds seek to ascertain just how gullible the American people truly are and how willing they may be to accept the most outrageous ideas and policies as tolerable, even exemplary.Apparently, all too many Americans are extraordinarily gullible—ready to hug to their bosoms the most bizarre ideas and the most outlandish Government policies with alacrity. If so, then the Rothschild family is correct in their assessment. If so, then the Rothschild family’s goal for dissembling the United States, as an independent Sovereign Nation, through the eager assistance of their puppet, Hillary Rodham Clinton, along with her husband, Bill, can continue, according to plan. Psychological conditioning of the masses has obviously progressed by leaps and bounds to a point never before believed possible.And so it is, we are witnessing, at an increasingly rapid and rabid pace, the destruction of the political, economic, social, cultural, historical, and ethical fabric of our society.We are beholding the systematic, methodical, and inexorable destruction of our Country. We are seeing this take place on an unprecedented scale as strange, alien ideas, and practices, and policies—ideas, and practices, and policies that are antithetical to this Nation’s history, to this Nation’s culture, to this Nation’s morality, to this Nation’s educational and religious traditions and underpinnings, to this Nation’s laws and jurisprudence, and to this Nation’s very Constitution—take hold and begin to break apart the foundation of our Nation, like a jackhammer breaking apart concrete.This, the Rothschild clan and their ilk seek to do and need do if the Sovereignty of the United States is to be undone, and they have a candidate to do their bidding, Hillary Rodham Clinton, waiting eagerly, even lasciviously, in the wings for just the opportunity to show her love for Lady Lynn de Francesca Rothschild, in return for Lady Lynn de Francesca Rothschild’s espoused love for Clinton, as reported in the NY Times—as the Rothschild clan does its part to sit Hillary Rodham Clinton in the White House. We see clearly how this Country begins to lose its footing. Americans are nudged and prodded to accept bizarre and foreign ideas, and philosophies, and paradigms that go under the names of multiculturalism, globalization, free trade, neoliberalism, open borders, global communities, political niceties and correctness, moral relativity, new age Enlightenment, commonsense gun laws, and utilitarian consequentialism—the last of which is an ethical system that looks solely at the consequences of an action, not on the actions and intentions of the agent, in determining whether an in action is to be deemed morally good or evil. Utilitarian consequentialism, as an ethical system, is inconsistent with the rights and liberties expressed in our Bill of Rights. We see the Judeo-Christian belief system fractured, as a faction of Islam, radicalized—extolling bloodshed and terror and murder as a virtue—takes hold around the world—and slowly, insidiously, creeps—is, in fact, allowed to creep—into our Nation’s venues and consciousness. For more on the dangers posed by radical Islam, as seen through the eyes of a Muslim, check out Raheel Raza’s website.We see our educational system torn asunder as new, uniform curricula are introduced nation-wide, dictated by Washington’s leaders—the puppets of the Rothschild clan and their ilk.We are now seeing, too, the seemingly immateriality of our Nation’s laws and of our Constitution—the very foundation of our Republic. For, how is it pragmatically and ethically possible that an individual who has been under investigation by the F.B.I. for several months—who has been under investigation by the F.B.I. for having committed serious criminal misconduct—can blithely run for the highest Office of the Land? How is it within the realm of empirical possibility that a person under a cloud of criminal wrongdoing—on such a massive scale—can rationally,  realistically one day occupy the Office of President of the United States? It is as if the perceptions of the American people have been vacuumed up and deposited into the mind of a psychotic—a mind where rationality, logical reasoning, and moral considerations are no more than vapors, and the irrationality of the psychotic mind is the only “real” reality.The American people must wake up from their stupor.The Arbalest Quarrel has previously discussed the factual evidence supporting Hillary Clinton’s violation of federal laws and the application of law to those facts: directed to one, Hillary Clinton’s intentional or grossly negligent mishandling of classified Government information during her tenure as a Cabinet Level Official in the Obama Administration; two, the matter of and practice of Hillary Clinton’s habitual lying to federal law enforcement officers during the course of their official criminal investigation into her criminal wrongdoing and during the course of their official criminal investigation into the criminal wrongdoing of her flunkies; and, three, bribery and corruption permeating and underlying the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.Did Hillary Rodham Clinton break any other federal laws? Did she commit the most heinous crime of law: treason? And, what kind of character does this character truly have when one considers a person’s fitness to hold the highest Office in the Land? We explore these matters in the next several articles, as Election Day rapidly approaches.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.