ANTONYUK VS. NIGRELLI (ANTONYUK II): IS THIS CASE DESTINED TO BE THE FOURTH SEMINAL U.S. SUPREME COURT PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

******************************

IMPORTANT NOTE TO OUR READERS: THE ARTICLE  POSTED YESTERDAY UNDER THE TITLE, "THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAVE OTHER PLANS," HAS UNDERGONE A SUBSTANTIAL REWRITE, TO SUCH AN EXTENT, THAT WE FELT IT BEST TO POST THIS NEW ONE AS A DISTINCT ARTICLE, AND WITH AND UNDER A NEW BANNER. WE HAVE KEPT THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, AS POSTED, TO BE FAIR TO ALL OUR READERS. YOU MAY WISH TO COMPARE THE TWO. BUT, IF YOU FIND DISCREPANCIES IN POINTS MADE, BE ADVISED THAT THIS INSTANT ARTICLE CONTROLS. IT REPRESENTS OUR SOLE POSITION AND PERSPECTIVE ON THE MATTERS DISCUSSED. THANK YOU.

******************************

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

MULTI SERIES

PART TWENTY

SUBPART ONE OF PART TWENTY

THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAVE OTHER PLANS

PART ONE{INTRODUCTORY QUOTATION}“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their arms.” ~Samuel Adams, American Statesman and Founding FatherThe importance of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen cannot be overstated. These cases, together, establish the Court’s recognition of, one, the immutable, eternal right of the people to keep and bear arms, two, that this right shall not be infringed, and, three, that the armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free State.The existence of and maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible without a well-armed citizenry.To understand where we are, at the start of a new year, we must retrace our steps back to 2020.Biden and the Democrat Party will up the ante in their attack on the Second Amendment. That is indisputable.In 2022, this assault on the right to armed self-defense against the predatory beast, predatory man, and, worst of all, predatory Government, became manifest.In early February 2021, we pointed out, in our article, titled, “The Biden Plan for the Political and Social Remaking of the American Landscape,” that——“During his first two weeks in Office, Joe Biden signed over 40 executive orders or similar executive edicts. And he isn’t done. A few days into February and we can expect to see 50 or more Presidential executive orders and other edicts.” This is unheard of.For comparison, we pointed to a news report published in February 2021, positing that,“President Donald Trump signed four in his first week in 2017; President Barack Obama signed five in 2009; President George W. Bush signed none in his first week in 2001; and President Bill Clinton signed one in 1993.”Apparently, Biden and the puppet masters who control him would waste no time reversing the gains Trump had made in setting the Nation back on course, consistent with the aims of the founders of our Nation: To maintain a strong and independent, sovereign Nation-State, and free Constitutional Republic.The Neoliberal Globalists have reverted to their agenda, set in motion by George Bush and Barack Obama, aimed at dismantling a free Republic and eliminating the exercise of Americans’ natural law rights through which the citizenry maintains its lawful sovereign authority over the Nation and Federal Government, and over its own destiny.Also, in that February 2021 article, the reporter pointed out that——“The twin issues of ‘guns’ and ‘gun violence’ will be much discussed in the weeks and months ahead. That much is certain.Will Biden sign an executive order banning assault weapons’ and will he sign a flurry of other antigun laws as well, not bothering to wait for Congressional enactments?Don’t think this is improbable. In fact, with all the banter of gun-toting ‘white supremacists’ and right-wing ‘domestic terrorists’ and with thousands of National Guard troops camped out in the U.S. Capital, and with the constant denigration of and growing suppression of conservative dissent, something is definitely afoot. In fact, the Democrat Party propaganda machine is in overdrive. The propagandist newspaper, NY Times, for one, has laid the groundwork for an assault on ‘guns.’”Our remarks and those in the news article were prescient.In June 2022, due to Congressional Democrats and scurrilous Congressional Republicans, Biden “signed into law into law the first major federal gun reform in three decades, days after a decision he condemned by the Supreme Court expanding firearm owners’ rights.” See the article in Reuters.Dutifully, compliantly obeying the orders of his Administrative nursemaids and caretakers, who themselves take orders from shadowy, sinister forces from on high, the Biden puppet also took aim at the millions of civilian citizens who own and possess semiautomatic weaponry and components of the weapons.But what is especially important here is a remark Biden conveyed to the Press, as reported by Reuters, in that same June 2022 article.“‘The Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.’” The demented fool probably didn’t know what specific U.S. Supreme Court cases his caretakers ordered him to refer to. No matter. All Americans should know. And America’s Patriots do know.One was Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health. The other was NYSRPA vs. Bruen. Both decisions are important. But, of the two, the latter is much more important. The latter case pertains directly to the security of a free State. The former does not.NYSRPA vs. Bruen is the latest in a Supreme Court jurisprudential “trilogy” of seminal Second Amendment cases. Yet, the Biden Administration and some State Governments have openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court, and, worse, have openly demonstrated visible contempt for the High Court.At both the Federal Level and State Levels, powerful malevolent and malignant forces have directed their assault on America’s Second Amendment. Biden and New York Governor Kathy Hochul are the public faces behind shadowy orchestrators, passing along orders surreptitiously to their puppets.Our Free Constitutional Republic is in dire jeopardy.New York State Government and actions of other States since Bruen demonstrate all the fervor, ferocity, and audacity of those State governments to go their own way, blatantly disregarding Bruen as they disregarded Heller and McDonald. This has resulted in a plethora of new litigation against the States by Americans who desire only to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.The number of cases filed and progression of post-Bruen case law decisions in New York, alone, point to Americans’ adoration of the natural law right to armed self-defense and to the extraordinary lengths they will go to compel rogue States to adhere to both the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and to those U.S. Supreme Court rulings cementing the Second Amendment in the American psyche.This points to a tremendous disconnect between the Country Americans know and love, and an alien, monstrous non-nation the Biden Administration and many States, in league with the Biden Administration, wish to thrust on Americans, against their will.__________________________________________

A TREMENDOUS CLASH IS AT HAND BETWEEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN BRUEN AND THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT’S REPUDIATION OF BRUEN

SUBPART TWO

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights.” ~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherOnce the U.S. Supreme Court published the Bruen decision, the Hochul Government, anticipating the decision, was prepared for it. It had been prepared for the Bruen decision for months. The State Senate in Albany quickly enacted amendments to its Gun Law, designed to operate in defiance of the rulings and to further constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and Governor Hochul immediately signed the amendments into law. Holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licensees reviewed the amendments as quickly as Hochul had signed them into law. They were not amused. And they were the first out of the gate, in any jurisdiction, to challenge the constitutionality of those lengthy amendments to the New York Gun Law, which, as a body, were referred to as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”).The Bruen decision came down on June 23, 2022. Hochul signed the CCIA into law on July 1, 2022. And Plaintiffs filed their case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I) on July 11, 2022.Since then, both Antonyuk I and a plethora of other cases wended their way through New York’s Federal Courts. But none are more important than that first case, as it is the first one to make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the first one to receive a response from the U.S. Supreme Court since its rulings in NYSRPA vs. Bruen.After the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Antonyuk I, without prejudice, Plaintiff Ivan Antonyuk and other holders of valid New York handgun carry licenses filed a new case, on September 20, 2022 (Antonyuk II). That case was recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Hochul. And, after the Court dismissed Hochul out as a Party Defendant, and, after a new Superintendent of the New York State Police, Steven Nigrelli, took over from the previous Superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen, the Plaintiffs’ recaptioned the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction, staying the execution of Hochul’s CCIA on November 7, 2022.One day later, coincidentally, the date of the Midterm Elections, November 8, 2022, the New York Government filed its Motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking relief from the PI, and the Second Circuit granted the relief the Government sought, on November 15, 2022, staying the PI, allowing execution of the CCIA during the pendency of the merits of the PI. Four days later, the Plaintiffs, NY concealed handgun carry licensees filed their own response to the lifting of the Stay.After the Second Circuit issued its ruling reversing the District’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction. The Second Circuit modified its order minimally. The PI remained, stayed. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on December 14, 2022, for details.The Plaintiffs appealed the Second Circuit’s ruling, requesting relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.As pointed out by John Crump, in an article posted on Ammoland on December 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, on December 27, 2022, demanded a response from the Second Circuit.Justice Sotomayor issued a short “request.” Note: the term ‘request’ means the High Court isn’t ordering Hochul’s Government to respond to the Plaintiff’s Application for Relief, but a “request,” having been made, obviously encourages the Government to respond.Sotomayor’s directive reads:“Response to application (22A557) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due by 4 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 3, 2023.”Sotomayor’s Order is in reference to the Plaintiffs’ filing of December 21, 2022, titled,“Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit.”In their filing, the Plaintiffs assert,“Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen. In contrast, the Second Circuit’s stay pending appeal was issued based only on a single conclusory assertion, yet with the effect of indefinitely suspending the protections afforded New Yorkers by the Second Amendment and affirmed by this Court in Bruen. The Second Circuit’s stay should be vacated in order to uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms, as well as to vindicate the authority of this Court over the circuit courts. This Court’s Opinion in Bruen was issued on June 23, 2022. Only hours later, New York Governor Hochul promised to ‘fight back’:We just received some disturbing news . . . the Supreme Court . . . has stripped away the State of New York’s right and responsibility to protect its citizens . . . with a decision . . . which is frightful in its scope of how they are setting back this nation. . . . This decision is not just reckless, it’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want, and we should have the right of . . . what we want to do in terms of gun laws in our state. . . . [O]ur governor has a moral responsibility to do what we can . . . because of what is going on, the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone up to the Supreme Court. . . . We’ve been ready for this . . . We’ve been working with a team of legal experts . . . I’m prepared to call the legislature back into session. . . . We are not going to cede our rights that easily, despite the best efforts of the politicized Supreme Court. . . . No longer can we strike the balance. . . Shocking. They have taken away our rights. . . . This is New York. We don’t back down. We fight back. . . . I’m prepared to go back to muskets. . . . We’re just getting started here. Just eight days later on July 1, 2022, the New York Legislature responded to Governor Hochul’s call to defy this Court’s authority and resist Bruen’s protection of Second Amendment rights, enacting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). After extensive briefing, a hearing, and oral argument, the district court enjoined portions of the CCIA in a 184-page opinion. Shortly thereafter the Second Circuit, without providing any reasoning or analysis, granted New York’s request first for a temporary administrative stay, and then a stay pending appeal, allowing New York’s repudiation of Bruen back into effect without so much as a brief explanation.”The key to the Plaintiffs’ argument supporting relief from the Second Circuit’s perfunctory decision is the lack of reasoning of the Second Circuit for overriding the District Court’s analysis of the“Four-Factor” test, and the High Court is requesting the Government, and, obliquely, the Second Circuit itself, for an explanation of its reasoning behind the lifting of the PI stay of execution of the CCIA.In its comprehensive Opinion, the District Court determined the Plaintiff New York Concealed Handgun Carry Licensees proved that awarding the PI is warranted.The U.S. Supreme Court is of course well versed in the District Court’s comprehensive rulings, supporting its granting of Plaintiffs’ PI. And the High Court is well aware of the Second Circuit’s curt reversal of the lower Court’s decision.The U.S. Supreme Court’s unusual “request,” directed to the New York Government, is also aimed at the Second Circuit. The High Court is asking the Government, essentially a surrogate for the Second Circuit, here, to explain why the District Court’s comprehensive, logical, rational opinion, supporting its granting of the Preliminary Injunction, should be considered erroneous.Since the Second Circuit’s reversal of the District Court’s well-reasoned opinion granting the PI, is cryptic or, otherwise, meaningless, the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Government to step in and explain why the U.S. District Court’s granting of the PI, staying enforcement of the CCIA should not be reinstated.This request mirrors the Plaintiffs’ Application to the Second Circuit, requesting an explanation for its curt reversal of the District Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ PI, sans any reason for lifting the Stay of the CCIA, imposed by the District Court.See our article titled, “New York’s Gun Law: A History Of & Present Status Of The Antonyuk Case,” posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, posted on December 28, 2022.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a Preliminary Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA because,

• The Plaintiff New York State Concealed Handgun Carry Licensees are likely to succeed on the merits.
• The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay of the
• The Government is unlikely to incur substantial injury through a stay of enforcement of the CCIA during the review of the merits of the Plaintiffs' case against the New York Government.
• The public interest is so great and so grave that enforcement of the Government’s CCIA should be stayed pending the resolution of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction.

That the Second Circuit lifted the stay not only allows enforcement of the CCIA, before the merits of the case are decided but disturbingly suggests the Second Circuit will ultimately find for the Government. This means, at first glance, at least, that the Second Circuit won’t issue a permanent injunction against enforcement of the CCIA but will find the CCIA Constitutional when it isn’t. But this is unlikely. We explain why in a subsequent article.One thing is clear. The New York Government, and, by extension, the Second Circuit—one through weak argument, and the second through a lame judicial order—have admitted they detest the Second Amendment, and are contemptuous of both the rulings in Bruen. And, further, that Governor Hochul, to her everlasting shame, expressed her personal disdain for the Court Majority that issued the rulings, thereby exhibiting her defiance of the U.S. Constitution, her contempt for the Nation, as an independent sovereign Nation-State and free Constitutional Republic, and her loathing of the people who happen to cherish their God-Given fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, unmodifiable, and eternal, and absolute right to armed self-defense.But let Hochul rant and rave. The New York State Government and the Second Circuit are behind the eight-ball, now.The U.S. Supreme Court knows there is no logical and legal reason to allow for the enforcement of an unconstitutional Gun Law. And the High Court is nudging the Government to admit that fact.The Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s unusual directive, as it is a “request,” not an order. But, obviously, Justice Sotomayor has encouraged the Government to respond, as failure to respond serves as a silent affirmation of the unconstitutionality of the CCIA.We consider in our next article the options open to the Government and the ramifications of their action, or non-action. The New York Government’s response—if there is one—must be filed by late afternoon, Tuesday, January 3, 2023. ___________________________________

THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT MUST EXPLAIN ITSELF TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: THE FATE OF MILLIONS OF NEW YORK GUN OWNERS HANGS IN THE BALANCE, AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING

SUBPART THREE

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to first external or internal invader.”~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherThe Plaintiff holders of New York handgun carry licenses requested clarification of the Second Circuit’s terse and vacuous, perfunctory order that overturned the U.S. District Court’s granting of their Preliminary Injunction, staying enforcement of the Government’s Concealed Carry License Improvement Act (CCIA).Concerned with an unsatisfactory order lacking any decipherable explanation for its decision staying the Preliminary Injunction, allowing enforcement of Hochul’s amendments to New York’s Gun Law during the pendency of Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, the Plaintiffs brought their grievance to the U.S. Supreme Court.The High Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief. The Government has precious little time to offer a response, although it need not do so. But, the Second Circuit has provided the New York Government until 4.00 PM, Tuesday, January 3, 2023, to issue its response if it wishes to do so.The procedural tool the Plaintiffs used to secure U.S. Supreme Court intervention here is called the “All Writs Act,” codified in 28 USCS § 1291. And the application of it is often a tortuous mess. The High Court didn’t rule on its efficacy of it here, but it served its purpose.As one legal writer said of the “All Writs Act,”“The prevailing doctrinal landscape is principally a product of two mid-twentieth-century judicial innovations: (1) the collateral order doctrine, which expands the meaning of the term ‘final decision’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291; and (2) appellate mandamus, which allows the federal courts of appeals to review interlocutory orders by issuing writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, The current system has been subject to much criticism: ‘hopelessly complicated,’  ‘legal gymnastics,’ ‘dazzling in its complexity,’ ‘unconscionable intricacy’ with ‘overlapping exceptions, each less lucid than the next,’ ‘an unacceptable morass,’ ‘dizzying,’ ‘tortured,’ ‘a jurisprudence of unbelievable impenetrability,’ ‘helter-skelter,’ ‘a crazy quilt, ‘a near-chaotic state of affairs,’ a ‘Serbonian Bog,’ and ‘sorely in need of limiting principles.’ In the face of such criticism, the prevailing doctrine on appellate jurisdiction has proven to be surprisingly immune from reform.” “Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction,” 48 B.C. L. Rev. 1237, November 2007, by Adam N. Steinman, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati, College of Law, J.D. Yale Law School.” The High Court didn't rule on the applicability of the “All Writs Act,” thereby tacitly accepting jurisdiction to handle the matter set forth in the Plaintiffs' Application for Relief. And the High Court sent a clear message to the New York Government and, by extension, a silent message to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as well.The stakes are high, for everyone, Plaintiff New York Concealed Handgun Carry Licensees and Defendant New York Government Officials and Officers, and the matters involved impact the entire Nation, both the American People and other State Governments, and the Federal Government, too. You can bet that Justice Sotomayor’s Order placed a damper on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day Holiday festivities. And Hochul’s Attorney General, Letitia James, and her staff of lawyers could not have been any happier.Although, as we pointed out, supra, the Defendant New Y0rk Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s directive as it is only a “request” for a response, not an “order” demanding a response, unusual as this “request” is, it would be remiss of the Government to ignore this request. The issuance of even a seemingly benign request, any item coming from the U.S. Supreme Court is to be taken seriously, and in some cases, as here, cause for alarm. And Hochul's Government would be wise to respond to it, even if it isn't required to do so, as the New York Handgun license scheme licensing in place for well over one hundred years is on the line even if it doesn’t appear at the moment to be in jeopardy. It most definitely is.Whether the Government responds or not, however, various scenarios play out. We start with these three observations:First, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York realized the CCIA was not only blatantly unconstitutional but, as it is the Government’s response to the NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the CCIA operates as a blatant slap in the face to the High Court.Second, Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany basically told the U.S. Supreme Court to go to Hell. And while the District Court had no intention of playing that game of kowtowing to the New York Government any longer, the Second Circuit did so, lifting the PI Stay, but with an inadequate explanation because, obviously, there isn't one to be made.Third, The persistent problem for both the New York Government and the Second Circuit, is that the District Court’s findings were not wrong, which is why the District Court granted the PI. That fact also explains why the Second Circuit issued a perfunctory order, not dealing directly with the District Court’s findings. The Second Circuit could not rationally explain how the District Court’s application of the “Four-Factor” test was erroneous, but it didn’t want to rule against the Government. So, it issued a lame order.The Government and the Second Circuit might have expected the Plaintiffs would appeal the adverse action of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it probably felt the High Court would not accept the Plaintiffs’ application, inferring that there is no tenable basis for the High Court to entertain an interlocutory order here. Indeed, the Plaintiffs probably struggled to find a jurisdictional basis. The best thing, apparently the only thing, the Plaintiffs could come up with was the “All Writs Act” which is a wild stab at getting the U.S. Supreme Court’s attention. But it worked. The High Court wasn't going to stand on ceremony here. And, some credible basis could be made, if the High Court wished to deal with the applicability of the “All Writs Act,” jurisprudentially and jurisdictionally, as the application of it has expanded exponentially through time (so why not here?), the issues are so compelling that the High Court cut to the chase. The implication of the importance of Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is clear from the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order qua “request” at all, on an interim, interlocutory matter. The New York Government and the Second Circuit felt smug. They both knew or would have, at least, surmised that the Plaintiffs would file their Application for Relief from the Second Circuit's Order, but both apparently, believed, erroneously, that the High Court would reject the Plaintiffs’ Application out of hand. They were wrong if they held such notions.The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule on the application of the All Writs Act. It did an end run around it, simply “requesting,”—inviting, but not demanding—the New York Government to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief from the Second Circuit’s stay of the Preliminary Injunction. That the High Court has at least invited the Government to respond is bad enough for the Government.What will Hochul’s Government do?The Government need not do anything. The High Court isn’t demanding a response from the Government. It only “requests” a response.Suppose the Government refrains from responding to Justice Sotomayor’s “request,” and takes its chances, relying on the decision of the Second Circuit that reversed the District Court, allowing enforcement of the CCIA during pendency —essentially doubling down on the Second Circuit’s weak Order.This would not bode well for the Government. The High Court could have remained aloof. It could have rebuffed the Plaintiffs’ application for relief from the Second Circuit’s Order. In that event, the High Court would have denied the Application outright. The CCIA would remain in force, and the PI stayed during the pendency. But the High Court didn’t do that.In requesting a response from the Government, the High Court had, in a non-positive way, manifested an interest in the Plaintiffs’ arguments, suggesting that the Plaintiffs’ arguments, supporting its Application for relief from the Second Circuit’s decision staying the PI, have merit. So the Government is obliged to respond.But then, why didn’t the High Court formally take the case up and issue an interlocutory order reversing the Second Circuit’s decision, sua sponte, i.e., on its own motion, affirming the District’s decision, and granting the PI? In that event, enforcement of the CCIA would be stayed, pending resolution of the merits, after which the losing party, having in hand a final order, could appeal a final decision to the U.S. Supreme Court for a full hearing of the Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli case, on the merits. Perhaps, the U.S. Supreme Court, at the moment, at least, wishes to be tactful, and diplomatic. And, so, the Government is tactically compelled to respond. It must take the High Court’s “request” as at least a tacit demand for a response, and for good reason.For, if the Government fails to respond, the High Court will likely, ipso facto, reverse the Second Circuit’s decision. The Government is, then, just asking for trouble by cavalierly failing to respond to the “request.”The Government, from years of experience, would have reason to expect the Second Circuit would kowtow to it, rubber-stamping the most outrageous Government actions, even as the lower Federal District Court made clear it was no longer going to play that game. This came as a surprise to Hochul. And she continually misconstrues the District Court's intent, refusing to acknowledge that the Court's orders mean what they say. This became blatantly clear in Hochul's remarks to the public after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I), inferring, wrongly, that the dismissal of the case, without prejudice, constituted an outright win for the Government. Hochul apparently failed to peruse, or, otherwise, she dismissed the reasoning of the Court. The Court made abundantly clear that the major, substantive portions of the CCIA are patently illegal, inconsistent with the plain meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and inconsistent with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in NYSRPA vs. Bruen. No matter. The District Court dismissed the case. And for Kathy Hochul that is ALL THAT MATTERED to Hochul. Had she spent a little time reflecting on the content of the Opinion, she would know the Court had dismissed the case due to a standing issue of one of the Party Plaintiffs, and that matter could be rectified by simply filing a new case setting out the same allegations. Thus, the District Court tacitly encouraged the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, in the Plaintiffs' capacity as an injured individual, to file a new case against the New York Government. And Ivan Antonyuk did just that. That case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli (Antonyuk II), has come to bite Hochul, like an angry tiger, on her behind, and that tiger is not letting go.It is one thing for Governor Hochul to expect the New York Courts to kowtow to the New York Government on Second Amendment matters, as it has consistently done through the many years and decades. And the Second Circuit has done so, and the District Court has not, even if Hochul wishes to delude herself to think otherwise OR otherwise expect, as, at the moment, has panned out, that the higher U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will override the lower U.S. District Court's rulings. But, it is quite another thing entirely to expect the U.S. Supreme Court to do the same, to kowtow to the Government, knowing that Justice Sotomayor, along with a couple of other Associate Justices, is a diehard liberal-wing Justice, sharing the same ideology, abhorring the Second Amendment no less so than the New York State Government and the Second Circuit, and will therefore keep the High Court Conservative wing in check. No! Where, as here, the institution of the U.S. Supreme Court is threatened, the Justices will band together to preserve the sanctity of the High Court. That was true up to the present time. But with Biden's nominee to the High Court, now confirmed and sitting on the High Court, Ketanju Brown Jackson, it may very well be that a long-standing venerable institution is in danger of losing its integrity upon which it has heretofore remained a truly independent Branch of Government.Therefore, as for the matter at hand, Justice Sotomayor is not about to take action in a manner blatantly inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court Bruen rulings, even if she, along with a few other Justices, tends, ideologically, to be sympathetic to the Government's position on the Second Amendment.Thus, the Parties to the action here will be placed in the same position they were in before the Second Circuit’s action. The Second Circuit will be compelled to review the merits of the PI with enforcement of the CCIA stayed during the pendency of a decision on the merits of the case. Nonetheless, the New York Government ought to respond and, it is our prediction, will respond to Justice Sotomayor's “request.”  It must respond or incur the wrath of the U.S. Supreme Court that will take a non-response as yet one more personal slight, adding to a plethora of previous indignities that the miscreant, Kathy Hochul, showered on the Court.   As this article goes to posting, at the end of the business day, January 3, 2023, the New York Government has filed its response to Justice Sotomayor's “request,” pulled up from the U.S. Supreme Court docket. The filing is viewable as a PDF.AQ will study it shortly. Given the short time that the Government had available to it, to respond to Justice Sotomayor's, “request,”  the Government has probably reiterated the points made in its original response to the District Court’s decision, granting the PI, staying enforcement of the Government’s CCIA, and will hope for the best. What happens now?We consider the possibilities in depth, in the next article.______________________

NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL IS CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND HARD PLACE AND SHE HAS NO ONE TO BLAME FOR THIS BUT HERSELF

SUBPART FOUR

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors.” ~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherNow that New York Governor Kathy Hochul has responded to Justice Sotomayor’s “Response to application (22A557) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due by 4 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 3, 2023,” which has just been filed, viewable on the SCOTUS docket, the question is, what happens now? What will the U.S. Supreme Court do?This much we surmise:Justice Sotomayor will act, but she won’t act on her own. Likely, she can’t act on her own. The entire Court must resolve the matter, and it will resolve the matter.The High Court will review and analyze both the Plaintiffs' Application for Relief, previously filed, and titled, “Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit”, and the Defendant New York Government's Response to the Plaintffs' Application for Relief, titled, “Brief For Respondents In Opposition To Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit.” In rendering its decision, the High Court will likely utilize New York’s own “Four-Factor” standard, devised by the New York Federal Courts to ascertain if a Preliminary Injunction (PI) is warranted or not.Applying New York’s own test, the High Court will determine whether to lift the stay or retain the stay on enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of a final decision on the PI. The case will then be returned to the Second Circuit for the ultimate resolution of the PI.AQ anticipates that the High Court will waste little time on this, and will render a decision within the next few days or within a week or two at the latest.Likely the High Court will find the District Court’s ruling, granting the Plaintiffs’ PI, warranted and will order the Second Circuit to stay execution of the CCIA while the Second Circuit hashes out the substantive merits of the case.One might think the Second Circuit would find against the Plaintiffs, on the merits, given the Court’s animosity toward the Second Amendment as illustrated in its decision on the District Court’s granting of the Preliminary Injunction. But will it do this? Suppose it does. What then? Plaintiffs will immediately appeal the adverse decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case up. There is no doubt about that. The U.S. Supreme Court would take the case up because Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli directly affects the High Court’s earlier decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen. That is something neither the New York Hochul Government, nor the Second Circuit would want. For, the High Court would find that the CCIA, either in full or in substantial part, does not comply with the High Court’sBruen rulings. The High Court would thereupon strike the CCIA down.This would place Hochul Government in a much worse position than it was in when theBruen rulings first came down on June 23, 2022. Hochul should not have toyed with the High Court, pretending to comply with the Court’s Bruen rulings, all the while machinating to further constrain and constrict the exercise of the citizen’s right to armed self-defense. But Hochul thought she knew better. She didn’t. Instead, she stuck her foot well down her throat, and there it remains.And, once the High Court finds theCCIA unconstitutional, it could go one step further, finding the entire New York concealed handgun carry licensing structure unconstitutional. This is something it avoided in NYSRPA vs. Bruen. But, given Hochul’s contemptuous attitude toward the High Court, the gloves are off. The Court could and will take the Hochul Government to task. Strategically, then, to assist the Government, the Second Circuit would do well to find for the Plaintiffs, issuing a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of theCCIA. The Hochul Government wouldn’t dare appeal a seemingly adverse decision. That would be disastrous not only for New York, but for many other jurisdictions around the Country, including New Jersey, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington State, among others. Ultimately New York will have to revert to the original Gun Law, in substantial part, albeit without the “Proper Cause” requirement and without the other mischief it devised in constructing the CCIA. The Government will be compelled to issue a lot more concealed handgun carry licenses. It would be a bitter pill for the Government to swallow. But, at least, the Hochul Government will be able to keep intact some semblance of the State handgun licensing scheme, which it desires to preserve at all costs.Can Hochul do anything else, if not juridically, then politically to constrain New Yorkers from exercising their Second Amendment right? She can rant and rave to the Press, of course, which she will do anyway, and she can take her complaint to the Grand Harlequin in Chief, Joe Biden. But what the Hell can Biden do for her? Not a damn thing unless his Administration is prepared to declare martial law, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights are now both defunct. This would lead to armed conflict throughout the Country. That is a dead certainty. The Administrative State, although powerful, isn’t omnipotent even if it thinks it is and even if many of the brainwashed legions of Americans think so, too.For, here, in our Country, unlike in the EU, in the Commonwealth Nations, or in CCP China, Americans are well-armed, tens of millions of Americans, and Americans have substantial ammunition to prevent a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution from overturning the American Revolution of 1776.History, morality, and law would all be on the side of America’s Patriots to take up arms against forces intent on thrusting a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution on the Nation.A declaration of martial law where no legitimate reason exists for invoking it—and there is none—irrefutably points to immoral and unlawful tyranny of Government.The Biden Administration would be openly guilty of this: launching tyranny of Government in the form of an illegal oligarchic conspiratorial takeover of the Government against the American people.Recall that Justin Trudeau declared martial law in Canada, for a short time. Canada has nothing remotely like a true Bill of Rights to secure freedom and liberty for common Canadians, but even that jackass was forced to back down, given a backlash in the Canadian Parliament. But he has learned from his earlier mistakes. He has since insinuated martial law in Canada incrementally, insidiously, beginning with a total ban on civilian possession of handguns. Further actions against liberty and freedom will be forthcoming. Wait and see. So much for Canada. And lots of luck with that, you Canadians!But for us, Americans, we should focus on Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli. Where is that case headed in the immediate future?The High Court will issue its order, sending the case back to the Second Circuit, but likely reaffirming the District Court’s grant of the PI, staying enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of the case. That is our prediction. And that benefits Plaintiffs from the get-go. Time is on their side. However long the Second Circuit takes, the CCIA will remain suspended. We also predict as we stated, supra, that the Second Circuit will affirm the District Court’s findings on the Plaintiffs’ PI and convert it to a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA, in full or in substantial part. The Second Circuit will take that seemingly paradoxical action to salvage for the Hochul Government what it can of New York’s concealed handgun licensing structure. Otherwise, if the Second Circuit were to find against the Plaintiffs, overturning the PI, ruling the CCIA constitutional, that would serve as a final appealable order just begging for the High Court's review of the case on the substantive merits with disastrous consequences for Hochul’s Government. So, the Hochul Government is, ultimately, in a quagmire it cannot extricate itself from. And Hochul herself can’t do a damn thing about it except beat her chest, screech, and howl to the winds. And, she has only herself to blame for this. She should not have toyed with the Bruen rulings, nor should she have poured salt on an open wound, contemptuously deriding the Court for its rulings, in the process, as she openly defied the Court.So, then, the Plaintiffs are in a strong position here to secure and strengthen the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment even if that isn’t immediately evident.The Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists both here and abroad will also moan and thrash about in impotent rage as the Republic may yet survive. The question is: Will the Biden Administration dare impose martial law on the Country in the next couple of years? Not likely. Not that it wouldn’t love to do just that.But, for all the myriad ways that the Biden Administration has deliberately weakened this Country, in the first two years of its reign, reversing Trump’s triumphs, as he has strengthened our Nation, and has secured it from threats posed by obvious foes and by dubious friends, the Biden Administration would be out of its mind to attempt confiscation of arms and ammunition on an industry-wide scale. What argument could the Biden Administration rationally conjure up? Can it rationally claim national security concerns, demanding that stringent measures be taken against those gun-toting “MAGA” Americans, and claiming a desire to protect the public from this thing, “Gun Violence,” even as the Government allows, even encourages, psychopathic criminals and lunatics to run amok, preying at will on innocent Americans?Spouting endless harangues against guns and the tens of millions of Americans who cherish their natural law right to keep and bear arms is one thing. Americans are inured to that. It is nothing more than water rolling off a duck’s back. But, to demand that average Americans forsake their firearms or face the wrath of the Federal Government is something else again. That is a recipe for civil war, the likes of which this Nation hasn’t seen since the War between the Blue and Gray. And it is the Federal Government itself that would bear sole responsibility for lighting that powder keg, unleashing a new horror on the Country for which History would forever justifiably excoriate.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAVE OTHER PLANS

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

MULTI SERIES

PART TWENTY

SUBPART ONE OF PART TWENTY

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTATION}“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their arms.” ~Samuel Adams, American Statesman and Founding FatherThe importance of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen cannot be overstated. These cases, together, establish the Court’s recognition of, one, the immutable, eternal right of the people to keep and bear arms, two, that this right shall not be infringed, and, three, that the armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free State.The existence of and maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible without a well-armed citizenry.To understand where we are, at the start of a new year, we must retrace our steps back to 2020.Biden and the Democrat Party will up the ante in their attack on the Second Amendment. That is indisputable.In 2022, this assault on the right to armed self-defense against the predatory beast, predatory man, and, worst of all, predatory Government, became manifest.In early February 2021, we pointed out, in our article, titled, “The Biden Plan for the Political and Social Remaking of the American Landscape,” that——“During his first two weeks in Office, Joe Biden signed over 40 executive orders or similar executive edicts. And he isn’t done. A few days into February and we can expect to see 50 or more Presidential executive orders and other edicts.” This is unheard of.For comparison, we pointed to a news report published in February 2021, positing that,“President Donald Trump signed four in his first week in 2017; President Barack Obama signed five in 2009; President George W. Bush signed none in his first week in 2001; and President Bill Clinton signed one in 1993.”Apparently, Biden and the puppet masters who control him would waste no time reversing the gains Trump had made in setting the Nation back on course, consistent with the aims of the founders of our Nation: To maintain a strong and independent, sovereign Nation-State, and free Constitutional Republic.The Neoliberal Globalists have reverted to their agenda, set in motion by George Bush and Barack Obama, aimed at dismantling a free Republic and eliminating the exercise of Americans’ natural law rights through which the citizenry maintains its lawful sovereign authority over the Nation and Federal Government, and over its own destiny.Also, in that February 2021 article, the reporter pointed out that——“The twin issues of ‘guns’ and ‘gun violence’ will be much discussed in the weeks and months ahead. That much is certain.Will Biden sign an executive order banning assault weapons’ and will he sign a flurry of other antigun laws as well, not bothering to wait for Congressional enactments?Don’t think this is improbable. In fact, with all the banter of gun-toting ‘white supremacists’ and right-wing ‘domestic terrorists’ and with thousands of National Guard troops camped out in the U.S. Capital, and with the constant denigration of and growing suppression of conservative dissent, something is definitely afoot. In fact, the Democrat Party propaganda machine is in overdrive. The propagandist newspaper, NY Times, for one, has laid the groundwork for an assault on ‘guns.’”Our remarks and those in the news article were prescient.In June 2022, due to Congressional Democrats and scurrilous Congressional Republicans, Biden “signed into law into law the first major federal gun reform in three decades, days after a decision he condemned by the Supreme Court expanding firearm owners’ rights.” See the article in Reuters.Dutifully, compliantly obeying the orders of his Administrative nursemaids and caretakers, who themselves take orders from shadowy, sinister forces from on high, the Biden puppet also took aim at the millions of civilian citizens who own and possess semiautomatic weaponry and components of the weapons.But what is especially important here is a remark Biden conveyed to the Press, as reported by Reuters, in that same June 2022 article.“‘The Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.’” The demented fool probably didn’t know what specific U.S. Supreme Court cases his caretakers ordered him to refer to. No matter. All Americans should know. And America’s Patriots do know.One was Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health. Dobbs. The other was NYSRPA vs. Bruen. Both decisions are important. But the latter is much more important. The latter case pertains directly to the security of a free State. The former does not.NYSRPA vs. Bruen is the latest in a Supreme Court jurisprudential “trilogy” of seminal Second Amendment cases. Yet, the Biden Administration and some State Governments have openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court, and, worse, have openly demonstrated visible contempt for the High Court.At both the Federal Level and State Levels, powerful malevolent and malignant forces have directed their assault on America’s Second Amendment. Biden and New York Governor Kathy Hochul are the public faces behind shadowy orchestrators, passing along orders surreptitiously to their puppets.Our Free Constitutional Republic is in dire jeopardy.New York State Government and actions of other States since Bruen demonstrate all the fervor, ferocity, and audacity of those State governments to go their own way, blatantly disregarding Bruen as they disregarded Heller and McDonald. This has resulted in a plethora of new litigation against the States by Americans who desire only to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.This points to a tremendous disconnect between the Country Americans know and love, and an alien, monstrous non-nation the Biden Administration and many States, in league with the Biden Administration wish to thrust on Americans, against their will.The number of cases filed and progression of post-Bruen case law decisions in New York, alone, point to Americans’ adoration of the natural law right to armed self-defense and to the extraordinary lengths they will go to compel rogue States to adhere to both the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and to those U.S. Supreme Court rulings cementing the Second Amendment in the American psyche.The High Court directed its Bruen rulings to New York’s “May Issue” gun law language, apropos of the State’s “Proper Cause” requirement. But the Court’s rulings apply to other States with similar language in their Gun Laws.As one might expect, holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licensees were the first out of the gate, in any jurisdiction, to challenge the constitutionality of amendments to the New York Gun Law, the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”). The Bruen decision came down on June 23, 2022. Hochul signed the CCIA into law on July 1, 2022. And Plaintiffs filed their case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I) on July 11, 2022.Since then, both Antonyuk I and a plethora of other cases wended their way through New York’s Federal Courts. But none are more important than that first case, as it is the first one to make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the first one to receive a response from the U.S. Supreme Court since its rulings in NYSRPA vs. Bruen.After the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Antonyuk I, without prejudice, Plaintiff Ivan Antonyuk and other holders of valid New York handgun carry licenses filed a new case, on September 20, 2022 (Antonyuk II). That case was recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Hochul. And, after the Court dismissed Hochul out as a Party Defendant, and, after a new Superintendent of the New York State Police, Steven Nigrelli, took over from the previous Superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen, the Plaintiffs’ recaptioned the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction, staying the execution of Hochul’s CCIA on November 7, 2022.One day later, coincidentally, the date of the Midterm Elections, November 8, 2022, the New York Government filed its Motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking relief from the PI, and the Second Circuit granted the relief the Government sought, on November 15, 2022, staying the PI, allowing execution of the CCIA during the pendency of the merits of the PI. Four days later, the Plaintiffs, NY concealed handgun carry licensees filed their own response to the lifting of the Stay.After the Second Circuit issued its ruling reversing the District’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction. The Second Circuit modified its order minimally. The PI remained, stayed. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on December 14, 2022, for details.The plaintiffs appealed the Second Circuit’s ruling, requesting relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.As pointed out by John Crump, in an article posted on Ammoland on December 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, on December 27, 2022, demanded a response from the Second Circuit.Justice Sotomayor issued a terse “request.” Note: the term ‘request’ means the High Court isn’t ordering Hochul’s Government to respond to the Plaintiff’s Application for Relief, but a “request,” having been made, obviously encourages the Government to respond.Sotomayor’s directive reads:“Response to application (22A557) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due by 4 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 3, 2023.”Sotomayor’s Order is in reference to the Plaintiffs’ filing of December 21, 2022, titled,“Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit.”In their filing, the Plaintiffs assert,“Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen. In contrast, the Second Circuit’s stay pending appeal was issued based only on a single conclusory assertion, yet with the effect of indefinitely suspending the protections afforded New Yorkers by the Second Amendment and affirmed by this Court in Bruen. The Second Circuit’s stay should be vacated in order to uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms, as well as to vindicate the authority of this Court over the circuit courts. This Court’s Opinion in Bruen was issued on June 23, 2022. Only hours later, New York Governor Hochul promised to ‘fight back’:We just received some disturbing news . . . the Supreme Court . . . has stripped away the State of New York’s right and responsibility to protect its citizens . . . with a decision . . . which is frightful in its scope of how they are setting back this nation. . . . This decision is not just reckless, it’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want, and we should have the right of . . . what we want to do in terms of gun laws in our state. . . . [O]ur governor has a moral responsibility to do what we can . . . because of what is going on, the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone up to the Supreme Court. . . . We’ve been ready for this . . . We’ve been working with a team of legal experts . . . I’m prepared to call the legislature back into session. . . . We are not going to cede our rights that easily, despite the best efforts of the politicized Supreme Court. . . . No longer can we strike the balance. . . Shocking. They have taken away our rights. . . . This is New York. We don’t back down. We fight back. . . . I’m prepared to go back to muskets. . . . We’re just getting started here. Just eight days later on July 1, 2022, the New York Legislature responded to Governor Hochul’s call to defy this Court’s authority and resist Bruen’s protection of Second Amendment rights, enacting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). After extensive briefing, a hearing, and oral argument, the district court enjoined portions of the CCIA in a 184-page opinion. Shortly thereafter the Second Circuit, without providing any reasoning or analysis, granted New York’s request first for a temporary administrative stay, and then a stay pending appeal, allowing New York’s repudiation of Bruen back into effect without so much as a brief explanation.”The key to the Plaintiffs’ argument supporting relief from the Second Circuit’s perfunctory decision is the lack of reasoning of the Second Circuit for overriding the District Court’s analysis of the “Four-Factor” test, and the High Court is requesting the Government, and, obliquely, the Second Circuit itself, for an explanation of its reasoning behind the lifting of the PI stay of execution of the CCIA.In its comprehensive Opinion, the District Court determined the Plaintiff Handgun Licensees proved that awarding the PI is warranted.The U.S. Supreme Court be versed in the District Court’s comprehensive rulings, supporting its granting of Plaintiffs’ PI. And the High Court would be versed in the Second Circuit’s reversal of the lower Court’s curt decision, dismissive of the District Court’s findings.The U.S. Supreme Court’s unusual “request,” directed to the New York Government, is also aimed at the Second Circuit. The High Court is asking the Government, essentially a surrogate for the Second Circuit, to explain why the District Court’s comprehensive, logical, rational opinion, supporting its granting of the Preliminary Injunction, should be considered erroneous.Since the Second Circuit’s reversal of the District Court’s well-reasoned opinion granting the PI, is cryptic or, otherwise, meaningless, the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Government to step in and explain why the U.S. District Court’s granting of the PI, staying enforcement of the CCIA should not be reinstated.This request mirrors the Plaintiffs’ Application to the Second Circuit, requesting an explanation for its curt reversal of the District Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ PI, sans any reason for lifting the Stay of the CCIA, imposed by the District Court.See our article titled, “New York’s Gun Law: A History Of & Present Status Of The Antonyuk Case,” posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, posted on December 28, 2022.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a Preliminary Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA because,

• The Plaintiff handgun licensees are likely to succeed on the merits.
• The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay of the CCIA.
• The Government is unlikely to incur substantial injury through a stay of enforcement of the CCIA during the review of the merits of the Plaintiffs' case against the New York Government.
• The public interest is so great and so grave that enforcement of the Government’s CCIA should be stayed pending the resolution of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction.

That the Second Circuit lifted the stay not only allows enforcement of the CCIA, before the merits of the case are decided but disturbingly suggests the Second Circuit will ultimately find for the Government. This means the Second Circuit likely won’t issue a permanent injunction against enforcement of the CCIA but will find the CCIA constitutional when it isn’t.The New York Government, and, by extension, the Second Circuit, albeit tacitly, must now admit they both detest the Second Amendment, and they are contemptuous of Bruen.Both the Government and the Second Circuit are behind the eight-ball.The U.S. Supreme Court knows there is no logical and legal reason to allow the enforcement of an unconstitutional gun law. And the High Court is nudging the Government to admit that fact.The Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s unusual directive, as it is a “request” not an order. But, obviously, Justice Sotomayor has encouraged the Government to respond, as failure to respond serves as a silent affirmation of the unconstitutionality of the CCIA.We consider in our next article the options open to the Government and the ramifications of their action, or non-action, in our next article. The New York Government’s response—if there is one—must be filed by Tuesday, January 3, 2023.___________________________________

THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT MUST EXPLAIN ITSELF TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: THE FATE OF MILLIONS OF NEW YORK GUN OWNERS HANGS IN THE BALANCE AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING

SUBPART TWO

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights.”“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to first external or internal invader.”~ Two Quotes from  Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherThe Plaintiff holders of New York handgun carry licenses requested clarification of the Second Circuit’s terse, vacuous, perfunctory order that overturned the U.S. District Court’s granting of their Preliminary Injunction, staying enforcement of the Government’s Concealed Carry License Improvement Act (CCIA).Concerned with an unsatisfactory order lacking any decipherable explanation for its decision staying the Preliminary Injunction, allowing enforcement of Hochul’s amendments to New York’s Gun Law during the pendency of Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, the Plaintiffs brought their grievance to the U.S. Supreme Court.The High Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief. The Government has precious little time to offer a response, although it need not do so. The Second Circuit has provided the New York Government until 4.00 PM, Tuesday, January 3, 2023, to issue its response if it wishes to do so.The procedural tool the Plaintiffs used to secure U.S. Supreme Court intervention here is called the “All Writs Act,” codified in 28 USCS § 1291. And the application of it is often a tortuous mess. As one legal writer said of the “All Writs Act,”“The prevailing doctrinal landscape is principally a product of two mid-twentieth-century judicial innovations: (1) the collateral order doctrine, which expands the meaning of the term ‘final decision’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291; and (2) appellate mandamus, which allows the federal courts of appeals to review interlocutory orders by issuing writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, The current system has been subject to much criticism: ‘hopelessly complicated,’  ‘legal gymnastics,’ ‘dazzling in its complexity,’ ‘unconscionable intricacy’ with ‘overlapping exceptions, each less lucid than the next,’ ‘an unacceptable morass,’ ‘dizzying,’ ‘tortured,’ ‘a jurisprudence of unbelievable impenetrability,’ ‘helter-skelter,’ ‘a crazy quilt, ‘a near-chaotic state of affairs,’ a ‘Serbonian Bog,’ and ‘sorely in need of limiting principles.’ In the face of such criticism, the prevailing doctrine on appellate jurisdiction has proven to be surprisingly immune from reform.” “Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction,” 48 B.C. L. Rev. 1237, November 2007, by Adam N. Steinman, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati, College of Law, J.D. Yale Law School.” The stakes are high. You can bet that Justice Sotomayor’s Order placed a damper on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day Holiday festivities. And Hochul’s Attorney General, Letitia James, and her staff of lawyers could not have been any happier.Although the Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s directive as it is only a “request” for a response, not an “order,” it is still a cause for alarm. And the Government would be wise to respond to it as the New York Handgun license scheme licensing in place for well over one hundred years is on the line.Whether the Government responds or not, various scenarios play out. John Crump has pointed to a couple of possible scenarios. See, once again, his article in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. We expand on those, and we start with these three observations:First, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York realized the CCIA was not only blatantly unconstitutional but, as it is the Government’s response to the NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the CCIA operates as a blatant slap in the face to the High Court.Second, Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany basically told the U.S. Supreme Court to go to Hell. And while the District Court had no intention of playing that game any longer, kowtowing to the New York Government, the Second Circuit did so, lifting the PI Stay, but with an inadequate explanation.Third, The persistent problem for both the New York Government and the Second Circuit, is that the District Court’s findings were not wrong, which is why the District Court granted the PI. That fact also explains why the Second Circuit issued a perfunctory order, not dealing directly with the District Court’s findings.  resulted in the Plaintiffs’ appeal of an interlocutory order directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Second Circuit could not justify rationally how the District Court’s application of the “Four-Factor” test was erroneous, but it didn’t want to rule against the Government. So it issued a lame order.The Government and the Second Circuit might have expected the Plaintiffs would appeal the adverse action of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it probably felt the High Court would not accept the Plaintiffs’ application, inferring that use of the All Writs Act is a wild stab at getting the U.S. Supreme Court to accept a jurisdictional basis that doesn’t apply here.Perhaps that is why the Government and the Second Circuit felt smug, believing, erroneously, that the High Court would not grant the All Writs Act, compelling the New York Government to make its case for staying the PI. But the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule on the application of the All Writs Act. It did an end run around it, simply “requesting,”—inviting, but not demanding—the New York Government to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief from the Second Circuit’s stay of the Preliminary Injunction. That the High Court has at least invited the Government to respond is bad enough for the Government.What will Hochul’s Government do?The Government need not do anything. The High Court isn’t demanding a response from the Government. It only “requests” a response.Suppose the Government refrains from responding to Justice Sotomayor’s “request,” and takes its chances, relying on the decision of the Second Circuit that reversed the District Court, allowing enforcement of the CCIA during pendency —essentially doubling down on the Second Circuit’s weak determination.This would not bode well for the Government. The High Court could have remained aloof. It could have rebuffed the Plaintiffs’ application for relief from the Second Circuit’s Order. In that event, the Court High Court would have denied the Application outright. The CCIA would remain in force, and the PI stayed during the pendency. But the High Court didn’t do this.In requesting a response from the Government, the High Court had, in a non-positive way, manifested an interest in the Plaintiffs’ arguments, suggesting that the Plaintiffs’ arguments, supporting its Application for relief from the Second Circuit’s decision staying the PI, have merit.But then, why didn’t the High Court formally take the case up and issue an interlocutory order reversing the Second Circuit’s decision, affirming the District’s decision, and granting the PI? In that event, enforcement of the CCIA would be stayed, pending resolution of the merits, after which the losing party, having in hand a final order, could appeal a final decision to the U.S. Supreme Court for a full hearing of the Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli case, on the merits.The Government is nonetheless tactically compelled to respond. It must take the High Court’s “request” as a demand for a response, and for good reason.For, if the Government fails to respond, the High Court will likely reverse the Second Circuit’s decision. The Government is just asking for trouble by cavalierly failing to respond to the “request.” The Government may from years of experience, expect that the Second Circuit will kowtow to it, rubber-stamping the most outrageous Government actions. But, it is another thing again to expect the U.S. Supreme Court to do so, even if Justice Sotomayor is a diehard liberal-wing Justice, who abhors the Second Amendment no less than the New York State Government. Justice Sotomayor is not about to take an action inconsistent with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, even if she, along with a few other Justices, tends to be sympathetic to the Government's position on the Second Amendment. Thus, the Parties will be placed in the same position they were in before the Second Circuit’s action. Thus, the Second Circuit will be compelled to review the merits of the PI with enforcement of the CCIA stayed during the pendency of a decision on the merits of the case. This is why the New York Government must respond and will respond to Justice Sotomayor's “request.”  It must respond or incur the wrath of the U.S. Supreme Court. But, given the short time available to it, now imminent as this article goes to publication, the Government will probably simply reiterate the points made in its original response to the District Court’s decision, granting the PI, staying enforcement of the Government’s CCIA. What happens then?Justice Sotomayor won’t act on her own. Likely, she can’t act on her own. The entire Court must resolve the matter.And, utilizing New York’s own “Four-Factor” standard, devised by the New York Federal Courts to ascertain if a PI should be granted or not, the High Court will determine whether to lift the stay or retain the stay on enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of a final decision on the PI. In either event, the case will be returned to the Second Circuit for ultimate resolution.If the Second Circuit finds for the Plaintiffs, which is doubtful, given the Court’s animosity toward the Second Amendment as illustrated in its decision on the District Court’s granting of the Preliminary Injunction, the Second Circuit will deny the preliminary injunction, and rule the CCIA constitutional. With the denial of a preliminary injunction, the decision will have the effect of a final judgment on the merits. The Second Circuit will have determined that the CCIA is constitutional. The Plaintiffs will return to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a formal review of the case on the merits.And the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case up. There is no doubt about that. Since the case directly affects its earlier decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the Court will determine whether the CCIA complies with the High Court’s Bruen rulings or doesn’t. Unless the composition of the High Court changes, the Court will find the CCIA unconstitutional in full or in part. Likely the result will bode ill for the Government. The entire concealed handgun carry license scheme will now be on the line. And the decision will result in severely weakening if not upending the entire New York handgun licensing scheme.This places the Hochul Government in a worse position than it was when the Bruen rulings came down on June 23, 2022. She should not have toyed with the High Court, pretending to comply with the Court’s Bruen rulings, all the while constricting the exercise of the right to armed self-defense ever tighter.The Second Circuit would know this from the get-go. Rightfully fearing reversal of an appeal if it denies the preliminary injunction, effectively finding the CCIA Constitutional, the Second Circuit may throw in the towel. In that event, the Court will grant the Preliminary Injunction, finding it meets the New York “Four-Factor” standard, and thence convert it into a Permanent Injunction. That means the CCIA will remain unenforceable forever. Thus, even if the Constitutionality of it isn’t decided, the net effect is to reduce its impact to nullity.What happens then? The Government can appeal an adverse decision to the High Court. It won’t do that. For if it did so, the High Court will take the appeal up and affirm the decision of the Second Circuit.The High Court may even go one step further, holding the CCIA unconstitutional. Conceivably the High Court could go two steps further, finding the entire New York concealed handgun carry licensing structure unconstitutional. Looking at the Government’s attitude toward the Court, as exemplified by its actions, the Court could take the Hochul Government to task. That is possible.Therefore, if the Second Circuit finds for the Plaintiffs, issuing a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA, the Hochul Government won’t dare appeal a decision. That would result be disastrous not only for New York, but for many other jurisdictions around the Country, including New Jersey, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington State, among others.The best that Hochul can hope for, and the Biden Administration, too, is that, in the next two years, they have an opportunity to get seat another Anti-Bill of Rights person on the High Court. Don’t be surprised to see Biden nominating his Attorney General, Merrick Garland to a seat. Democrats have waited a long time, and they have never forgiven Trump, nor McConnell for denying Garland a Confirmation Hearing which would have seen him on the Court anyway. If that had occurred, Bruen would never have been decided favorably. More likely, the High Court likely would never have reviewed the Bruen case. And Heller and McDonald would be in jeopardy of being overturned. And with the loss of Heller and McDonald, the Country would be that much closer to seeing the end of days for a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign American citizenry.Can Hochul do anything else, politically, since she is foreclosed from doing anything more juridically? She can rant and rave in the Press, and she can take her complaint to the Grand Harlequin in Chief, Biden. But what the Hell can Biden do for her? Not a damn thing unless his Administration is prepared to declare martial law, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court is now defunct. This happens in Banana Republics. It doesn’t happen in honest-to-God Constitutional Republics. This would lead to armed conflict. The Administrative State, although powerful, isn’t omnipotent even if it thinks it is and even if many Americans think so, too.For, here, in our Country, unlike in the EU, in the Commonwealth Nations, or in CCP China, Americans are well-armed, tens of millions, and Americans have substantial ammunition to prevent a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution from prevailing. That fact isn’t to be taken lightly by this Nation's rogue Federal Government and by rogue State Governments like that of New York. And Americans would have a good case, morally, historically, and legally, for taking up arms against those forces intent on entertaining a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist  Counterrevolution.A declaration of martial law where no legitimate reason exists for invoking it manifestly demonstrates tyranny of Government.The Biden Administration would be openly admitting this through its actions: Tyranny of Government in the form of an illegal oligarchic conspiratorial takeover of the Government against the American people.Recall that Justin Trudeau declared martial law in Canada, for a short time. Canada has nothing remotely that can honestly be considered a true Bill of Rights, and even that jackass was forced to back down, given a backlash in the Canadian Parliament.So where is Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli headed?The High Court will issue its order, and it will shoot down the Second Circuit. That is our prediction. It means the CCIA will remain unenforceable during the pendency of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, and the PI will remain effective. And neither the Second Circuit nor Hochul can do a damn thing about it except beat their chest, screech, and wail to the winds.But, even if the High Court affirms the decision of the Second Circuit or, through its inaction, remains silent on the Second Circuit’s decision, allowing the decision to stand, the Hochul Government is, ultimately, in a quagmire it cannot extricate itself from.If the Second Circuit finds against the Plaintiffs on the merits, the Plaintiffs will appeal an adverse decision to the High Court. And the Court will take up the case. There is no question about that. And, the CCIA will be struck down, as it is untenable. It contradicts the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and the Bruen rulings. And once the CCIA is struck down, that will severely damage the entire handgun licensing structure of New York, as the illegality of the entire structure, and the illegal machinations of the Government that created it will be crystal clear.And, if the Second Circuit finds for the Plaintiffs and issues a permanent injunction against the Government on enforcement of the CCIA, that will effectively strike the death knell for the CCIA, setting the stage for the eventual dismantling of the entire handgun licensing structure as it was untenable, legally, historically, and morally, at its inception, as the Sullivan Act, 112 years ago.The Government can appeal from a Second Circuit Court ruling against it, but it won’t do that. It has nothing to gain, and it has everything to lose were it to do so. For, the last thing New York needs is a fourth seminal Second Amendment case that not only effectively destroys the entire handgun licensing structure of the State but will effectively be disastrous for all other jurisdictions that have draconian “may issue” concealed handgun carry license laws in place.Either way, we see the Plaintiffs in a good position here to secure and strengthen the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment even if that isn’t immediately evident.The Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists both here and abroad will thrash about in impotent rage as the Republic may yet survive. The question is: Will the Biden Administration dare impose martial law on the Country?For all the myriad ways that the Biden Administration has deliberately weakened this Country, the Government would be out of its mind to attempt confiscation of arms and ammunition on a wide scale, claiming that national security concerns demand that stringent measures be taken against these gun-toting “MAGA” Americans. Spouting harangues against guns and tens of millions of Americans who cherish their natural law right to keep and bear arms is one thing. Demanding Americans to forsake their firearms is something else again.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

AT WHAT POINT DO NEW YORK VOTERS SAY “NO” TO CRIME AND CORRUPT GOVERNMENT?

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL IS A GHOUL!

[UPDATED WITH CORRECTIONS REPORTED BY AQ READERS WHO NOTED INCORRECT DATES PERTAINING TO NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO'S RESIGNATION, AND THE DATE UPON WHICH HIS REPLACEMENT, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL, BECAME GOVERNOR, SERVING NOW FOR 14 MONTHS. SHE IS NOW UP FOR ELECTION, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022, RUNNING AGAINST LEE ZELDIN, WHOSE ELECTION AS GOVERNOR WOULD MARK THE FIRST TIME NEW YORK WOULD SEE A REPUBLICAN ELECTED GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK IN 20 YEARS. [SEE CHANGES TO THIS ARTICLE IN "GRAY" INK INFRA]The adage “People get the leaders and government they deserve” has increasing relevance today, in America.Cities, States, and the Nation are imploding. This is no accident. It is by design.Consider New York and its largest city.The five Boroughs of New York City are a cesspool of violence. Crime is rampant. It is out of control. And it is affecting the entire State. No one is safe.This is no illusion. It is very real. Politicians and newspapers that deny this are not merely lying to the public, they are insulting the public’s intelligence.This situation is unacceptable, and it need not be. But it happens to be because most of the electorate votes the worst people into Office.Take Kathy Hochul, the present Governor of New York. Hochul, the Lieutenant Governor took over the Governorship after Andrew Cuomo resigned from Office in disgrace. But Hochul is no better than Cuomo. Both embody two of the worst traits of a human being: Arrogance and Piousness.It is bad enough to see these character traits in any person. But society itself is endangered when such people hold public office. For then, these character flaws have free reign. The result is corruption on a vast scale.The impact of corruption is felt on many levels.Corruption in Government is felt on a societal level, as institutions fall apart and, concomitantly, society falls into decay.Corruption in Government is felt on an economic level as businesses, unable to operate in a lawless environment, are forced to leave. Tax revenues then dry up. With Government services attenuated, cities and states fall into a death spiral.And corruption in Government is felt on a basic and raw, physical level, as criminals and lunatics prey at will on millions of innocent men, women, and children. No place is safe: public areas, stores, and shops, schools, houses of worship, even one’s home is susceptible to violence from roving predators.People grow anxious, fearful, and afraid to venture out, day or night. The consequences for victims of violent crime are life-altering.And what do we get from our government leaders: much talk, but no effective action.Kathy Hochul, Lieutenant Governor under Andrew Cuomo was sworn in as New York's Governor on August 24, 2021. Did anyone ever hear of her? Cuomo kept his understudy in mothballs for years. He intended to remain Governor in perpetuity, as New York law allowed, running for re-election every four years for another term. There are no term limits. But the Democrat Neoliberal Globalist powerbrokers had other plans. For whatever reason, likely not the ones that were fed to the public, they wanted him out. The news organs went to work, making much of the sex scandals, that the powerbrokers and the Press had certainly known about for years, but had ignored. In a flood of stories, the Press reported on the sex scandals, and, to a lesser extent, the Press reported on the COVID-19 nursing home deaths that were clearly more important and altogether reprehensible. But as for that latter story, the Press had hitherto, and peculiarly, underreported it, had even been dismissive of it, even though the New York public had always known about it and was justifiably angered by it, as were Americans around the Nation.But now the floodgates were opened. The Press went to work. The powers that be, whom the Democrat Party and the Press serve had tired of Cuomo. Having realized the game was up, and that it would be futile to fight the powers that be, Cuomo reluctantly announced his resignation, on August 10, 2021, to be effective 14 days later, on August 24, 2021. On that same date, August 24, 2021, Kathy Hochul, who Cuomo had kept in mothballs since 2015 when she sat as Lieutenant Governor, took the Oath of Office, See, e.g., articles in Spectrum News NY1 and the article in the AP. Now, Kathy Hochul faces the New York electorate for the first time. The midterm elections take place on November 8, 2022. She is running against Republican, Lee Zeldin, who gave up his U.S. Congressional seat to run for Governor of New York. The race is tight and the liberal media is nervous, frantic, really. See the article in the periodical, Time. Magazine. Democrats have become incautious and arrogant. They thought it would be impossible for a Republican to be elected Governor. The last Republican elected New York Governor was George Pataki, and that was 20 years ago. Pataki had narrowly defeated Andrew Cuomo's father, Mario. That surprised, shocked Democrats. See a 1994 article in the Washington Post. See also the article in The Hill. Will there be another upset in November 2022? One can pray it to be so. If enough voters in New York City have had enough of crime, corruption, and misspent taxpayer monies, they will give Hochul the boot.Fourteen months in Office has given the New York electorate more than an inkling of what to expect from Hochul if she gains the Governorship.Does the public want this person? Since a New York Governor’s term in Office is four years, the scale of the damage she would do to New York, economically and societally, would be enormous, irreparable. Scarcely over one year in Office, Hochul’s Administration is already embroiled in scandal.Last month, September 23, 2022, the New York Post cast light on Hochul’s corruption in a story titled,“‘They did what they did’: Hochul sees $637M ‘pay-to-play’ as no big deal.”  the Post points out:“Gov. Kathy Hochul tried to avoid blame Friday for a spiraling ‘pay-to-play’ scandal in which one of her top political donors scored no-bid contracts that overcharged taxpayers for $637 million in COVID-19 test kits.And she also brushed off the notion anyone in her administration should pay the price for it, telling The Post dismissively, ‘They did what they did.’Asked about the recently revealed deal with Digital Gadgets of New Jersey, whose owner, Charlie Tebeble, and his relatives have contributed about $330,000 to her campaign, Hochul at first repeated her team’s talking points on the simmering scandal.‘My directive to my team was: ‘The only way we’re going to get kids back in schools is to amass as many test kits from wherever you need to get them – just go do it,’ the governor said, when asked to answer for it by The Post at an unrelated event in Lake George.‘That was my only involvement.’New York might have saved as much as $286 million on the tests had the Hochul administration gotten a better price from the company, which the Times Union recently reported charged the state twice as much as other vendors selling the same test.”Hochul is corrupt to the core of her being. And she has made her corruption known both to the public and to those of like kind who are well-heeled. She is duplicitous, unapologetic, and slippery as an eel.The New York Post revelation isn’t a one-off. Hochul is power-hungry and without scruples and the big donors know this. They want her in Office, and they have filled her coffers before she even took the Oath of Office. They lavish favors on Hochul and they expect lavish favors in return. As reported by City and State, New York,“New York has never seen a campaign finance filing quite like Gov. Kathy Hochul’s. She started fundraising in August, days after former Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced he would resign, and she never stopped, bringing in more than $21.6 million in a five month period. Hochul’s campaign touted the haul as ‘the largest contribution total for any single filing period in New York history’ in a press release Tuesday that noted she nearly doubled the $12.8 million raised in 2002 by then-Gov. George Pataki. The windfall further solidifies her position as the front-runner in the 2022 Democratic primary for governor, with her biggest competitors, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams and Long Island Rep. Tom Suozzi, raising $221,996 and $3.4 million respectively according to the public filings.”And Crain's New York writes,​“Governor Kathy Hochul relied almost exclusively on wealthy donors in the latest campaign fundraising period, which ended in mid-July. The governor received a little more than $2 million, with 46% of her individual contributions exceeding $25,000, according to state campaign finance records.” Does anyone think these big donors give a damn about rampant crime in New York if it doesn’t affect them? Does anyone think they give a damn about anything but their own selfish wants and desires?But more to the point, does Hochul care about the well-being of the State and its cities and of the needs and well-being of the people? The answer is a resounding, “no.”  The New York Post explains:“When it comes to safer mass transit, we’ll take what we can get (as will Mayor Eric Adams). But it’s impossible to see Gov. Kathy Hochul’s offer of some taxpayer cash to support more subway-cop patrols as anything but a panicked gesture.And panic in the face not of the rising violence underground, but of Lee Zeldin’s surging poll numbers.”Many New Yorkers understand that Hochul is deceitful and doesn’t care about New York or its residents. Her tenure in office is all about graft.“When it comes to safer mass transit, we’ll take what we can get (as will Mayor Eric Adams). But it’s impossible to see Gov. Kathy Hochul’s offer of some taxpayer cash to support more subway-cop patrols as anything but a panicked gesture.And panic in the face not of the rising violence underground, but of Lee Zeldin’s surging poll numbers.As Nicole Gelinas notes, the new patrols depend on added overtime, which is nothing like a lasting solution. Cops, like anyone else, can only do so much OT before they’re exhausted — and the city was already expecting to do 61% more street-cop OT than initially budgeted.Plus, NYPD retirements/resignations are on pace to exceed 4,000 this year, the highest since post-9/11. Thanks to no-bail and other ‘criminal-justice reforms’ that Hochul continues to defend and even extend, plus won’t-do-their-jobs DAs like Alvin Bragg (whom she refuses to fire), police morale is through the floor. That means fewer cops, especially fewer experienced ones — yielding a force that’s less effective and more prone to make mistakes that the anti-cop fanatics will seize on to further undermine public safety.Meanwhile, finally getting off her ‘abortion abortion abortion” obsession, the panicked gov just dropped a new ad on crime, with her vowing, ‘You deserve to feel safe, and as your governor, I won’t stop working until you do.’” “You deserve to feel safe”? This can be a useful campaign slogan, but, from the mouth of Kathy Hochul, it is vacuous as hell.This is what Hochul thinks of public safety: It is all “Smoke and mirrors:” Pretend to care about the life of average, honest, hard-working people, but give them nothing but empty promises.Hochul refuses to accept if she ever bothered to consider that——The right to self-defense is axiomatic, self-evident, true. It is a natural law right: an immediate need, at once indisputable, eternal, pre-existent in each human being, immutable, and illimitable, but this natural law right isn’t in Kathy Hochul’s lexicon. And don't expect that Kathy Hochul will proffer New Yorkers police protection.The police don’t operate as personal bodyguards to anyone except political bigshots like the Governor or a mayor of a major city, and, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the police do not legally have a duty to protect anyone. The public isn't aware of this, and Government has done nothing to explain this to anyone. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about this.The police force of a community is only under a duty to provide protection for the community as a whole. Unfortunately, in New York, the police do little of that as well, and the fault rests with the Governor, Kathy Hochul and with NYC Mayor Eric Adams.Moreover, with massive cuts in police funding, cashless bail, and the presence of “non-prosecutors” like the George Soros flunky, Alvin Bragg, the need for, and right to armed self-defense in New York—especially in New York City—is acute.But Kathy Hochul perfunctorily dismisses any notion of a natural law right to armed self-defense, even when the U.S. Supreme Court makes abundantly clear to her the right to armed self-defense extends outside the home as well as inside it. Her response to the Bruen rulings makes her antipathy toward the right to armed self-defense crystal clear.Hochul refuses to comply with the High Court’s rulings in the third seminal case, NYSRPA versus Bruen.She conspired with the Democrat-Party majority in the State Legislature to thwart compliance with the rulings of the High Court.Hochul signed into law a set of amendments to the Court’s unconstitutional Gun Law that compound the unconstitutionality and unconscionability of the State’s Gun Law.Unsurprisingly, the package of amendments to the State’s Gun Law, referred to as the “Concealed Handgun Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”) were immediately challenged.Instead of relenting to the challenge, Kathy Hochul squandered taxpayer funds to defend the CCIA.Ultimately, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York found for the Plaintiff New York gun owners. It issued a TRO, restraining Hochul from enforcing the amendments until trial on the merits of the CCIA.Still, Hochul refused to relent. She appealed the TRO to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the case remains pending as of the date of this post.Conflating criminal misuse of handguns with the lawful use of handguns for self-defense, Hochul haughtily, contemptuously hides behind propaganda: a false, toxic narrative brew that the proliferation of handguns equates with gun violence.On a superficial level, this may make sense to some people as her proclamation is designed to do. But the true purpose of it is to hide a nefarious agenda: to deny to the law-abiding citizen his or her natural law right to armed self-defense.Hochul’s position is insupportable on legal, logical, and moral grounds. She obviously doesn’t care.If New Yorkers expect a safe and secure New York, they won’t obtain it from a Hochul Administration. Presumptively, any rational person would wish to live in an environment that is safe and would expect its government leaders to value the sanctity and inviolability of the individual.But people like Kathy Hochul care not for the well-being of the individual, but only for her well-being. That is the thinking of a sociopath. That is not the sort of person fit to be a leader.New Yorkers do have an alternative.Congressman Lee Zeldin is running against Kathy Hochul for New York Governor. Congressman Zeldin is the opposite of Hochul. He believes in the sanctity of each living Soul. Hochul does not. Her actions belie her words. Congressman Zeldin is a firm believer in the tenets of Individualism, consistent with the principles of the U.S. Constitution as written, as the framers of our Constitution intended. He is not a Collectivist. Hochul treats New York like a Beehive. She is the Queen Bee, and the average New Yorker, like the average Bee, is expendable! That is the gist of Collectivism.’ The tenets of Collectivism see their true expression and realization in Countries like CCP China. And Trudeau’s Canada is veering in that direction, as is our own Nation, under both the Biden Administration and the Pelosi/Schumer-controlled Congress. And people like Kathy Hochul wish the same for New Yorkers.Congressman Zeldin has stated he will fire Alvin Bragg once elected. Criminals and lunatics will no longer have a “field day.”But Hochul protects this Soros stooge: “Give him some time”; “Cut him some slack,” she retorts! Really? How much slack should New Yorkers give this creep? How much time does he need to prove his ineptitude as a DA? Bragg has since demonstrated his lack of concern for the life and well-being of innocent people. He does not believe in the need for pretrial detention for dangerous low life but immediately throws into the slammer individuals who, to his mind, have the audacity to defend their own life against maniacs.Such is the mindset of people who fail to accept, or even to recognize the natural law right to self-defense.  And rational Americans are expected to live in an insane, nightmarish dreamscape manufactured by these Dr. Frankenstein cousins: Kathy Hochul and Alvin Bragg?Most Americans, though, do not agree and will not accept an America ruled by irrational principles and dogma thrust upon them. Lee Zeldin won't and will not govern under irrational principles and dogma. Zeldin is a proponent of the natural law right of self-defense.He will institute policies that reflect the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense and he will not kowtow to nor tolerate the antics of lunatics and criminals.Under Zeldin's Governorship New Yorkers need no longer fear the antics of malignant criminals and lunatics; nor the sordid policies of irreverent, irreligious malevolent leaders who give free license to such behavior and herald and rationalize such policies as good and just and right and proper.Congressman Zeldin will be tough on crime and on criminals, unlike Kathy Hochul who literally gives criminals and dangerous lunatics a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. Most importantly, Congressman Zeldin is a man of convictions, and those convictions are consistent with that of the fathers of our Nation. He isn’t a crass opportunist. Kathy Hochul, on the other hand, given the chance, will sell out the State and the people of New York to the highest bidder and, from her present set of actions, she has shown a proclivity to do just that—ransoming the State and the lives of the good people of New York to serve her own selfish ends.New Yorkers should keep uppermost in mind, as should all Americans: voting has its consequences.The future of New York does look bright and will be bright with the team of Lee Zeldin/Alison Esposito. Darkness is and will remain and worsen under the Kathy Hochul Administration—but only if elected.If New Yorkers like to live and work in a perpetual condition of abject fear, unable to defend their own lives with adequate means of protection that only a firearm can provide and unable to rely on the police even to provide a modicum of protection for the community, and if they wish to accept corruption as a normal condition, then by all means, vote for Kathy Hochul for Governor. Hochul has demonstrated she doesn’t give a damn for the physical safety and well-being and welfare of law-abiding American citizens who reside and work in New York; nor for the financial and economic well-being of the State; nor for preserving the tenets and principles of a Free Constitutional Republic, upon which our Country was created and upon which it thrived. For all other New Yorkers—those who do wish to live and work in a State that promotes the safety, well-being, and welfare of American citizens and who do wish to reside in a thriving, vibrant New York—you have an opportunity to do so.Remember: in making your decision, as to whom to vote for, keep in mind the adage invoked at the beginning of this article:Voters get the leaders and government they deserve. Those people become their representatives—the ones THEY elect to office. Ask yourself when you go to the polls to vote: “Do the representatives you vote for truly serve and truly desire to serve your interests or are their words mere artifice as they go about serving their own interests and aims—interests and aims that are altogether at loggerheads with those of you and I, the American people?”___________________________________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.