LEFTISTS URGE AMERICANS TO BETRAY THEIR OWN GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

PART THREE

The Power of Emotional Rhetoric Shamelessly Exploited to Undermine the Second Amendment

People like New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo and Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), know full well the power of rhetoric. And, as they are well versed in it, they know how to use it. They know the power of persuasion. They know how to woo some members of the public—those susceptible to their vitriolic, superficial, and specious polemics. They have mastered well the art of rhetoric and they know well the power of fallacious argumentation.Cuomo and Swalwell appeal unashamedly, unabashedly, and irresponsibly to raw emotion rather than to reason as they impose their personal abhorrence of guns onto an ill-informed public. And these sanctimonious fomenters of public guilt, don’t stop there. Cuomo and Swalwell attempt to foster a sense of collective guilt in gun owners as a class; simultaneously and deliberately rousing rage in the antigun mob against guns and gun owners. Cuomo and Swalwell strongly suggest that gun owners bear a measure of responsibility for every horrific act of gun violence that occurs. And that, too, is in vein with their vision for this Country--an enclave of Socialism. Socialism, as conceived today, embraces a broad  economic, social, political, and cultural belief system predicated on the tenets of Collectivism. The tenets of Collectivism do not cohere with the notion of a fundamental right of the American citizenry to keep and bear arms, independent of Government say-so. And, those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism, such as Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell, do not accept the Lockean view that there exists a set of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights inherent in the people--rights that exist independent of and that therefore, in the purest sense, transcend all Governmental authority to prescribe, regulate, ignore, amend, or abrogate. One such fundamental, natural, unalienable, sacred right, intrinsic to and inviolate in each American citizen is the one codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Concomitant with their belief in the tenets of Collectivism, as a product of economic and political Socialism, Cuomo and Swalwell attempt to create, in the gun-owning public, a sense of collective guilt, for having—as Cuomo and Swalwell see it—the temerity to dare exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Cuomo and Swalwell create myths surrounding guns and gun ownership. They audaciously argue that it is the gun, itself, an inanimate object, rather than the sentient miscreant--the lunatic or the criminal--who bears moral responsibility for gun violence. Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, including the Press, seek, by extension, to assign and cast moral and legal blame, too, for gun violence to those who revere the Second Amendment--namely NRA, its members, and anyone else who seeks to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Through their appeal to emotion, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and others like them, attempt to foment societal rage against both guns and the gun-owning public. These new modern-day witch-hunting moralists, seek to burn both guns and gun owners at the stake for having dared to revere, even adore, the Bill of Rights that the framers lovingly bequeathed to the American people for the very purpose of securing, for the American people, freedom and liberty, against tyranny. But, it is tyranny that Cuomo and Swalwell want, and it is tyranny upon the American people that the American people will most certainly get, if Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, prove successful in foisting on the American people, a vision of the world at odds with the vision of the founders and one the founders sought to cement through the creation of a system of checks and balances in Government; and through incorporation into the Constitution--the blueprint for the new Nation they had conceived--a set of natural, fundamental, unalienable rights: codified in a document called the Bill of Rights. But, if the Collectivists' vision for this Nation takes root, Americans will see the realization of that vision decimate all that our founders created and that so many in our Nation had given their lives to preserve.  As a dense thicket of weeds overtakes and squeezes out a carefully planted and tended garden, we will see all that our founders held dear smothered and blotted out.The destroyers of our Nation--these callous, pretentious grand inquisitors, Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell--will not hesitate to impose harsh punishment on each gun owner who fails to surrender their firearms to Governmental authority. And Americans would see this if the machinery of mass confiscation of guns that Cuomo and Swalwell, and that others like them, seek, were implemented.And implementation of the Collectivists' design for a new America—a new Collectivist world order—will be set in motion if these Democratic Socialists (as they apparently prefer to call themselves) ever gain the reins of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government.

The Power of Appealing to Emotion Over Reason

The ancient Greek philosophers—whom the founders of our free Republic clearly were certainly mindful of and clearly held in great esteem, and for whom our moral philosophy derives—referred to the fallacy of appealing to emotion as “argumentum ad misericordiam.” The Greeks knew that rhetoric devoid of reason is dangerous because of its very power to persuade the unwary. We see constant use of this fallacy by unscrupulous politicians today. With a deceptive air, along with a curt smile, or grimace, these politicians deliberately mislead the public. They do this to encourage the public to accept, as good, and virtuous, and well-meaning, policy that is, in fact, pernicious; policy that is detrimental to Americans’ well-being, and to the well-being of the Nation.Those Americans who are easily moved by emotion have shown themselves to be sensitive to and amenable to the efforts of Cuomo and Swalwell to rein in this presumed plague of guns in America. Unfortunately, there are plenty of them. If Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell succeed—and with their comrades in the mainstream media to assist them in their endeavor--they may yet succeed, albeit not without an ensuing bloodbath. Of that Cuomo and Swalwell, and other antigun zealots, would do well to consider.Will the Collectivists win? Will the Second Amendment teeter and, ultimately, fall? Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and other Collectivists like them, would be ecstatic when or if that happens; and they are doing everything in their power to see that it does happen. Those who hold the Bill of Rights most dear must see to it that it doesn’t.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT MAKES CLEAR: AMERICANS ARE NOT SUBSERVIENT TO GOVERNMENT

PART TWO

THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE  BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS UNIQUE; NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH TRUSTS ITS CITIZENRY; THUS, NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH, BUT THE UNITED STATES, WILL DARE PLACE TRUST IN AN ARMED CITIZENRY

No other Nation on Earth accepts the notion that its citizens—in many instances today, as in times past, more in the nature of “subjects of the realm” and less true citizens—have an inherent, independent right to keep and bear arms. But, the founders of our Nation conceived Americans as individuals who have their own personal needs and desires; their own individual hopes and dreams. The founders perceived each American to be a unique individual soul. They understood that each life is ordained and governed by the Divine Creator, not by the State. And they crafted a free Republic consistent with that belief. Government exists to serve the American citizen. The American citizen does not exist to serve Government.Americans, as individuals, are not an amorphous collective, to be shepherded and controlled with an iron fist. The founders recognized that a constitution for a new nation must be carefully crafted to uphold and respect the sanctity of the individual, lest the nation devolve into tyranny—the yoke of which the founders had fought hard to throw off, and which they certainly had no wish to impose anew on the fledgling Nation they sought to erect.The principle of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual over that of the societal collective was, for the founders of a Free Republic, self-evident, true. That salient principle is reflected in and manifested in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. No other Nation on this Earth has a Bill of Rights like ours--a Bill of Rights that makes clear that the Government of this Nation is subordinate to and subservient to the will of the American people; always and forever. In the event those who wield power in Government happen to think otherwise, or happen to forget this salient fact, the Second Amendment exists as an ever-present reminder to Government officials and legislators of that salient fact. This is the salient reason why the Radical Left is intent on destroying the Second Amendment, although failing to omit this important fact or otherwise dismissing it out-of-hand if anyone happens to bring the matter up; but that is the Radical Left's true fear; that is the Radical Left's ever-present concern: that an armed citizenry can bring their House of Cards down  and would do so if the Radical Left were ever to move this Country toward Dictatorial rule.So it is, that politicians such as New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo, and Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA)--and other politicians or Government bureaucrats like these two, as well as those who work for the mainstream media, or who are employed in our system of education, or those, unfortunately, who serve as judges in our State or Federal Courts--incessantly, ferociously attack the Second Amendment, acting as if seemingly oblivious to the true import and purport of the Second Amendment, but clearly all too aware of it. This explains the Radical left's single-minded obsession with it and the heavy-handed efforts to defeat it. The Radical Left uses the mantras of "public safety" and "gun violence" to make its goal of de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, deceptively, "disarmingly" plausible and palatable to the citizenry so that it acquiesces, blindly, willingly; surrendering its firearms; ceding its Birthright to the Radical Left. Thus, the total disarming of the American citizenry proceeds, without a whimper; or, so the Radical Left believes and hopes.These politicians, pundits, educators, and jurists intend, unabashedly, to upend the very integrity and structural foundation of our Nation. They do so by masking their policy objectives in the guise of promoting the public good. But, through that very argument—denigrating the Second Amendment to promote and protect the welfare of society—the deviousness and insidiousness of their objectives become readily apparent. They seek to reconfigure the Nation into a societal collective, a dictatorship of a kind; one that many on the Left euphemistically, slyly, and disingenuously, refer to as “Democratic Socialism” --an expression coined merely to mask a demonic vision that is the antithesis of anything the founders of this Nation had sought for the Nation but which the radical Left in this Country intends to thrust upon this Nation anyway. Is it any wonder, then, that this radical Left would seek to destroy our Nation's heritage and history, that it would demand the dismantling of our statues and monuments, and that it would dare reserve for itself the right to declare what constitutes acceptable speech and conduct and what does not, lest our descendants recognize the true extent of their loss, and thereupon rightfully begrudge those who had so unceremoniously stolen their birthright?In the new America the radical Left in this Country conceives, there is no place for an armed citizenry. There is no protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. There is no room for individuals to speak their mind, freely and openly. Even the concept of personal property would rest on shaky ground as that concept is inconsistent with the precepts of socialism.These so-called Democratic Socialists are proponents of Collectivism, not Individualism. They argue that the needs and well-being of Society as a Whole, the Collective, is more important than the needs, the desires, the will of the individual American citizen. As they are aware that the goals and aims of the Collective are often at odds with the goals and aims of the Individual, these Collectivists--these so-called Democratic Socialists--show no reluctance in constraining and restraining the needs and desires of the Individual. The founders of our free Republic would vehemently disagree with the goals, beliefs, and predilections of these Collectivists. They would, in fact, be aghast.The Bill of Rights stands as a testament to the founders’ belief in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual over that of the Collective; over that of the herd. It should come as no surprise, then, as we see these Collectivists, the Radical Left in this Country, criticizing the Bill of Rights, attempting to second-guess the framers' reason for incorporating it into the Constitution, as a salient, critical part of it.The precepts and principles of Collectivism are inconsistent with the very existence of our Bill of Rights, as a clear and categorical codification of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights. So, the Bill of Rights is slowly being criticized, and portions, like the Second Amendment, in particular, reviled. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution is sacred to the radical Left. Every part of the Constitution is subject to criticism, change, withering, even abrogation.The Collectivists are openly critical of the very idea that certain rights--indeed, that any right--is to be, or can rationally be deemed natural, fundamental, and unalienable. For them all rights are created by and therefore bestowed on the citizenry by Government. And, what Government bestows on a person is  solely within the prerogative of Government, according to the Collectivist belief system, to take away.Thus, Collectivists relentlessly attack the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They are adamant in their refusal to accept the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists-- or is even capable of existing--independent of Government authorization.But, there is reason why Collectivists refuse to countenance the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, and immutable, quite apart from their rejection of natural law. To the Collectivist, an armed citizenry is an inherent danger to Society. As the Collectivist theorizes, a safe and secure society is one under absolute Governmental control, one under constant supervision and surveillance. So Collectivists remonstrate not only against the existence of an armed citizenry but against the right of unconstrained freedom of speech and freedom of association. And, they attack the basic idea that the American citizen has an unalienable right to be secure in their person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. Collectivists place their sole faith and trust in Government, not in the citizenry. They presume that the citizen cannot be trusted. Contrariwise, the founders placed trust in and their faith in the individual, a sentient being endowed with an immortal soul, by a Divine, Loving Creator. For the founders, it is, then, Government that should not, and cannot be trusted. Thus, the founders designed and implemented a Constitution establishing a Government of limited power, authority, and reach; incorporating into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, setting forth an expansive set of fundamental, natural, and immutable rights and liberties to be retained solely by the people, in the people themselves, beyond the power of Government to diminish or abrogate.The Collectivists in this Country are, however, humbled and respectful not at all by the singular achievement of our Nation's founders. These Collectivists are actively pursuing an agenda aimed at undoing a Constitutional Republic, grounded in a Constitution that has served the American people well for over two hundred years, and they are absolutely committed to seeing their bizarre vision for this Country come to fruition. We must make sure they don't succeed.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUN CONTROL IS A MYTH: THE SECOND AMENDMENT STANDS STRONG OR NOT AT ALL

IS LOSS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A PRICE TOO HIGH? FOR DEMOCRATS IT ISN'T. JUST ASK THEM.

PART ONE

“I know that the issue of gun control is hard. . . . I know it's political. I know it's controversial. I say to you, forget the extremists! It's simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer, and too many innocent people have died already! End this madness — now!” ~ Quotation from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State speech, delivered on January 10, 2013, five days before he signed the New York Safe Act into law, asserting his fervent hope that the New York gun control Act will produce the "toughest assault weapons ban in the nation." “Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.” ~Quotation from Op-Ed by Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat-California, published in USA Today, on May 3, 2018; urging for a mandatory and universal ban on “assault weapons.” Never in the history of this Nation have we, Americans, seen such blatant, such willful, such outrageous and confounding assaults on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution as we have seen during the first two decades of the 21^st Century. This essential unalienable right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a statement at once succinct, categorical, and clear—serves as the linchpin and cornerstone of our free Republic. The Second Amendment is an ever-present reminder that Government serves at the behest of the American people; not at its own pleasure for its own benefit; for its own aims.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE CORNERSTONE OF AMERICAN LIBERTY

The Second Amendment serves a threefold purpose. One, it signals, and is meant to signal, to Government, that ultimate power and authority resides in the American people, not in Government; never in Government. Two, the Second Amendment operates as an omnipresent reminder to those who serve in Government—and who, either through deliberate design and chicanery or through mere reckless conduct, oppress the American citizenry and who seek to impose tyranny on the American people—that Americans have, by dint of force of arms, both the means and the moral obligation to reclaim power from usurpers. And, three, the Second Amendment encapsulates the immutable idea of the sanctity, autonomy, dignity, and inviolability of each American citizen. What does this third salient point mean? Just this: it means each of us is ultimately responsible for his or her life, safety and well-being, and each of us is responsible for his or her own happiness.The ownership and possession of firearms is a potent symbol of the value the founders of a free Republic placed on the worth of each American. This fact isn’t lost on the radical Left in this Country that seeks to divide Americans into specious groups comprising "victims" and "those who would enslave them." It does this to play one group off against the other. It is a game the radical Left invented. It is called, “identity politics.” But, why is the radical Left employing this, and who is really behind the radical Left’s efforts?Consider: There exist individuals in the world, today, who have amassed vast wealth. That wealth is concentrated in but a few hands. These individuals also wield immense power; and they exert that influence in business, in our institutions of government, in our institution of education and in the massive media sector. They perceive the U.S. Constitution to be inimical to their goal—the goal of a one world government, grounded in one uniform political, financial, social, cultural, educational, and legal system of governance. They see the United States, a Nation of great military might, as one with great potential for them—one that can serve them well. But there is a catch. The U.S. Constitution does not permit subordination of the United States to any other Nation, group of Nations, or interest groups. That presents a problem for them. They see the mass of humanity as an inchoate, mindless, dangerous elemental force of nature; less governed by reason; and more by instinct. They see this unruly elemental force of nature as one requiring constant control, guidance, supervision and structure: top to bottom rule. That portends absolute subjugation of a free people, and an open invitation to tyranny.These secretive, powerful, ruthless overseers that seek to control the lives, actions, and thoughts of Americans will not, cannot abide an American citizenry that has, as a matter of right, access to firearms. So, they denigrate the Second Amendment. They have determined that Americans must be reeducated; they must learn to view gun ownership and possession as a vestige of an earlier time, an earlier age, no longer necessary or acceptable in a modern “civilized” age of globalization and neoliberalism, over which they, alone, seek to rule, and to rule with an iron fist.The arguments against firearms ownership and possession are delivered endlessly and vociferously to the public. The arguments are delivered through both a compliant Press and through accommodating politicians. That is how propaganda works; and it has, unfortunately, worked well on many Americans. But it is a long, tedious, drawn-out process. The overseers of a new transnational system of governance have patience, but their patience is growing thin, and they are adopting new, ever more egregious methods such as boycotts and direct legal actions against gun manufacturers. And, they are contriving new ways to attack NRA, and they are attempting to drive a wedge between NRA and its members—millions of Americans.Through a miscarriage of justice, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in the recent case, Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC, 331 Conn. 53, 202 A.3d 262 (Conn. 2019), overturned the comprehensive well-reasoned decision of the lower Connecticut Superior Court. The State Supreme Court ruled that Party Plaintiffs— comprising survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the estates of those murdered by the lunatic, Adam Lanza, can proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer, even in the absence of privity between the gun manufacturer and plaintiffs. That Plaintiffs may proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer turns products liability law and the law of torts on its head. The decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court is also inconsistent with federal law. The case is an egregious example of Courts legislating from the Bench. Those jurists who detest the very existence of the Second Amendment, do not hesitate to use their judicial powers to subvert the Second Amendment.If plaintiffs prevail in their lawsuit, gun manufacturers may very well go out of business. The Soto case poses a serious challenge to the Second Amendment. The case is likely to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichever side prevails in it. If the high Court takes the case, the decision that is handed down will have the most serious impact on the import and purport of the Second Amendment since the  seminal 2008 Heller case and the subsequent seminal 2010 McDonald case. The Arbalest Quarrel will, in a subsequent article, provide a comprehensive analysis of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, given its singular importance and significance.Apart from use of the courts to subvert the Second Amendment, antigun groups are waging war on the Second Amendment on the legislative front, both in Congress and in the States. The attack being waged against the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Congress and in the State Legislatures, on the one hand, and in the State and Federal Courts, on the other hand, constitutes two simultaneous avenues of direct assault on our sacred Second Amendment.If a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, expect to see the Second Amendment attacked by the new Chief Executive, issuing a flurry of executive orders to curtail exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. Obama attempted to do that. Hillary Clinton would have continued to do so had she prevailed in the 2016 election. And, a Democrat holding the Oval Office in 2020, will most certainly continue that effort. No doubt about it.Candidates running for the Democratic Party nomination have made their strong antipathy toward the Second Amendment plain. In fact, at a recent CNN sponsored Town Hall event, as reported in Newsweek, Democratic Party candidate, Kamala Harris, stated, in no uncertain terms: “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.”Misuse of the Office of the U.S. President by the Democratic (Socialist) Party would constitute yet a third front against the Second Amendment; worse yet for the American people if Democrats secure majorities in both the House and Senate in 2020. This scourge of Democrats, and those who support them--those who rail vehemently, endlessly, sanctimoniously against our Nation, against our Nation's unique history, against our rich cultural heritage, against our Judeo-Christian ethic, and against our sacrosanct and inviolate Constitution--must be thwarted. We stand to lose everything we hold most dear if we fail.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANDREW CUOMO SEEKS TO IMPOSE NEW YORK'S RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS ON THE ENTIRE NATION

In November 2018 an elated New York Times reported that Andrew M. Cuomo had secured a third term in Office as Governor of New York. The newspaper asserted, with typical exuberance and fanfare, that:“In defeating Marcus J. Molinaro, the Dutchess County executive, Mr. Cuomo, 60, soaked up the vast majority of votes in New York City, mirroring his success in the September primary, in which he defeated Cynthia Nixon, the actress and education advocate. The race was called by The Associated Press shortly after polls had closed at 9 p.m.Addressing a crowd gathered at a Midtown hotel, Mr. Cuomo said that his victory symbolized the liberal ways of New York, which he called the ‘progressive capital’ of the nation and a fortress against the policies of Donald Trump, a New Yorker himself."Andrew Cuomo—never one to exercise humility and restraint either in words spoken or in actions taken—has shaped and molded New York into his own image, a bastion of Left-wing ideology, increasingly out-of-touch with the Nation at large, and a slap-in-the-face to the vision our founders had for the Nation. Yet, what he has wrought upon the people of New York, he would dare impose on the entire Nation.In the last few months since the election, Cuomo has become increasingly emboldened. And, why shouldn’t he be emboldened? After all, as the Democratic Party has lurched ever Leftward, openly extolling the tenets of Socialism and Communism, and exhorting the Nation to follow suit, Cuomo has made abundantly clear that his own star must continue to rise.Indeed, The New York Times suggested, in its Sunday March 10, 2019 edition, titled, “Centrist Democrats Squirm as Rivals Swerve left in Presidential Race,” that Andrew Cuomo may be one of two logical choices to wear “the moderate mantle” as Democratic Party Presidential hopeful, now that former mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has bowed out of the race, and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden presently remains undecided.Yet, if Andrew Cuomo can reasonably be considered a political moderate or centrist, it goes to show just how far off the deep end the Democratic Party has fallen. Or, perhaps, The New York Times simply seeks to create the impression that Cuomo is a stalwart, solid, and stolid political moderate or centrist, knowing that an outright Socialist such as Bernie Sanders would not likely pull-off a victory against Trump in 2020.The fact remains that Andrew Cuomo is no less a Left-wing radical than is Bernie Sanders or Cory Booker, or Kamala Harris, or Kristen Gillibrand. Andrew Cuomo is as radical in his politics and in his policy choices as they are. He is as radical as they come. Simply look at the New York policy measures that Cuomo campaigned for and that he signed into law. Consider: Cuomo was instrumental in signing into law, in February 2019, an abortion measure that literally sanctions murder. Even pro-choice Americans look askance at late term abortions, much less abortions at the moment of birth, but not Andrew Cuomo.Keep in mind that the very word, ‘abortion,’ has literally been written out of New York’s Penal Code. Given that fact, it follows from this action, both logically and legally, that abortion at any time, up to and including the moment of birth, is now in effect lawful, even if apologists for the law, insist that isn’t the case at all. It is. Since no penalty is exacted from the perpetrator of an abortion, effectively, then, no crime exists upon which the perpetrator of the act can be indicted. This New York law that Cuomo gloats over is hardly representative of a political moderate or political centrist.But if you were to ask him, Andrew Cuomo would likely tell you that he is a political moderate. He would tell you, consistent with his belief—or, if not, then, consistent, at least, with his claim, hoping you would believe him—that his political views and policy objectives are clearly within the mainstream of the Country even if they really aren’t. And, of course, they aren’t. New York’s abortion law is a prime example. Take another: Cuomo’s continued assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.In 2018, during his campaign for a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo, made clear that the New York Safe Act—what he and others would claim as his true signature achievement—was not the endgame; not by a longshot. It is but a mere skirmish in Cuomo’s ongoing campaign to weaken the Second Amendment, and eventually to obliterate it. He would if he could do so in New York, and he would relish doing the same well beyond the borders of New York, namely, throughout the Nation.The weblog, Spectrum Local News reported that, during his campaign for a third term in Office, “Cuomo has not just defended his staunch support for gun control, he’s pledging to expand the existing law.” If anyone were to think this was an empty campaign pledge, think again. It wasn’t. Cuomo was deadly serious. In January of 2019, as reported by Hudson Valley 360, Cuomo, “announced plans . . .  to increase gun control within the first 100 days of the new legislative session,” and he further chortled, “‘New York already has the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, and we are taking additional steps to make our laws even stronger and keep our communities, and our schools, safe. Together, we will pass this common sense legislation and send a clear message to Washington that gun violence has no place in our state or nation.’”To some, this may be viewed as a hopeful promise. But, to the vast majority of the Nation's citizenry this is a singular, dire threat that must be taken seriously and fought ferociously against.Now that Democrats control both the New York Assembly and the New York State Senate, Governor Cuomo is able to make good on that frightful promise. But, one may well ask: why would Cuomo do so; why would he think it necessary to do so? What would that really accomplish other than making it increasingly onerous, if not impossible, for the average law-abiding New York resident and citizen of the United States to exercise his or her fundamental right, under the Second Amendment? But, then, is not that really the point? Is not that really Cuomo’s ultimate objective: the dissolution of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? And, Is not that a primary goal of all radical Leftists?Of course no one can, with a straight face, argue that New York’s present gun laws are lenient, relaxed, or sensible. New York's gun laws--especially those in New York City, and in a couple of New York's Counties--are anything but lenient and relaxed; And those gun laws are anything but ‘sensible’—to use a common appellation of antigun zealots, in reference to their constant call for ever more “sensible gun control” measures. No! New York has long had the most restrictive and oppressive firearms’ laws in the Nation. Antigun groups revel in that fact. Apparently, Cuomo and others of his ilk do not think that New York’s restrictive gun laws are oppressive and repressive enough. They look forward to building upon the NY Safe Act, devising ever further ways in which to confound, antagonize, and demoralize law-abiding citizens who wish merely to be left alone; free to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed to the Nation's citizenry in the Nation's Bill of Rights.

THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT IS A TRAVESTY.

Recall that, in 2013, Cuomo machinated behind closed doors, to instigate enactment of the reprehensible New York Safe Act, which otherwise certainly would not have been enacted. For the NY Safe Act could not have been enacted—likely would not have been enacted—if it had seen the light of day. The Act should have been debated in open session by all Legislators, Republican and Democrat, and the public should have been able to review it and comment on it. After all, isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work? But, what we see in the New York Safe Act is reprehensible. It is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment and inconsistent with the very idea of the sanctity and autonomy of the individual American citizen. Cuomo and those who detest the Second Amendment knew that the NY Safe Act could not, likely, survive legislative and public scrutiny. Subterfuge was necessary for NY Safe to be enacted.But, subterfuge is not the way to enact law. That is not how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to operate. But, that is how the Governor of New York operates and that is how his henchmen in Albany operate. And, to add insult to injury, the Governor and his henchmen in Albany rejoice in their ability to circumvent the law, to attain the aims they wish to attain, the public be damned. To this day the Governor and his comrades in Albany boast of their ability to operate within the periphery of the legislative process to get done those things they want to get done. And, the mainstream media, the echo chamber of these radical Leftist elements, gloats along with them.The New York Times gleefully writes: “The governor successfully corralled recalcitrant Senate Republicans into supporting the so-called Safe Act that expanded the state’s ban on assault weapons, tightened certification requirements, increased criminal penalties for illegal guns and closed private sale loopholes.”  And, so, the NY Safe Act, 2013 Bill Text NY S.B. 2230,was spawned; enacted in Albany, as an “emergency measure,” and signed into law by Cuomo, during his second term as New York Governor, on January 15, 2013.With passage of the New York Safe Act in 2013, New York’s already restrictive gun laws became more restrictive as more and more firearms were classified as illegal ‘assault weapons.’ The Safe Act also imposed new restrictions on ammunition magazine capacity. But that’s not all. The Safe Act did not limit its reach to restrictions to firearms and ammunition.The Act imposed ominous disclosure requirements on health care professionals, impinging uncomfortably on the privilege of confidentiality existent between medical doctor and patient. The Safe Act even imposed new obligations on the Courts, taking judicial discretion away from the Courts on matters involving revocation and suspension of firearms’ licenses and rifle and shotgun permits. And, new, stringent penalties were imposed on law-abiding gun owners who failed to comply with the convoluted new antigun laws, permeating through the Consolidated Laws of New York.Cuomo and the antigun crowd in Albany are fully enamored with themselves. And, with each success, in robbing Americans of their birthright, they consider yet other and more devious ways to divest the public of their sacred right to keep and bear arms, as they escalate their war on the Second Amendment. With Democrats now holding majorities in the New York Assembly and in the State Senate, the State’s antigun Legislators have unleashed a flurry of antigun measures in the first month of 2019:As reported by The Evening Sun newspaper, on January 29, 2019,“The Democrat-controlled New York Legislature is set Tuesday to pass several bills aimed at making the state’s already tough gun laws even stricter. At least eight measures are expected to pass the Assembly and Senate, including legislation to prohibit schools from allowing teachers and other school employees to carry guns in schools.” While Cuomo muscles through his antigun legislation in Albany, he suffers not any attempt by Republican Legislators to enact legislation that might throw a wrench into his policy objectives; he suffers not any attempt by those in Albany who seek to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2017 the liberal weblog, Politico, reported that State Representative Chris Collins, a Republican from Buffalo, New York, attempted to do just that. He introduced legislation to curtail Cuomo’s Safe Act in its entirety. Governor Cuomo was petulant, stating:“‘If they try to overrule the state of New York, we will sue, because the state has rights, too,’ Cuomo said. ‘And especially with this federal government, it’s very important that the states represent their rights and assert their rights. And I will assert my right to the fullest extent of the law, because I am diametrically opposed and the people of my state are diametrically opposed to much of what this federal government is trying to do.’” Undeterred, Representative Collins fired back,“‘The 10th Amendment respects state’s rights until they violate another amendment,’ Collins said at a press conference, flanked by several state legislators. ‘We’re not going to let them stomp on our right to the Second Amendment.’”State Representative Collins is right. He might also have reminded the Governor that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The U.S. Supreme Court made that point abundantly clear in the seminal Heller case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). And, in the subsequent McDonald case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), the high Court held that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment, applies to the States too. That means the Second Amendment applies to New York. Cuomo apparently doesn’t think so, or would rather that it did not because, if Cuomo is aware of that the Second Amendment applies to New York, he couldn’t care less. He will not allow a fundamental right of the people get in the way of his policy objectives.

COULD A TENTH AMENDMENT LEGAL GAMBIT WORK TO SECURE THE NY SAFE ACT AGAINST A SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO REPEAL THE ACT LEGISLATIVELY?

Cuomo’s threat to kill an attempt to waylay the New York Safe Act via a Tenth Amendment challenge could not succeed were Representative Collins successful in repealing the New York Safe Act. Perhaps, Cuomo knows this. But, apart from Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment challenge, it was Collin’s remarks, alone, that Cuomo took particular exception to. Cuomo didn’t like what he heard. Cuomo could not stomach what he perceived to be Collins’ audacious assault on the Governor’s signature gun policy achievement. And, Cuomo didn’t like the tacit idea expressed in Representative Collins’ remarks, namely, that a cause supportive of the Second Amendment might be seen by the public as a noble effort.Cuomo finds most disconcerting that he cannot obliterate the Second Amendment at once, but must do so incrementally. Yet, Republican Legislators and Second Amendment groups are, as well, left, at best, to attempt to defeat an oppressive, unconstitutional Act through piecemeal efforts, tinkering around the Act’s edges to weaken a swollen monstrosity, even as Cuomo and fellow antigun zealots seek to add to an already bloated set of repressive anti-Second Amendment measures that, together, constitute, the New York Safe Act.To date, Republican actions have yielded little positive result, as the bulk of the NY Safe Act remains untouched, seemingly impervious to assault. And Cuomo, for his part, with Democratic Party majorities in both the Assembly and in the State Senate, are better situated to enact further oppressive and repressive antigun laws.But, contrary to Cuomo’s assertions, States cannot justifiably claim a general right under the Tenth Amendment to strip the fundamental right existent in each individual citizen, as codified in the Second Amendment. State Representative Collins correctly and unambiguously points out, a Tenth Amendment States’ rights claim does not trump the Second Amendment right existent in each American citizen. Collins is absolutely correct on that score.  Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not simply refer to States’ rights. It also refers to rights held by the people. The Tenth Amendment sets forth: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  Like all too many politicians, Andrew Cuomo demonstrates a proclivity toward duplicity and incongruity, along with a barely concealed tendency to exact revenge, through the power of his Office, against those he perceives have offended him. And, so it is that Cuomo dares to threaten a lawsuit against State Legislators who would take action to repeal a State law that Cuomo happens to champion.In threatening a Tenth Amendment States’ rights challenge against State Representative Collins and anyone else who would dare repeal the New York Safe Act, Cuomo is also relying on, albeit tacitly, the doctrine of federalism that demarcates power between the Federal Government and the States. But does the doctrine of federalism apply here? No, it doesn’t. Federalism doesn’t apply because Representative Collins isn’t operating at the behest of the Federal Government in challenging the Constitutionality of the New York Safe Act. He is acting as a State Legislator, on behalf of those American citizens who happen to be New York residents, and he is representing the interests of the residents of the City of Buffalo, who elected him to represent their interests.So, in challenging the constitutionality of NY Safe, Representative Collins is operating within the confines of the State to protect citizens who reside in New York, in order to protect their Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Andrew Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment threat directed against New York Representative Collins is both wrong and wrongheaded.The States’ rights aspect of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply here since, one, the Tenth Amendment protects the right of the people too, not merely rights of the States, and, two, because States’ rights do not, in any event, supersede the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. And, the doctrine of federalism isn’t applicable here, either, because NY Safe does not apply to the Nation at large. It applies only to the residents of New York, and it as an unconstitutional Governmental action against the residents of New York, alone, whom the Act targets, and it is interests of New York residents that that Representative Collins’ has sought, then, to protect and vindicate.Governor Cuomo, for his part, though, doesn’t bother to consider all the negative ramifications of the Tenth Amendment that work against him and he doesn’t consider the negative ramifications of the doctrine of Federalism when it comes to expanding NY Safe to the entire Nation. Cuomo has been quite vocal and blunt on this. The State of Politics weblog, points to Cuomo’s position on this:“The rest of the country should take up legislation similar to the SAFE Act gun control measure approved in 2013 in New York.” “In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, New York did more than send our thoughts and prayers,” Cuomo said in a statement. “‘We stepped up to pass the strongest gun safety legislation in the nation. The SAFE Act didn’t affect sportsmen, hunters or legal gun owners—but it reduced the risk to our children, to our families and to our communities. It banned assault weapons like AR-15s and kept guns out of the hands of dangerously mentally ill people. It’s far past time that the rest of the nation follows suit.’Cuomo has previously urged Democrats in Congress to take a more truculent stance on the issue of gun control.” So, even as Andrew Cuomo dares threaten a States’ rights Tenth Amendment challenge against Representative Chris Collins, Andrew Cuomo seems curiously blasé about a true States’ rights challenge that any other State could raise against Congress were Congress to attempt to impose the New York Safe Act on every other State, which is precisely what Congress and Cuomo would like to do. Cuomo is hardly the States’ right advocate he pretends to be when it is his intention to impose New York law, especially, the New York Safe Act, on everyone else.

ANDREW CUOMO "PROJECTS" HIS PERSONAL FAILINGS ONTO OTHERS.

The psychological defense mechanism of projection comes into play when one looks to the Governor Cuomo’s chicanery and antics. Cuomo constantly projects his own moral deficiencies onto those whom he happens to disagree with.The weblog, “The Rant” reports that,“Cuomo has used the gun control issue to knock Republicans.‘They have a different world view of America. They are systemically trying to impose their world view on this country,’ said Cuomo.”

WHO IS IMPOSING WHAT ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Cuomo is wrong about Republicans. Republicans aren’t trying to impose a world view of America at all. Republicans—many of them at least—simply seek to adhere to the vision of America as conceived by the founders of our Republic, as set down in the blueprint of our Nation, our Constitution. It is Cuomo and other extremists in the Democratic Party, both in Congress, and in States such as New York, who are hellbent on imposing their world view on the rest of us, in contradistinction to the dictates of the United States Constitution. What they seek is a world view at loggerheads with the will of the majority of the Nation’s citizenry and one singularly at odds with the traditions of our forebears.The recent antigun legislation coming out of the Democratic Party controlled House is a prime example of the Democrats’ rancor toward our Nation’s history, our Nation’s traditions, and our Nation’s core values. Consider the outrageous: For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1. A perusal of the Act, aptly illustrates just how out-of-touch the Democratic Party is with the American citizenry. Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, stated that the For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1, is dead on arrival in the Senate, as is the House antigun, Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, H.R. 8.But the Democratic Party controlled House isn’t done. The public can expect to see a plethora of unconstitutional laws oozing out of Congress in the months ahead, along with unconstitutional laws emanating from Democratic Party controlled State Governments, such as New York. The U.S. Senate will likely kill all or most Congressional bills coming out of the House. And, those that do make it out of Congress will surely see a Trump veto. But, for State Legislatures that hold Democratic Party majorities, and where the Governor of the State is also a Democrat—as is the case in New York—the people of those States will continue to suffer the evisceration of their fundamental rights.

WILL THE BILL OF RIGHTS TRULY CONTINUE TO EXIST, AND WILL THE UNITED STATES CONTINUE TRULY TO EXIST AS THE NATION’S FOUNDERS ENVISIONED IT, AS A FREE REPUBLIC, OR WILL THE NATION EXIST MERELY WITH THE TRAPPINGS OF A FREE REPUBLIC AND WITH MERELY THE TRAPPINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXISTENT IN THE PEOPLE?

As the Late Eighteenth-Early Nineteenth Century French Philosopher and Diplomat, Joseph de Maistre, said, “Every Nation Gets the Government, It deserves.”  This means the people of a Nation ultimately decide on the form of their Government, and must accept the result of a bad choice.The founders of our Nation carefully considered various models for Government. They created a Constitutional Republic. They realized that Government is best that serves the people, and not the other way around. They fought to overthrow an oppressor,George III of Great Britain.They were successful. But, in creating a new Nation, they did not wish to substitute one oppressor for yet another. So, they established a federal Government with limited, circumscribed powers; and they incorporated into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, codifying fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties upon which Government cannot, must not tread. The Bill of Rights makes clear that ultimate authority rests with the people, not Government. Thus, was the framework for a new Nation established.But, there are ruthless, inordinately wealthy, very well-organized, and extremely powerful forces at work today, both here and abroad, that look on our Nation and its people with jealous eyes. They seek to destroy the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ that the President, Donald Trump was elected, by the people, to preserve, and which he has worked tirelessly to preserve even as there are those hell-bent to destroy both him and his Administration.What we see occurring in the EU can unfold here in the U.S. There are powerful ruthless forces at work that seek to insert the U.S. eventually into a unified trans-world government. They realize that the United States, with the most powerful military apparatus in the world and with its mighty economic clout, must submit to this new trans-world government, if they are to succeed in their effort to consolidate power in a one world Government. They cannot succeed unless they bring the U.S. into its fold. These ruthless forces have control over our Press that actively misleads the people, distorting the news, creating false narratives, and they have their flunkies in Congress and in the vast Government Bureaucracy.The American people are becoming indoctrinated; are becoming predisposed to elect the kinds of people in both Congress and in State Government, who seek nothing less than the dismantling of our Constitutional Republic; who see our Constitution, with its predominant Bill of Rights, as a relic of a bygone age; and they seek to radically alter our Constitution, and, in so doing, radically alter the foundation of a free Republic.We see this through blatant efforts to rewrite the Constitution; attempts to weaken the unalienable right of free Speech as codified in the First Amendment; attempts to obliterate the unalienable right of the people to keep in bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment; attempts to weaken the unalienable right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as codified in the Fourth Amendment; and attempts to defeat the very concept of ‘private property,’ as embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.We see attempts by these new representatives in Congress, and in the States, as echoed by a compliant Press, to admit into the ranks of the citizenry, millions of illegal aliens who have no understanding of a Constitutional Republic, who cannot assimilate, and who are not meant to assimilate. They are people who mystifyingly claim a right to reside in our Nation in defiance of our laws. These are people who seek Government largess in return for their vote and the radical Left that has infiltrated the Democratic Party is ever willing to give them tokens in return for their unswerving loyalty.We see attempts to do away with the electoral college as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. And, we see attempts to rewrite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution, with an aim to increase the number of representatives in left leaning States. Were these efforts to come to fruition, the Constitutional Republic as conceived by the founders of our Nation, would cease to exist. Yet, the public is led to believe that all this is for their own benefit; that it is all for their own good; that it is for the well-being of society as a whole; that it is for the welfare of the collective, even as it comes to the detriment of the individual.But, a Government created to serve the people would mushroom into the overseer of the people. And this would be explained to the people as a good thing. The world is complex, they say. The people need guidance. Government must not be constrained. The Government can provide the best care for the people. People must simply be willing to give up a few of their rights and liberties—no big thing!Is there a price high enough that a person would willingly sell their soul? Some would do so. More and more members of the public are becoming hoodwinked.Until the electorate in our Nation comes to its senses, expect to see individuals like Andrew Cuomo and many others contorting this Nation into their vision of a proper world; proper for Cuomo and other radical Leftists, perhaps, but a living Hell for most everyone else: a Hell world as conceived in the radical Left’s own tortured, warped souls, and in their own feverish minds; a world they would force everyone else to live in.It is too late for Andrew Cuomo, and for people like him: people like Eric Swalwell and Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders; and for people like Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. And it is much too late for such arrogant, hateful, spiteful, surly creatures like Senator Krysten Sinema, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; and for radical Muslim hatemongers such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.It is, not, however, too late for the rest of us, but it soon will be as we are rapidly approaching the Eleventh Hour. If we do not act to vote these aforesaid individuals, and many like them, out of Office, and if we fail to support U.S. President Trump, we will indeed acquire the Government we deserve—tyranny and servitude.  ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK SANCTIONS MURDER THROUGH ENACTMENT OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019

Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.These two reprehensible policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies. With his political clout Cuomo forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter into law, recently, on January 22, 2019.The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as most laws do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But a perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public.The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. A person has difficulty finding them all, as they are peppered throughout the New York State Code. Once found, their meaning is difficult to discern and fathom, even for lawyers, as the verbiage is ambiguous and vague. Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or due to a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.Cuomo exclaims that he is more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act makes the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as it becomes an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety and everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability.It should come as no surprise then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a measure that amounts to legally sanctioned murder in the case of the State’s new “Reproductive Health Act,” for it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets. Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ When Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in a broad sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called utilitarian consequentialism. This is an ethical system devoid of reference to or concern with a person’s intentions and motivations; only with the results of one’s actions. Motives and intentions fall out of the equation entirely. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective.The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is nebulous. It means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means; nothing more. Utilitarian consequentialism an ethically bankrupt system as is ‘utility maximization, underlying it since, for the utilitarian consequentialist, good and evil are relative to times and circumstances. They aren’t, contrary to a person’s expectations. with the notion of fundamental rights and liberties, as relative concepts derived from and created by man, not by God.Not surprisingly, utilitarian consequentialists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but only for that of an amorphous mass. Thus, Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, does not express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the individual souls of the body politic, but only concern for the well-being and welfare of the collective, “the hive.” Understandably, Andrew Cuomo would help draft the text of, avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Both these Acts have a decisive, negative impact on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen. Cuomo and others attempt to hide the awful impact of these schemes on Americans. They do this through carefully conceived and orchestrated campaigns of deception.Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it. Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system. But he thrusts his beliefs and belief system on others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in utilizing that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse, thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, as with so many other Collectivists that comprise the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs, and unmindful and, indeed, disdainful for the thoughts and feelings of others.As a private citizen of the United States, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate and express any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right--the right of free speech--as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor of New York, one would hope the Governor would be circumspect. He isn't. As a Public Official, Cuomo thrusts his belief system onto others. He now harms everyone; and what he has ordained cannot and ought not be countenanced; and, indeed, ought to be roundly and soundly condemned.Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. Cuomo operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist. Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, he operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and may therefore be erased from existence.

GOVERNOR CUOMO DEMONSTRATES NO RELUCTANCE IN DENYING, TO A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS--A RIGHT CLEARLY CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, YET HE DEMONSTRATES, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, A WILLINGNESS TO READ INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE VIEWS AS INHERENT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EVEN THOUGH SUCH NOTION IS NEITHER EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION NOR IMPLIED.

Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Cuomo dares to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. And, having done so, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.Contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. But, with enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, an oxymoron, the State of York now sanctions murder, and has the audacity of raising murder to the level of a fundamental right.How does Cuomo and other proponents literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child. But, where in the Constitution does this right of presumptive privacy for the mother over the life and well-being of the unborn child exist? The answer is: nowhere.Privacy is nowhere mentioned in any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and certainly not in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution subsequent amendment to the U.S Constitution. To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise. The concept of ‘privacy’ is abstract and vague. Certainly, no sane argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child equates with a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The framers of the Constitution could not have feasibly, rationally have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise.Now, one may argue that a general right to privacy, apart from the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right of each American to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures does, arguably, exist as an unenumerated right of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but, again, no one can reasonably construe the idea of the assault on the life of an unborn child as something that is to be subsumed in or as something that can rationally be subsumed in a general notion of privacy, even if only as an unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment. Further, although there have been attempts to interject privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn child.The New York abortion law dares raise abortion to the level of a substantive, fundamental right. It does so despite the absence of either a clear legal or moral foundation for it. And for those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child. They do not wish to contend with that fact. But, if pressed, supporters of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child isn’t a person. The unborn child is simply perceived as a nonentity. Advocates of abortion thereupon deny to the unborn child the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Act, and in the New York Safe Act. Both acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act demonstrates a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a cost: the concomitant loss of any benefit accruing to the individual.Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent beings. Thus, the proponents of abortion on demand, claim to maximize a benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of the most critical need of all—life itself—as it is individuals who suffer the consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER

Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by amending New York law: by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other laws related to and regarding abortion.A new section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:"A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion, when according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health."Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion after the third trimester, one loses sight of the fact that the Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. Whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether during the first, second, or third trimester. In other words, abortion should not be countenanced at any point during pregnancy.Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may conduct an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give anyone pause.Third, when analyzing the Act, one should pay attention to how the Reproductive Health Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten.Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly to proscribe abortions during the third trimester, in fact abortions are now perfectly legal in New York up to the point of birth of the child.Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. This means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:

• A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
• death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
• death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;

(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(e)A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”What does this Section of New York law mean? It means abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time.Where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York.What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that:  Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse. Consider the following scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, loses the baby. While the attacker can can be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot no longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.We can thus extrapolate from the law the following, where a pregnant woman is attacked an loses a child as a result of the attack:The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. Since abortion is no longer a crime, the loss of the child from the abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. But that misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., the death of the child—caused by the perpetrator’s attack on the mother. He cannot!Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. It is as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

U.S SUPREME COURT TO HEAR NEW YORK GUN CASE; MAINSTREAM MEDIA VISIBLY WORRIED

“FREE” PRESS FLAILS WILDLY AS HIGH COURT TAKES UP RESTRICTIVE GUN MEASURE.

Much to the consternation of antigun proponents the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a Second Amendment case. On Tuesday the high Court granted the petition in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2nd Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 734 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (No. 18-280). This marks the first time the high Court has granted a petition in a straightforward Second Amendment case since handing down its rulings in the seminal cases, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010).The central issue, as presented on The Supreme Court’s weblog, is “whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.” The City’s restriction is not only inconsistent with the high Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, it is patently ludicrous. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should have struck down the measure. Instead, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower U.S. District Court’s decision, finding for the City, ignoring the Heller and McDonald case rulings and legal standards for review of Second Amendment cases. In finding for the City, against Plaintiffs, the Second Circuit, as with several other Circuit, fell back on the age-old disturbingly familiar and empty shibboleth: “public safety concerns” in ruling for the City against Petitioners. This "interest balancing" approach is precisely what the Court's Majority in Heller and McDonald, frowned upon and cautioned against. Clearly, several members of the U.S. Supreme Court were not impressed with the Second Circuit ruling, and granted Petitioners' writ of certiorari to review the Second Circuit decision. At long last, the high Court has accepted the challenge of those lower Federal Circuit Courts that have openly defied United States Supreme Court precedent.In requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the writ for certiorari, Petitioners made a compelling case, stating in pertinent part:“New York City flatly prohibits its residents from removing their lawfully purchased and duly registered handguns from the city limits, even to transport them (unloaded, and locked up) to second homes at which they are constitutionally entitled to possess them, or to out-of-city shooting ranges or competitions at which they are constitutionally entitled to hone their safe and effective use. That prohibition does not even make sense on its own terms. It has the perverse consequences of forcing New Yorkers to leave their handguns behind in their vacant residences whenever they leave the city for an extended period of time. And far from achieving the City’s professed interest in decreasing the amount of time that its residents spend transporting their locked and unloaded firearms to and from shooting ranges (an activity that the City made no serious effort to demonstrate poses any meaningful safety risk), the ban actually forces New Yorkers to spend more time traveling to the paucity of inconvenient in-city shooting ranges. Indeed, the only plausible theory under which the City’s novel transport ban could be understood to further its professed public safety interest in decreasing the transport of unloaded, locked-up firearms is if the ban discourages people from transporting their handguns to shooting ranges at all. But it would be utterly irrational for the City to enact a restriction for the express purpose of making it harder for individuals to gain proficiency in the use of the handguns that the Constitution entitles them to possess. More to the point, a restriction that is expressly designed to make it harder to exercise core Second Amendment rights cannot  plausibly withstand any level of constitutional scrutiny. Courts would not countenance for one moment a prohibition on leaving city limits to get an abortion—and certainly not if there were only seven locations in a city of 8.5 million people at which to obtain one. A prohibition on leaving city limits to exercise core Second Amendment rights should fare no better.”Respondent, New York City, was furious the high Court would dare second guess the Constitutionality of the City’s firearms’ measures. The Supreme Court never did so before, and the City didn’t want the Court to do so now. It didn’t take long for antigun proponents’ echo chamber, the mainstream media, to offer its own concerns; issue its rebuke of the high Court; and present, to the public, its dire prognostications.The New York Times, quoting one antigun activist, Michael Waldman, reported:“This is the first case but not the last case where at least four justices open the way to a major ruling that could limit gun safety laws.”And, in that same NY Times article, the New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio chimed in, as well, essentially chastising the high Court's for its seeming presumptuousness in daring even to consider that perhaps--just maybe--the New York City's gun regulations do not meet Constitutional muster.“Mayor Bill de Blasio, responding to a reporter’s question about the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, said at a news conference on Tuesday that the city would vigorously defend its law.“We, every single day, are working to make this the safest big city in America,” he said. “We need the laws that we have that protect against guns being on our streets and we will fight to protect ourselves, that’s the bottom line.”Bill de Blasio offers mere claptrap. The New York City regulation bars the average, law-abiding and rational U.S. citizen from transporting their firearms--in a case, ammunition separated from firearm--to a firing range in another locality. Bill de Blasio has the audacity to characterize this with misuse of guns by that of the common criminal. And, who is it that Bill de Blasio thinks he is protecting residents of New York from? When considered beyond the ludicrous rhetoric, Bill de Blasio is describing nothing more than a bizarre belief that the New York City gun transport regulations protect average, law-abiding New York City residents and citizens of the United States from other average law-abiding, rational New York City residents and American citizens--those citizens who simply seek to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms, as etched in stone in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The absurdity of the Mayor's remarks and, hence, the absurdity of New York City's gun transport regulations, is plain, painfully so.In that article, The New York Times also cites a Constitutional law professor, Adam Winkler who, as with Mayor Bill de Blasio, clearly shows his animus to and strong aversion against, the Second Amendment. The NY times closed the article with Winkler’s sarcastic comment: “The Second Amendment is alive and well in the Roberts court.”Reading comments from antigun zealots, one might think a negative ruling by the high Court would cause mass gun play on the streets of the City. Antigun zealots avoid drawing a bright line distinction between criminal access to and misuse of firearms, on the one hand, and the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens, on the other. This is borne out by the proliferation of antigun laws in this Country and the speciousness of the arguments made in support of them.USA Today, quoting from Respondent City’s Brief, notes:“Unlike golf clubs and musical instruments, firearms present public safety risks that the city has a legitimate interest in protecting against. . . . ‘Limiting their possession and use in public minimizes the risk of gun violence.’”Now really! Bringing up “golf clubs” and “musical instruments”? What does a driving iron or a saxophone or bassoon have to do with the best recognized means of self-defense, a firearm? The incongruity of the comparison is glaring. Further, the descriptor, ‘public safety,’ through overuse, is mere cliché. It has lost all import. The phrase continues more as rhetorical flourish, than as part and parcel of considerate, well-thought through articulate political opinion and journalistic commentary as presented to the public; and it exists as unsound argument, when appearing in legal Briefs presented to the Courts. Over reliance on the phrase, 'public safety,' in public statements, political commentary, and in legal argument defends the most flagrant abuse of Governmental authority, and does a disservice to the citizenry of this Country who honor our sacred Second Amendment. Those who rely essentially or solely on “public safety concerns” to make the case for restrictive gun measures demonstrate intellectual laziness. It is mere makeweight, in the absence of explication and rigorous argument. Reliance on it to support draconian gun measures is intended to appeal less to one's reason and more to one's passions. The goal of most restrictive gun legislation is to separate law-abiding citizens from their firearms. Restrictive gun measures, targeting millions of law-abiding gun owners, do not enhance public safety. These gun measures make the public decidedly less safe—defenseless in the face of ever more crime.Such reprehensible, irresponsible Governmental action is directed to destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But now the City and antigun proponents around the Country are worried, as they contemplate U.S. Supreme Court review of the New York City firearms’ transport measure. They know this draconian measure cannot survive high Court scrutiny. So, the media sounds the alarm with inaccurate, exaggerated reports of danger if the City's firearms' transport measure is struck down.Even the conservative, staid, Wall Street Journal report is misleading. The reporter, Jess Bravin, taking his cue from The New York Times, suggests the case will radically expand Heller and McDonald. It won’t. But, that doesn't stop the reporter from claiming that it does. Jess Bravin says:“The case, a review of New York City regulations that curtail the transportation of guns, offers the court’s newly bolstered conservative majority an opportunity to expand the constitutional right to bear arms beyond a pair of decisions that, beginning in 2008, found the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.”  These remarks are false. A reversal of the Second Circuit decision would mean only that the City's firearms’ transportation rules contradict high Court precedent, on core Second Amendment matters, and, for that reason, must be struck down. The Wall Street Journal does not, though, see it that way. To bolster the point, the Wall Street Journal, like The New York Times, quotes the same source, Adam Winkler. In that WSJ article, Winkler says, “At issue is ‘the right to have a gun in public. It’s the biggest open question in Second Amendment law today.’” These remarks, cited in the Wall Street Journal, article are false; flagrantly so; and, not so subtly, inflammatory. For, Striking down an unconstitutional firearms’ measure isn’t equivalent to expanding a Constitutional right. Rather, an unconstitutional restriction on an enumerated right, unduly impairs the fair exercise of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. The striking down of an unconstitutional firearm's measure would do no more than operate as an expression of what the plain language of the Second Amendment says; no more and no less. Transporting a firearm, in public, in a locked case, ammunition separated from firearm, is hardly the same as carrying a firearm at the ready, anyway. So, Winkler is wrong. At issue, here, is not the right to have a gun in public. Transporting a firearm in a locked container is not what is meant by having a firearm in public, namely, at the ready. Winkler erroneously conflates the two notions.But, transporting a firearm in a case, in public, does present a peculiar danger of its own: one of theft of a firearm. Such a requirement is also strange and unsettling as the City of New York would permit a licensee the use of a firearm for self-defense at home, but preclude the holder of a restricted “premises” license access to the best means available for self-defense when outside the home. Why should a law-abiding American citizen be limited to location where a firearm may be available for self-defense?  Why must our Nation's citizenry suffer the presence of "Second [and First] Amendment free zones?" Would the framers of our Bill of Rights tolerate this? Indeed, it is often in public, especially in urban areas, where a person is more exposed to danger. It is in an urban environment where a person’s life and safety is more, and conceivably, most at risk. It will be interesting to see whether the high Court broaches these matters in its opinion in this critical Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2nd Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 734 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (No. 18-280).The Arbalest Quarrel will stay abreast of the New York City case and offer detailed analyses of the arguments presented in forthcoming articles. And, we will also stay attuned to media accounts. We expect the Governor of New York, the architect of the awful New York Safe Act, the smugly self-assured and virulent opponent of the Second Amendment, Andrew Cuomo--a person never at a loss for words, especially when seeking to appear well-meaning and pious before the public--will, himself, sound off at some point on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. Especially on matters of firearms ownership and possession, the Governor of New York is ever before the cameras!As New York has always led the assault on the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is only fitting for the U.S. Supreme Court to take New York to task. For far too long, people like Andrew Cuomo, Michael Bloomberg, Bill DeBlasio, and others--in New York's Government Offices,  in Congress, and in Governments around the Country--have held sway over the American citizen’s most sacred right; a right intrinsic to one’s being; a right endowed in man the by the Creator. These politicians dare to relegate a sacred right to mere privilege—a privilege Government may grant at its discretion and revoke at will--as if they themselves have created the right.Government officials have not created the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but continue the pretense that they have. These Government officials continue to infringe a sacrosanct and inviolate right, contrary to and an affront to the Creator's dictate that they should not and must not do so.New York’s myriad, loathsome firearms’ laws, codes, rules, regulations, and procedures must, then, all be scrutinized by the high Court. That is something neither the City of New York, nor the State wants. Neither the City nor the State wishes its draconian firearms laws--ever more onerous with time--to be viewed under magnifying glass of legal scrutiny. But it is happening, nonetheless. It must happen. New York City, a bastion of the new Left ideology has turned away from the principles reflected in the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and must be called to account.The Times Ledger reports—and it is mystifying to consider in light of the Leftist leaning of the City today—that New York City was, for five years, from 1785 through 1790, the seat of the Nation’s Capital. It was here in 1789 that the Nation’s first President, George Washington, swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States and to safeguard the fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people, embodied in that sacred document.But, a new, alien, radical, virulent Socialist belief system and agenda has taken over the City, insinuating itself inexorably and insidiously in the lives of the City’s inhabitants. Socialist ideas and precepts--grounded on inherent distrust of the American citizenry--are painfully evident in the City’s myriad, convoluted, restrictive, unconstitutional firearms’ codes, rules, regulations, and procedures, and in the State’s draconian firearms’ laws. Leftist propaganda is proselytized to the residents of New York, daily. But, a day of reckoning is at hand, both for New York City and for jurisdictions like it, around the Country. It’s about time!________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS UNDER FIRE

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.” ~ Yogi BerraIf you asked your fellow Americans to point to one defining moment in our Nation’s recent history, many would likely mention the attack on our soil in 2001, for obvious reason. Some Americans might point to Barack Obama as U.S. President, but not for anything he carried out—if he carried out anything of benefit to this Nation and its people—but because he served as the Nation’s first African-American President. Some people might mention the recession of 2008, and the bailout of major banks. Still others might point to the result of the general U.S. Presidential election in 2016. Depending on one’s political bent, that result is shocking and dreadful, or surprising and hopeful.But, for those who cherish our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights, the watershed moment came in 2008, with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. The high Court held, in principal part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, asserts an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. One would think a lengthy Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment would be unnecessary. The text of the Amendment is clear, concise, precise, and categorical.But the high Court’s affirmation does serve a purpose. It lays to rest any pretension the Second Amendment means other, or less, than it says. Sadly, the pretension lingers among many, despite this seminal Second Amendment case.Many defy and denigrate the high Court’s imprimatur: politicians, the mainstream news; entertainers; billionaire globalists both here and abroad; antigun coalitions; myriad Leftist groups; academicians; and jurists. They detest the Second Amendment, and wish to rid the Nation of it.It should not come as a surprise to Americans that the Democratic Party’s leadership, holding most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, plans to introduce a flurry of antigun bills in the coming months. The most ambitious concerns a ban on those semiautomatic firearms, referred to by the negative expression, “assault weapons.”But this push to ban an entire category of semiautomatic firearms in common use is nothing new. The late U.S Senator, Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, who died in 2008, introduced a bill to control the sale and use of assault weapons in 1989. That Senate bill, 101 S. 386, failed.The House introduced similar bills that year. They, too, failed.However, in 1994, Congress did enact a semiautomatic firearms' ban, as part of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The “Assault Weapons Ban” provision was codified in federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (v)(1). The law expired in 2004. It wasn’t reauthorized. The House then tried, in 2007, to resurrect a ban on semiautomatic firearms, introducing the “Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act Of 2007, 110 H.R. 1022.” That bill failed.After a lull, Democrats ramped up efforts. The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy served as the pretext to ban an entire category of firearms, once again.Congress, though, often acts slowly. That’s a good thing when proposed legislation impinges on or infringes Constitutional rights and liberties. But, Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, unlike Congress, doesn’t act slowly. He doesn’t have to, and, he doesn’t want to, especially when an opportunity arises to further constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms.New York’s Constitution provides a Governor the means to push the State Legislature to act quickly if he deems a matter an emergency. Article I, § 14 of the New York State Constitution sets forth:“No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage, unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon, in which case it must nevertheless be upon the desks of the members in final form, not necessarily printed, before its final passage. . . .”Governor Cuomo intended to act quickly to further restrict New York’s already draconian gun laws. He pushed for an immediate vote on the New York Safe Act of 2013. His statement to support emergency passage of the NY Safe Act, reads:“Some weapons are so dangerous, and some ammunition devices are so lethal, that New York State must act without delay to prohibit their continued sale and possession in the state in order to protect its children, first responders and citizens as soon as possible. This bill, if enacted, would do so by immediately banning the ownership, purchase and sale of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. For this reason, in addition to enacting a comprehensive package of measures that further protects the public, immediate action by the Legislature is imperative.”With the clout he wields in Albany, the measure passed, and the Governor signed the Safe Act into law on January 15, 2013. To herald enactment, he created a web page, devoted to glorifying his achievement.Then, on January 24, 2013, hardly a week after Governor Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act into law, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, introduced a federal assault weapons ban, modeled on the Safe Act. Senator Feinstein expected Senator Harry Reid to include the assault weapons ban in the broad Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act Of 2013, 159 Cong Rec S 2699. That didn’t happen. Senator Reid felt its inclusion would reduce chance of passage of the broader gun control act. Senator Feinstein was livid. But, the Act failed on a Floor vote, 40-60, even without Feinstein’s assault weapons provision.Senator Feinstein then released a statement to the Press, barely restraining her anger:“I’m disappointed by today’s vote, but I always knew this was an uphill battle. I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue, and I will continue to fight for a renewed ban on assault weapons.The very fact that we’re debating gun violence on the Senate floor is a step in the right direction, and I hope my colleagues vote their conscience and approve the underlying bill. But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war.I will carry on this fight against military-style assault weapons, and I ask of the American people that they continue to pressure their elected officials to take action. It’s long overdue that we take serious steps to remove these dangerous firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines from society.”In later years, Democrats, in the House and Senate, ever undeterred, tenaciously, rapaciously introduced semiautomatic firearms’ bans, one after the other, despite repeated failures—ever determined to rein in the Second Amendment. these bills included:The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, 114 H.R. 4269  Imported Assault Weapons Ban of 2016, 114 H.R. 4748The Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, 115 S. 2095The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, 115 H.R. 5077They all failed. But, the antigun politicians remain undeterred. They aim to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms, however long it takes. The recent roll-out is drearily the same: same title, later date. This one is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. Many of the usual cast of characters have signed on as co-sponsors. Some are considering a run as Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President in 2020.Not surprisingly, Senator Feinstein is the principal sponsor on this latest “assault weapons” bill, directed to an attack on semiautomatic firearms. Destroying our most sacred right has always been a high priority for Senator Feinstein and she is a prominent figure in all antigun legislation emanating from the U.S. Senate.According to Feinstein’s Press Release, issued January 9, 2019, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is an “updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”  The Press Release then lays out the details. The House will likely release the bill shortly. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze it when the House does release it.

A NATION-WIDE BAN ON SOME SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS IMPERILS ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Antigun zealots desire nothing less than an end to firearms ownership and possession in America. This is not an exaggerated concern for those who cherish the Second Amendment.New York Times contributing columnist commentator, Brett Stephens has called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment. We may dismiss an excessive, incendiary remark from a news commentator. But, when a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice echoes that sentiment, Americans must take notice. Consider the remarks of retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, as reported in The New York Times:“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”Retired Associate Justice Stevens always tied the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia. Read his dissenting opinion in Heller. But, the majority in Heller rejected Stevens’ premise.Americans should take antithetical remarks attacking the sanctity of the Second Amendment, seriously, especially when coming from powerful and influential people. The attorney, Christopher Keleher, in an academic article, titled, “The Impending Storm: The Supreme Court’s Foray into the Second Amendment Debate,” 69 Mont. L. Rev. 113, 154, (Winter 2008), published just months before the high Court’s decision in Heller, recited a litany of disturbing comments from members of Congress.“United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, commenting on an assault weapons ban, stated  ‘if I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.’ Former United States Senator Howard Metzenbaum complained that the same ban was insufficient, exclaiming, ‘until you ban them all, you might as well ban none. . . . [But, it] will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind.’ United States Congressman William L. Clay proclaimed the 1993 Brady Bill was a ‘minimum step’ that Congress should take in its efforts to restrict firearms. Congressman Clay professed, ‘we need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.’ A fellow member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bobby Rush, was also forthright in his strategy: ‘Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame.’ Senator Lincoln Chafee was no less bashful when he asserted, ‘I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns. . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!’ The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech prompted Congressman Dennis Kucinich to draft legislation ‘that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.’ While such views have not garnered a majority of lawmakers, these statements are notable for their stridency and frankness.”Americans should not brush aside these candid remarks as simple bluster. These politicians support their words with direct attacks on the Second Amendment. Anti-Second Amendment politicians despise the Second Amendment. They find it not merely inconvenient and irrelevant, but also unconscionable. They see our Second Amendment as incompatible with an ethical system predicated on utilitarian consequentialism they espouse, but which our founders did not. Antigun politicians find the mere thought of firearms both aesthetically distasteful and morally objectionable.These politicians consider the Second Amendment inconsistent with international legal rules and standards, and incompatible with societal norms of conduct. One or the other must go. For them, it’s the Second Amendment that must go. They feel we, Americans, should adopt and adhere to the new international liberal democratic order they, and those in the European Union, ascribe to.The mainstream media conveys the message of the antigun zealots incessantly, obstreperously, and passionately. The false message delivered to Americans is plain enough: for the welfare of society  you must comply with and adapt to the conventions of the global, liberal, democratic order; and this requires you to forsake the archaic and degenerate desire to own and possess firearms.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

PRESIDENT TRUMP OVERSTEPPED HIS AUTHORITY IN BANNING BUMP STOCKS.

PART ONE

THE PRETEXT FOR TRUMP’S CALL FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES.

Following the devastating, unconscionable attack by the maniac, Stephen Paddock, on innocent concertgoers, attending a concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the evening of October 1, 2017, the gun grabbers wasted little time in turning their attention on what they depicted as the salient culprit of the carnage: a little device called a “bump stock.” It is a device that investigators found attached to semiautomatic rifles Paddock used in his murderous assault.

Antigun groups and antigun politicians immediately called for a ban on the device. But, oddly and sadly, it is President Donald Trump, the seemingly indefatigable champion of the Second Amendment—not the Democratic Party leadership—who gave the gun grabbers what they want: a ban on “bump stocks.”

DONALD TRUMP MAY ACT RASHLY ON SOME MATTERS AND AVOID REPERCUSSIONS; NOT SO, WHEN HE BLATANTLY ATTACKS THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been an early and avid supporter of Trump’s bid for the U.S. Presidency—first during his campaign for the Republican Party nomination, and then during the turbulent first two years in Office, as he was buffeted and roiled on all sides by various factions that sought and still seek to destroy his Presidency. It is alarming, though, when Trump seems to disregard those who support him. Trump had made several promises to the American electorate. Among the most important he promised to build “a wall,” an effective physical structure to keep the multitude of illegal aliens from cavalierly crossing our Nation’s borders, and audaciously claiming the same rights, liberties, and protections that accrue only to American citizens. Trump realizes now, a bit late in the day, that his thoughts of a second term in Office, in 2020, will be undone if he fails to deliver on that oft repeated promise. Just as importantly, Trump made abundantly clear, during his campaign, that he is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. But, what has Trump done to merit his supporters’ continued devotion? So far, two years into his four-year term in Office, we see nothing concrete.

Trump normally “trumpets” his actions, consistent with the importance of, and his belief in, Governmental transparency. That’s a good thing and to be applauded. It is something his predecessor in Office, Barack Obama, said he would do but rarely if ever did, preferring to cloak his own actions in secrecy. The insidious, reprehensible “Operation Fast and Furious” is a case in point; an oblique attempt to undermine the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. But, as for the architects of the policy, neither the Attorney General—at the time, Eric Halder—nor President Obama, was ever called to account for it. Yet, it is Donald Trump now, not Barack Obama, who has deviously and insidiously undermined the Second Amendment, and he is doing so through an aggressive, unconscionable, unconstitutional, unilateral executive act.

Remember what Trump said about national concealed handgun carry?

“The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.” ~ Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Were these just vacuous words, delivered merely to appease supporters at a singular moment in time, and then to be dispensed with once the U.S. Presidency had been secured and when political expediency seemingly required? Apparently, so. After the Parkland, Florida tragedy, the Washington Examiner reported that,

“President Trump told Republicans on Wednesday they should not include a measure that allows people with concealed carry permits in one state to carry across state lines in a comprehensive gun bill.

‘I think that maybe that bill will one day pass, but it should pass separate,’ Trump said during a bipartisan meeting at the White House. “If you’re going to put concealed carry between states into this bill, we’re talking about a whole new ball game. I’m with you, but let it be a separate bill.”

The President weaseled, giving only lukewarm support for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Obviously this wasn’t a high priority for him. Is it, then, any surprise that, apart from a push by the Republican controlled House in 2017—evidently in spite of the President, not because of him—Congressional action ultimately failed to deliver? Congress got the message. Since preservation and strengthening of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is apparently a low priority for the U.S. President, it was a low priority for Congress—certainly for the Republican-controlled Senate.

A full Roll-Call vote on the Senate Floor was necessary even if the Senate failed to secure 60 votes necessary for passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation since the American public would know who, among both Democrats and Republicans, voted in favor of the measure and those who did not; those Senators, then, who support our sacred Second Amendment right and those who, clearly, do not. 

But, Mitch McConnell never called for a Floor vote, though he could have done so. We will remember McConnell’s disservice to the American people for failing to hold a full Senate Floor vote. And we will remember Trump for failing to make national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation a priority goal. Republicans controlled the Congress—both Houses—along with the U.S. Presidency, from 2016 through 2018. Republicans have now lost the U.S. House of Representatives. The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms took a backseat to both health care and taxes. It should not have, but it did. 

We face a Democratic Party majority-controlled House whose leadership has a decidedly and decisively different, and ominous agenda in store for the American people. It is a safe bet that Gun control and the general weakening of the Second Amendment will not be secondary issues for the Democratic Party leadership once they assume control of the House on January 3, 2019—unlike strengthening the Second Amendment was, obviously and unfortunately, a secondary issue for Republicans.*

The Arbalest Quarrel has written several articles on this critical matter, posting those articles on our website; and on Ammoland Shooting Sports News; and on “The Truth About Guns.” Ammoland posted our latest one, titled, “National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity – Last Chance to Act,” on November 27, 2018. In that article, we urged Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to call for a Senate Floor vote on the House he could have done so. There was time before the year-end adjournment. If the Senate did clear the 60 vote threshold, the bill could have been sent immediately to President Trump for his signature. And Trump would have had to sign it even if he were reluctant to do so. For, it would have been, as he insisted, in his remarks to Republicans, that it must be “a separate bill,” subsumed in no other Congressional bill, as it was a separate bill. But, now, we will never know. The bill that passed the House, the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38, will automatically die—as unfinished business of the old Congress—once the new Congress commences work on January 3, 2019.

___________________________________________________________

PART TWO

TRUMP IGNORES HIS PLEDGE TO THOSE OF US WHO SUPPORTED HIM; CAPITULATING COMPLETELY TO THE ANTIGUN CROWD, ONCE HE CALLED FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCKS.

As if the Republican controlled Senate’s failure to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation and President Trump’s failure to push forward a pro-Second Amendment agenda during his first two years in Office weren’t bad enough—a serious failure of omission on the part of both the U.S. Senate and the President—Trump’s ban on “bump stocks”—an act of commission—is even worse. By foolishly, impetuously, acting to ban “bump stocks,” the President demonstrates a dangerous naïvety and ineptitude, along with a disturbingly blithe lack of concern for the well-being of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, inviolate right of the American  people to keep and bear arms. Trump is obviously oblivious to the deleterious impact his unilateral action shall have—not simply may have—on the Second Amendment itself.

President Trump’s failure to cajole Congress to action, to strengthen our most cherished and important right, is unacceptable. That failure deserves our condemnation. But undermining our most cherished right is alarming and unforgivable. That deserves our lasting contempt. With the radical Left urging Democratic Party House members to impeach Trump, upon issuance of the Special Counsel’s, Robert Mueller’s, report that is due out at any time now, the President can ill afford to antagonize his own base; but Trump has done just that with his flagrant attack on the Second Amendment.

Trump should have left the matter of bump stocks to Congress. Congress, acting through its Article 1 legislative power, can, conceivably, lawfully, take such action to ban them, if it sought to do so, assuming—a big “if”—that the law, depending on the matter of its statutory construction, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But it is not for the President to take that action upon himself under any set of circumstances. We have a system of checks and balances in our Country, and for good reason.

Congress makes the law. That power is within the province of Congress, not the President. The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. Under our Constitution, the President has no authority to make binding law, in lieu of Congress. Unlike Great Britain and Australia, the Chief Executive has no authority to self-execute laws. The President does not serve as both Chief Executive and "Legislator in Chief."

We have seen how Obama has shown a marked, carefree proclivity to ignore the federal Government’s system of “checks and balances” that the founders of our Republic wisely conceived of and assiduously placed into our Constitution. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, makes crystal clear, it is the province of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Obama, as President, and, no less a lawyer and academician, knows this. Yet, that did not prevent him from unlawfully promulgating and implementing his infamous, illegal “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA), policy, along with the concomitant mess it left for his successor, President Trump. 

What was Obama’s motive for DACA? As he says, as reported to the Leftist media echo chamber, CNN:  “. . . for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill. That bill never came. . . . “Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question.” Obama proselytizes to Americans, talking down to us as if we were children, suggesting that it is he, Obama,“the Great Father,” who shall teach us all what we ostensibly need to know about law, politics, and morality too, audaciously exclaiming that, as Congress didn’t give Obama what he wants—he—Barack Obama, will make law himself!

Obama’s remarks are a textbook example of propaganda, disseminated to the public by an insincere Press. It is bombastic, simplistic, perfunctory rhetoric; absolute drivel. Obama certainly knows it; but so should the Press. This smug, duplicitous attitude on the part of both Obama and the Press serves to make Obama’s remarks and the mainstream media’s reporting of them all the more diabolical and reprehensible.

One salient, critical duty of the Chief Executive of the Nation, set down in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The laws the President is duty-bound to faithfully execute are the laws Congress enacts. The President has no power to issue personal edicts, suggesting they have the force of Congressional law when in fact they don’t; and cannot ever have. As Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes abundantly and absolutely clear: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is nothing in Article 1 or in any other Article of the U.S. Constitution reciting that legislative powers, of some sort or another, also vest in the President. Such powers do not invest in the President; only in Congress.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION CONSISTS OF FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS; NOT SIMPLE PLATITUDES.

Trump, as with Obama before him, has begun to demonstrate a disturbing propensity to ignore precepts of the U.S. Constitution, when he wishes to do so, unmoved by the dictates of either the Constitution or his conscience. His unilateral action banning bump stocks was a calculated move. It is obvious why he took this action. He evidently felt the general public supported it—more of those in favor of it than not. He caved to public pressure to deliver something to the public, because of the worst mass shooting ever to occur in our Nation and an unthinkable tragedy that happened to occur on his watch. That may appear as reason enough to act, by some, but Trump should not have fallen prey to the frenzy of the moment, and with such apparent alacrity, abandon, and smug self-assurance.

The continued existence of the natural, fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not properly to be left to public whim, anyway, and never have been. Public opinion is easily manipulated and ever changeable. The founders of our Republic didn’t intend for the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people to be weakened by mere heat and rancor of a given moment in time. That ought to be clear enough to most Americans if they stop to consider this. It should be clear enough to Congress. And it should be clear enough to the President, too; but apparently it wasn’t. And, having taken the action to ban bump stocks devices, President Trump did nothing to make this Nation safer. Having bowed to political pressure--something he is, often and admirably enough, not ordinarily inclined to do, but did so in this instance--he reneged on a salient campaign promise he made to millions of Americans, namely that he, like they, fervently and reverently hold the Nation’s Second Amendment in the highest regard, and that he will do his best to preserve and strengthen it. Yet, a ban on bump stock devices does no such thing. Rather, it makes a mockery of Trump’s promise to the American people. Worse, taking the action he did to usurp Congressional authority and prerogative to make law, Trump did much more than simply undermine a campaign pledge; he undermined the very Constitution he swore an oath to preserve and to protect. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes plain that,

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Trump does not faithfully execute the office of President of the United States by making up his own law as he goes. He doesn’t preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States when he takes upon himself--as did his predecessor Barack Obama--the role the framers of the Constitution reserved alone to Congress, namely the authority to make law. And, Trump certainly doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, when he undermines the fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people as codified in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. 

Whether operating through grandiose self-delusion or blatant deceit, a Chief Executive, who fails to adhere to the limitations on his authority, as our Constitution dictates and mandates, significantly threatens the continued well-being of a free Republic. Under no set of circumstances can suspension or abrogation of our Constitution ever be justified. 

_______________________________________________________________________

PART THREE

TRUMP’S UNILATERAL ACTION, BANNING BUMP STOCKS, IS UNLAWFUL.

Although Trump could have and should have left the matter of “bump stocks” to Congress, Trump’s unilateral action, banning civilian ownership and possession of bump stocks is unlawful. That isn’t an open question. The answer to that question, under Constitutional law, is clear and categorical. Trump cannot lawfully do so. But, he took that action anyway. The danger we now face, given Trump’s rash action, goes well beyond the relative merit or utility of bump stocks, themselves.

Trump’s action calls into immediate question the import of Congressional legislation and the weight to be given to U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements on matters of law. If Trump’s action withstands legal challenge and scrutiny—and David Codrea’s article posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News points to several formal complaints that have been recently been filed contesting the constitutionality of the ban—the ‘rule of law’ becomes mere shallow and hollow rhetoric; legislation becomes mere ad hoc artifice, subject to the vicissitudes of fate; and the Bill of Rights loses its inviolability and immutability.

THE DOJ-ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” IS PATENTLY UNLAWFUL.

Two major websites, Ammoland Shooting Sports News and The Truth About Guns, have posted several fine articles on the issue of bump stocks. The Arbalest Quarrel provides its own take on this subject, including an analysis of the law regarding administrative decision-making.

We reach a disturbing but irrefutable conclusion: if the Courts do not strike down Trump’s action, we will continue to see the inexorable whittling away of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, leading inevitably to the demise of civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic firearms, not simply to the demise of firearms pejoratively called “assault weapons.”

We begin our analysis with the language of Trump’s Memorandum, issued on February 20, 2018. The Memorandum is titled “Application of the Definition of Machine gun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” 3 CFR Memorandum of 2/20/18. This Executive Office Memorandum placed the Justice Department on notice of the President’s intent to promulgate a rule criminalizing possession of bump stock devices--all of them, regardless of the nature of operation of any one manufacturer's version of the device--and further ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to promulgate a rule, banning those devices. The Memorandum directed to the Attorney General, and signed by Donald Trump, reads:

“After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices.

Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns.

Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of ‘machine gun’ under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments.

Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.

Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes. Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.”

[signed] Donald Trump

____________________________________

There are four points to ponder here. First, through this Memorandum, Trump attempts to make law, not simply execute laws Congress enacted because Congress hasn’t enacted a law banning bump stocks. So there is no law for the President to faithfully execute under Article 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. His remark—“I remain committed to the rule of law”—is what we hear all the time from Democrats. It is a remark he expects the public to accept on blind faith. Politicians make use of it often enough. But, the remark invariably comes across as hollow, flaccid, and pathetic; a useless appendage, demonstrating a lack of conviction at its very utterance, as the action taken belies the seeming veracity of the sentiment underlying it. 

The fact remains: absent express Congressional authorization the Executive Branch of Government cannot lawfully promulgate rules to effectuate the will of Congress if there is no will of Congress to effectuate. And, there is none here.Trump has blatantly exceeded his authority under the Constitution.

Second, the Memorandum—a directive to the DOJ—is logically inconsistent. Trump says, at the outset, he simply seeks “further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns,” but then makes clear that it isn’t mere clarification he seeks at all. He tells the DOJ “to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.”  Trump is kidding no one. He is illegally attempting to promulgate law.

Third, the Memorandum calls for a drastic measure. There is nothing in the Memorandum allowing for the grandfathering of bump stocks in the hands of American citizens. Consider: even the infamous federal assault weapons ban act of 1994 (that expired in 2004) made abundantly clear it did not apply to possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon a citizen happened to lawfully possess before enactment of the Congressional legislation.

The new ATF Rule, though, is far more ambitious than even Congressional legislation that banned new purchases of “assault weapons.” For, under the ATF Rule, Americans who fail to surrender bump stocks or who otherwise fail to render them inoperable are subject to criminal prosecution. There is no exception, and no grandfathering of devices that, before implementation of the Rule, had been lawfully purchased.

Fourth, Trump takes the position—as is clear from the language of the Memorandum—that he can get around the Statutory legal hurdle by claiming to operate within  it; but he does so by tortuously toying with the definition of ‘machine gun’ to include ‘bump stocks.’ Trump does not succeed and he is wrong in his endeavor in attempting to do so. He is unlawfully expanding upon and redefining the clear, concise and precise definition of 'machine gun' as codified by Congress in Federal Statute. Further, Trump's attempt to get around the hurdle of a clear concept of ‘machine gun’ is unnerving. It would have been better—although still legally indefensible--had he simply sought to ban “bump stocks” outright, without the semantic convolutions, gyrations, and machinations.

Trump attempts to convince the public that "bump stock devices" do convert semiautomatic firearms into machine guns. Trump simply pretends to be on a sound legal, logical, and grammatical footing. He isn't. The reason Trump contrives to win over the public is plain. Congress has specifically defined the expression, 'machine gun,'  in Statute; and it has defined the expression explicitly and unambiguously.

In 26 USCS § 5845, titled "definitions," “the term ‘machine gun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 

If ever the language of a Congressional Statute were straightforward and readily understood by a firearm's expert or by a lay person, 26 USCS § 5845 is such a Statute. If an agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government can undermine Federal law so blatantly, as Trump attempts to do so here, then no Federal Statute is safe from abrogation by Executive edict by those in Government who would dare trifle with our Nation's Constitution and laws.

Unless, the concept of ‘bump stock’ falls within the meaning of ‘machine gun,’—and it doesn’t—the Justice Department cannot lawfully promulgate a rule that extends the legal definition beyond the parameters mandated by Congressional Statute. Yet, it has dared to do just that, even as it insists that it has not. Trump has audaciously ordered DOJ to promulgate an illegal rule, and the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has obliged.

THE NEW ATF RULE: A CATEGORICAL BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES

In the Federal Register, 83 FR 13442, the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has proposed a rule change to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically, 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479.

The proposed Rule, reads: “The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that ‘bump fire’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are "machine guns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machine guns if this Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.”

The ATF has now finalized the proposed rule, amending the first sentence to read:

“The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). . . .”

As a final Agency Rule, it is ripe for judicial review, if challenged; and it is rightfully being challenged.

THE ATF’S REASONING ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES IS FLAWED.

The critical problem with the ATF Rule is this: bump stocks are not machine guns; nor are they accessories for machine guns; and saying they are machine guns, as the ATF categorically and brazenly does say, doesn’t make them so. The rule seemingly complies with federal Statute by iterating the critical point that “. . . such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger." But, the assertion is false, and the Rule must be struck down on that ground alone. The Rule is also a noxious affront to the natural, fundamental, and unalienable right etched in stone in the Second Amendment. The ATF Rule cannot be allowed to stand without doing a disservice to the purport of our Nation’s Bill of Rights.

Without amnesty for those who lawfully possessed bump stock devices, prior to implementation of the new DOJ-ATF Rule, 83 FR 13442, a wholesale ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess the devices in clear legal jeopardy. Keep in mind the last line of the Rule: Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.” This retrospective application to existing lawful owners of bump stock devices is outrageous, and, apart from other serious Constitutional issues attendant to 83 FR 13442, the Rule may also amount to a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which says clearly and succinctly: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”  The Arbalest Quarrel will look into a possible violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 in a future article.

_______________________________________________________

PART FOUR

THE ATF’S ASSERTION THAT BUMP STOCKS CONVERT SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS IS BOTH LOGICALLY AND LEGALLY FAULTY.

Let’s take a moment to reassess.

What is a ‘bump stock,’ really? Who invented it? How long has it been on the market? Why the uproar over it? Is it really the awful object that antigun zealots and the President, too, claim it is? And, most importantly, does a ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess semiautomatic weapons--millions of law-abiding American citizens--in legal jeopardy?

A LITTLE HISTORY ON BUMP STOCKS—

Who Invented the “Bump Stock?”

Four days, after the Las Vegas concert tragedy, The New York Times looked into this mechanical device called a “bump stock,” reporting, with typical tabloid flourish:

“Gun enthusiasts looking for an extra thrill have long found makeshift ways to replicate the exhilaration of using an automatic weapon — the thrill of the noise and the jolt of rapid-fire rounds — while bypassing the legal hassle and expense of getting one.

They contrived devices using pieces of wood, belt loops and sometimes even rubber bands, to mimic the speed of a fully automatic weapon — even if it meant sacrificing accuracy.

Then came Jeremiah Cottle with an answer. A Texas farm boy turned Air Force veteran, he figured he could do better. He sank $120,000 of his savings into the development of a high-end bump stock, a device that harnessed a rifle’s recoil to fire hundreds of rounds a minute.

He began selling bump stocks in 2010 with the help of his wife and grandparents in Moran, Tex., his small hometown of fewer than 300 residents. His company, Slide Fire Solutions, won approval from federal firearms regulators, and the business moved from a portable building that had once been a dog kennel into a much larger space on the Cottle family farm. Sales exceeded $10 million and 35,000 units in the first year.”

HOW DOES A BUMP STOCK OPERATE?

Antigun groups, along with the Press provide their impressions of “bump stocks”—offering descriptions from the deceptive and simplistic to the florid and patently absurd.

Following up on the October 2017 story, the NY Times, on February 18, 2018 said this says about the device’s operation:

“A ‘bump stock’ replaces a rifle’s standard stock, which is the part held against the shoulder. It frees the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy from the kickback shooters feel when the weapon fires. The stock “bumps” back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger, causing the rifle to rapidly fire again and again. The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing.”

The NY Times' animation aptly illustrates that one shot, and one shot only, is fired through a single  pull of the trigger. A successive pull of the trigger is required each time in order to initiate an additional shot. 

The Progressive weblog “Trace,” says, “A bump stock is a foot-long piece of plastic capable of transforming a semiautomatic rifle into a weapon functionally indistinguishable from a machine gun. That means a gun fitted with a bump stock can fire up to 800 rounds per minute.” 

This is more than simple hyperbole. The problem with the remark is that the expression, 'machine gun' is defined in federal statute by manner of operation, and not, as the weblog Trace, argues, by rate of fire. Antigun proponents do not, however, appear to concern themselves over, or allow themselves to be constrained by, niceties of law. They are only interested in political results. 

Not to be outdone the NY Times or by the weblog, Trace, Gabby Gifford’s antigun group chimed,  

“In the absence of immediate action by Congress, I urge ATF to finalize its proposed rule clarifying that bump fire stocks, along with other “conversion devices” that enable semiautomatic weapons to mimic automatic fire, qualify as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act. And then Congress must act as well—to ensure that manufacturers cannot continue to endanger public safety by designing devices that imitate machine guns and subvert the law. The continued presence of these dangerous devices puts all of our communities at risk, and both Congress and ATF must take action quickly to address this threat."

Whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves "to mimic automatic fire" is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots.

These remarks by Gifford’s organization are purposely incendiary and patently ridiculous. Indeed, even the progressive website, “Vox,” citing an AP News report—albeit claiming that bump stocks offer a "way around the law [pertaining to machine guns]"—felt compelled to admit, if only reluctantly, that bump stock modifications to semiautomatic rifles do not convert those rifles into machine guns.

“The device basically replaces the gun’s shoulder rest, with a “support step” that covers the trigger opening. By holding the pistol grip with one hand and pushing forward on the barrel with the other, the shooter’s finger comes in contact with the trigger. The recoil causes the gun to buck back and forth, “bumping” the trigger.

Technically, that means the finger is pulling the trigger for each round fired, keeping the weapon a legal semi-automatic.”

One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots. So, whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves to "mimic" automatic fire, as Gifford's antigun group, and others like it, claim, is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. And, there’s the rub!

EXPERT OPINION EXISTS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT BUMP STOCKS MODIFICATIONS TO SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES DO NOT CONVERT THOSE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 OR THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

One individual or Company (name and address redacted) contacted the ATF, requesting a formal opinion on whether its device, an “AR-15 Type ‘Bump Fire Stock,’” fell within the federal legal definition of a ‘machine gun’, that “would be regulated by the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) or the National Firearms Act (NFA).”

A firearms’ expert, Michael R. Curtis, Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch, reviewed the device. He responded, on April 17, 2017, to the query (about six months before Paddock went on his rampage in Las Vegas). In principal part, Michael Curtis said this,

“Your bump fire grip device consists of the following:

One AR-style pistol grip that it attached to and adjustable butt stock by a flat metal bar bent to contour to the buttstock. The pistol grip has two plastic pieces attached by small screws, one is the extension for resting your finger on while firing and the other is a shield to prevent the pistol grip from pinching  the  grip  fingers  of  the  firing  hand.

Your stock is designed to allow an AR-type semiautomatic rifle mounted to it to reciprocate back and forth in a linear motion. The absence of an accelerator spring or similar component in the submitted device prevents it from operating automatically.  When operated, forward pressure must be applied with the support hand to the forward hand guard fore-end of the AR-type rifle mounted to  your stock, bringing  the  receiver assembly  forward  to  a  point  where  the  trigger  can be pulled by the firing hand. If sufficient forward pressure is not applied to the hand guard with the support hand, the rifle can be fired in a conventional, semiautomatic manner since the reciprocation of the receiver assembly is eliminated.

The  FTISB  examination of the  submitted device indicates that if as a shot is fired   and a suU/dent[?] amount of pressure is applied to the hand guard/gripping surface with the shooter's support hand—the AR-type rifle assembly will come forward until the trigger re-contacts the Shooter’s stationary firing-hand trigger finger: Re-contacting allows the firing of a subsequent shot. In this manner, the shooter pulls the receiver assembly forward to fire each shot, each succeeding shot firing with a  single trigger function. . . .

Moreover; we should point out that the addition of an accelerator spring or any other non-manual source of energy which allows this device to operate automatically will result in the manufacture of a ‘machine gun’ as defined in the NFA, 5845(b).”

_____________________________________________

The juxtaposition of an expert’s opinion on bump stock devices and the wording of the ATF Rule stipulating an outright ban on “bump stock” devices, aptly illustrates the critical differences between well-reasoned opinion on the one hand written by a firearms’ expert, Michael Curtis, and, on the other hand, simplistic verbiage, reflected in the new ATF Rule, crafted, no doubt, by people who are not firearms’ experts. Further, the opinion of Michael Curtis is facially neutral; the ATF Rule, politically motivated as it obviously is, is only seemingly facially neutral.

Michael Curtis considers the technical attributes of and operation of bump stocks, calmly and rationally. His findings demonstrate his technical knowledge, and he draws a conclusion as to the legality of the particular device submitted to him, on the basis of the law, as enacted. In the law, as enacted, Congress defines the expression, ‘machine gun.’ That definition happens to accord with industry use of the expression. There is no embellishment. But that is not what we see in the language of the ATF Rule, as promulgated. The drafters of the Rule were only interested in giving the President what he asked for; what he wanted; what he demanded from them; and they did so.

Those who drafted the ATF Rule clearly did not bother to consider the technical intricacies of “bump stock” operation. The Rule is nothing more than a simplistic, ill-informed, technically deficient, politically motivated and mandated edict, posing as a well-reasoned administrative pronouncement, ostensibly having the force of agency law. It is not. Those who crafted the ATF Rule on bump stock devices made no attempt to distinguish among any of them. Their mandate was to create a Rule to ban them—all of them; anything that might conceivably resemble them. The drafters of this agency Rule, insidiously contrived to craft a rule that, by outward appearance—to those who nothing about firearms’ operation—may seem impressive. But, as is often the case, appearances are deceptive, and that is the case here. Those who crafted this Rule had their "marching orders."  They conspired to give President Trump what he wanted; what he asked for; what he demanded of them. They connived, and contrived, and conspired, when crafting their Rule, to place bump stock devices within the orbit of a firearm's accessory that converts a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. If the deception succeeds politically, that is all that matters to the President, and to them; but, as the Rule is logically and legally flawed, it cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny by the Judiciary, and must be struck down.

Were this Rule to escape Judicial inquiry unscathed, it will invite misuse of Congressional Statute at every turn—merely to achieve a political end, desired by some. Those who crafted this ludicrous Rule meant to deceive the public. Hopefully, the Courts will not allow themselves to be similarly deceived.       

_______________________________________________________________

PART FIVE

APART FROM TRUMP’S RASH, INCORRIGIBLE ACTION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAS CONGRESS DONE TO CURB POSSESSION OF “BUMP STOCKS?”

Curiously, Congress did attempt action to ban “bump stocks,” albeit unsuccessfully. On October 31, 2017, about one month after Paddock’s murderous assault on innocent Americans, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), sponsored a bill, called, “Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168.

The bill had co-sponsors among both Republicans and Democrats. The stated purpose of the bill was “. . . to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat in the same manner as a machine gun any bump fire stock, or any other devices designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.”

The bill, if enacted into law would amend Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States Code (USCS) of 1986:

IN GENERAL. Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking "and (8)" and inserting the following: "(8) a reciprocating stock, or any other device which is designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon; and (9)".

(b)  Semiautomatic Weapon.—and  Section 5845 [26 USCS § 5845] of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(n) Semiautomatic Weapon.— The term 'semiautomatic weapon' means any repeating weapon that—

"(1); utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and

"(2);requires a separate function of the trigger to fire each cartridge."

The bill went nowhere. But, interestingly, the bill, if enacted, would not have redefined or expanded upon the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in 26 USCS § 5845—something the ATF Rule rashly does—but instead would include a definition for ‘semiautomatic weapon,’ which 26 USCS § 5845, at present, doesn’t have. The bill would then ban devices “. . . designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.” It would treat bump stocks, “in the same manner as a machine gun,” true, as the language of the bill so states; but that isn’t the same thing as saying that “bump stocks” are “machine guns.” That is an important difference, as the definition of ‘machine gun’ is codified in federal statute. There was nothing in the proposed bill to suggest a Congressional intention to amend or to expand upon the statutory [26 USCS § 5845] definition of ‘machine gun.’

Congress itself obviously had a marked reluctance “to play” with its own definitions, and avoided doing so—a reservation that Trump obviously doesn’t have, when he wholeheartedly took upon himself, the role of both Chief Executive and “Legislator in Chief.”

Still, the Congressional bill was a bad idea at the get-go. Had it passed, antigun zealots could have, and likely would have, used the new law to argue that any new development in semiautomatic weapon technology, as a matter of efficiency, accelerates substantially the rate of fire of the semiautomatic weapon and, so, must be banned. After all, Antigun proponents see little if any difference between semiautomatic firearm on the one hand and machine guns, submachine guns, and selective fire weapons on the other, anyway. To these zealots all semiautomatic firearms are “weapons of war,” having no practical civilian use, asserting they—ultimately all of them—should be banned outright.

Antigun proponents have worked for decades to make their goal a reality; and they continue to work toward this end—all with the avid monetary and organizational assistance of wealthy globalists who seek to subordinate our Constitution, our system of laws, and our jurisprudence to a “one-size fits all” set of international norms. If they succeed in that endeavor, the independence and sovereignty of individual nation states will come to a screeching, halt and catastrophic end. All Western nations will all be corralled into a single, centralized and uniform political, social, cultural, economic, and financial system of governance. The EU is the test bed and the basic framework for this system. Even as the citizenry of the individual nations within the EU, realizing that their nations are moving inexorably to dissolution and are beginning to resist that effort, it may be too late for them. But, it isn’t, as yet, too late for us—so long as our Bill of Rights, and, especially, are Second Amendment remains intact. The DOJ-ATF “Bump Stock” Rule is not a neutral rule. If allowed to stand, unchallenged, it can and will have a devastating impact on the continued well-being of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

THE ATF “BUMP STOCK” RULE THAT WE NOW HAVE IS WORSE THAN THE CONGRESSIONAL BILL WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN.

As bad as Representative Fitzpatrick’s bill  [“Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168], was, if enacted, the new ATF Rule, as now finalized, is far worse. Indeed, even Congress was reluctant to subsume the concept of ‘semiautomatic weapon’ into the concept of ‘machine gun.’ President Trump has no such reservations. Trump’s Memo to the DOJ suggests that either he has given little thought to the matter or couldn’t care less about the legal consequences of his actions had he thought about the matter at all. The ATF filled with antigun fanatics, delivered for Trump, with unsurprising, characteristic exuberance.

The ATF has laid the groundwork for subsuming semiautomatic weaponry into the category of ‘machine guns,’ even though a clear bright line between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms exists in Congressional Statute. It is a line that Congress has carefully delineated, and it is one which Congress is loath to tinker with. Yet this sharp, distinction between semiautomatic firearms on the one hand and machine guns on the other is one that Trump has cavalierly, and literally, at the stroke of a pen, erased.

This ATF Rule, if allowed to stand, would severely weaken the Second Amendment. Hopefully, the Gun owners of America, that is challenging the constitutionality of the ATF Rule will prevail. GOA must prevail for the good of the Nation; for the sake of the American citizenry; and for the continued well-being of our Nation’s inviolate rights and liberties.

______________________________________________________

PART SIX

THE ATF BUMP STOCK RULE DEMONSTRATES THE DANGERS INHERENT IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.

AGENCY RULES MUST BE SCRUTINIZED CAREFULLY BY THE COURTS FOR THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.

The American public has historically given little thought to the relationship between Congressional legislation and Administrative action. That must change. The new ATF Rule makes clear that the public must become aware of the intricacies of Governmental action lest the American people lose their sacred fundamental rights and liberties. The American people should have learned long ago of the danger posed to a free Republic through the insinuation of so-called “elites” into the political process. What ensues is oft, appropriately referred to, as “the tyranny of experts.”

How has this come about? It has come about due, paradoxically, to the manner in which our Federal Government operates. The only true “checks and balances” in our Nation are those that rest in the enumerated rights and liberties of the American people, and singularly in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If we lose that basic, inherent right, we have lost everything. That is not hyperbole. That is fact.

Congress makes law, yes. But, in faithfully executing Congressional statute, the Executive Branch must turn Congressional legislation into operational rules. That is the job of Executive agencies.

Congressional legislation provides the mandate through which agencies act. Agencies promulgate rules, allowing for implementation of law. However, that mandate isn’t open-ended. Congressional legislation establishes the parameters beyond which the Executive Branch must not venture. Yet, with disturbing regularity, we see the President, through the Executive agencies he presides over, overstepping his Constitutional authority.

In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard of Court review of agency interpretation of statute. The case is abstruse. The majority of Americans probably never heard of it. Yet, among legal scholars, the U.S Supreme Court Chevron case is likely the most often cited case. Hundreds of academic articles have been written about it. Hundreds more will probably be written. And our case law is legion with references to it.

In Chevron, the high Court wrestled with the amount of discretion that federal Courts—the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government—should give to administrative agencies when those agencies interpret law to promulgate operational rules through which Congressional acts are effectuated. The question for the Courts turns on whether statutory language is ambiguous. If the language is ambiguous, Courts will defer to the agencies—the experts—to resolve the ambiguity, unless the Courts determine the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable. But, then, the Court is itself interpreting statute: hence the conundrum for the Courts.

But that is not the case here, with the ATF Bump Stock Rule, and that is because the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in Congressional Statute, is clear and unambiguous, certainly as unambiguous as our common language, English, can be. The ATF Rule is particularly exasperating as it blatantly ignores the Congressional Statutory dictate in order to promulgate a rule to cohere to a political goal—thereby making a mockery of our system of laws and the very concept of the “Rule of Law” that politicians love to cite but rarely, if ever, actually adhere to.

The ATF Rule, as promulgated, sets forth that bump stock modifications of semiautomatic rifles convert semiautomatic rifles into machine guns because only one pull of the trigger is required to initiate multiple firing of the weapon. But, that statement is either true or it is false.

If true, then the semiautomatic firearm is, in fact, a machine gun. If not, then, the semiautomatic firearm remains a semiautomatic firearm because it is semiautomatic in operation. Rate of fire is irrelevant. Michael Curtis, supra, points out that, in the absence of an “accelerator spring,” a bump stock device—in its usual form (and keep in mind that the ATF Rule fails to consider and appreciate that bump stocks may have different configurations and operate in different ways)—requires one trigger pull for each successive shot. Performance is not a factor, as NRA clearly and correctly points out; the manner of operation is the only factor that comes into play.

Thus, unless Congress enacts legislation to redefine the expression, ‘machine gun,’—redefining it in a way that is contrary to industry use—the President of the United States, through the DOJ-ATF is not lawfully permitted to do redefine 'machine gun' on its own, which, it audaciously has done, even as the language in the Rule says otherwise. The DOJ-ATF action amounts to ad hoc rule-making; ad hoc rule-making, subject to the whims of political pressure, but presumptuously finalized as enforceable law. The DOJ-ATF Rule is nothing more than illegal Executive Branch edict. Its presence makes a mockery of law. It is a travesty. If allowed to stand, it amounts to the usurpation of our entire system of laws and justice, and legal jurisprudence.

____________________________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

THE NEW ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” PORTENDS A TOTAL BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

If allowed to stand, this ATF Rule dangerously undermines the Second Amendment because the Rule unlawfully conflates semiautomatic firearms and machine guns. If rapidity of fire becomes the de facto if tacit but clearly salient factor and new rule-made—as opposed to Congressional enacted—definition of ‘machine gun,’ which presently defines the expression,' machine gun,' in terms of manner of operation, not performance, then all semiautomatic firearms will inevitably and invariably be subsumed into the nomenclature of ‘machine gun.’ Indeed, the mainstream media—comprising stooges and political hacks posing as journalists who know nothing about firearms’ operations and who have no desire to gain such knowledge—merely echoes the sentiments of antigun zealots. The mainstream media routinely argues that no appreciable difference exists between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms, anyway. The running narrative of these organizations is directed to motivating the public to demand, of Congress, the annihilation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose of these “news” organizations has nothing whatsoever to do with news reporting. The Press, today, delivers propaganda masked as news. There is no appreciable distinction anymore between what appears in the Op-Ed sections of these “news” publications or in  what is purportedly presented as “real” news, neutrally presented.

We have seen how antigun zealots create, through the artifice of the ‘assault weapon,’ a useful fiction through which semiautomatic firearms can be ostensibly lawfully banned. President Trump has, consciously or not, but certainly ill-advisedly and uncritically, created, through the DOJ-ATF Bump Stock Rule, a re-branding of semiautomatic firearm as machine gun based, essentially, on performance, albeit deliberately creating vagueness as to whether "bump stocks" necessitate one-trigger pull for every shot or multiple shots with one trigger pull in an attempt to "get around" the lack of any vagueness or ambiguity in the statutory definition of 'machine gun.'

If Trump and the DOJ-ATF are allowed to get away with this subterfuge, then it is but a small step from a total ban on “bump stocks” to a total ban on all semiautomatic firearms, since rate of fire—utilized as the salient and subjective basis for elimination of firearms in the hands of civilians—will now provide the “ammunition” antigun zealots can and will latch onto in their unyielding zeal to continue to weaken the Second Amendment.And it is Trump, now, not Schumer or Pelosi, who has given them a vehicle they can and will use to destroy at once the citizen’s best means of self-defense and destroy, as well, the one truly capable defense in the citizen’s possession, to prevent or at least deter the onset of tyranny.

__________________________________________

*As reported in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, John Crump, NRA instructor, has launched a petition drive to urge President Trump to reverse his position on Bump Stocks. A reversal of Trump’s position requires the rescission of the ATF Bump Stock Rule, which Trump should be able to accomplish. As Chief Executive, the President is sole head of all Departments, bureaus, and agencies of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Trump ordered creation of the rule banning bump stocks. He should be able to demand the rescission of it. Trump can and should assert that, after further consideration, he realizes his Memorandum to the DOJ, requesting a Rule banning bump stocks, was issued in error with little foresight; that the Memorandum he issued is administratively ill-advised, logically flawed, and legally unsupportable, and that, upon reflection, the President realizes the DOJ-ATF Rule does not serve the best interests of the American public, and, further, that the President realizes the Rule is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Arbalest Quarrel supports John Crump’s worthy effort. The founders of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog have added their names to the petition. We urge all Americans who, like us, cherish and exalt our Bill of Rights, and especially our Second Amendment, to do the same. At the moment only a few thousand individuals have signed the petition. That is unacceptable. The petition calls for 100,000 signatures. There are tens of millions of guns owners. Where are their voices? They have not been heard.

Remember this: Nothing serves better to destroy our sacred rights and liberties than public apathy. If those among the public—deluded though they be—are encouraged to yell louder for ever more “gun control” measures than do those who continue to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then Congress will deliver the head of the Second Amendment, on a platter, to the destroyers of our sacred rights. And, the framers of our Constitution and founders of our Free Republic will have given their blood in vain. It is up to you!

Let us avoid the ill-fated national concealed handgun carry reciprocity measure. With the Democrats reclaiming control of the House of Representatives on January 3, 2019, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Democratic Party leadership will be doing everything in its power to weaken the Second Amendment; and we can expect a flurry of anti-Second Amendment bills in the first few months when Congress commences business. We don’t need President Trump assisting them in this effort, whether he is doing so consciously or not.

Once you sign the petition, we also urge you contact the White House. Contact phone numbers are:

1-202-456-1414; (Switchboard)

1-202-456-1111; (Comments)

You may also write to the President. Information may be found at the White House website:

________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SENATE HAS ONE WEEK REMAINING TO APPROVE HOUSE BILL ON CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AND SEND IT TO THE PRESIDENT.

IF THE BILL DIES, WHO IS TO BLAME?

We were never so close to realizing the right of the American people to defend their lives and well-being with a firearm as we were with the passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity by the Republican controlled House in December 2017. Upon passage of 115 H.R. 38 in the House, the bill was immediately sent to the Senate. With the Senate’s vote of approval and with President Trump’s signature, nationwide concealed handgun reciprocity would have become a reality. As of yet, that hasn't happened. The Senate has had over one year to act on this, and we have, to date, seen—nothing. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity was in our grasp. And it is slipping away.We can speculate all we want as to why the Senate has not acted on this, but there is no time for that. The point is that the Senate must act. We cannot take, “no,” for an answer. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity can yet become a reality if enough Americans—millions of us—make clear to the Senate that this is what Americans, need; this is what Americans want; and we want this now, not later. We want no excuses. We want to see action. With a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, the lack of action on the House bill is absolutely unacceptable.If we don’t get the Senate to act, we have only ourselves to blame for the shortfall. And, any chance of seeing another national concealed carry reciprocity bill in the next two years will be next to impossible as the Democrats will hold a majority in the House of Representatives and the Party leadership’s agenda does not call for strengthening the Second Amendment. The agenda calls for weakening the Second Amendment and weakening it quickly and drastically.It is therefore absolutely imperative that the American people—millions of gun owners, not simply a few dozen of us—inform their representatives in the Senate that they, who were sent to the United States Capitol, to work on our behalf, have no greater obligation to this Nation than the safeguarding of the fundamental, unalienable, natural and immutable rights and liberties of the American people. That would fully accord with the intention of the framers of our Constitution.Of those fundamental rights and liberties, none is more important than the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. That singular right, more than any other, makes clear the basic precept that the life and safety and well-being of each American citizen is sacred and inviolate and that no American should be denied the right of self-defense with the best means available—a firearm. Further, the right of self-defense does not stop at the doorstep of one’s home. That basic right extends throughout the Nation and the Nation’s territories. Further, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ultimate defense against tyranny—ever present—a thing the founders of our Republic knew full well and, given that great concern, became the impetus for codification of the right in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.It therefore falls on the American people themselves, as ever it must, as ever it did, to take action, when necessary, as now, and make their voices heard over the cacophony produced by the media lords and ladies. How long must we endure this? How long must we, true Americans left remaining--those of us who believe in the sanctity and autonomy of the individual, who believe in a Nation as conceived by our founders--tolerate the beseeching, syrupy proselytizing of the purveyors of lies; the destroyers of our Republic; those who besmirch our sacred rights and liberties; these perverse, sanctimonious zealots of collectivism who call for ever more gun laws, and ever fewer guns, and ever fewer people “entitled” to own and possess guns, and ever more restrictions placed on the use of guns by those few of us remaining, among the common folk who are entitled to keep firearms at all, but only so long as they are locked up and tucked away—all of course for our own good, for "the collective good" of the people.Some of you believe that the right to keep and bear arms will always prevail in some States of the Union, even if it is denied in others. But, that is a dangerous, false belief. And we should recognize it. Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Montana—States that have traditionally revered the Bill of Rights and extolled as a virtue the notion of the independent, self-reliant, individual—are slowly falling to prey to those who sing a  different tune: one that has less regard for our sacred rights and liberties and for the autonomy of the individual, and for our history, our traditions, our Judeo-Christian ethic.Consider: what sort of Americans would send to Congress people such as the newly elected Left-wing Arizona Senator, Kyrsten Sinema, and the 20-year old self-described Socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, representing New York’s 14^th District? These are people who obviously loathe our Nation’s history, who question our traditions and our core values. Do these people respect the Nation’s Bill of Rights? Do these people revere the First Amendment’s right of free speech, and the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms? Hardly. After all, how would the exercise of these fundamental rights, and others, fit into their Leftist Globalist, Collectivist agenda?If we are going to strengthen the Second Amendment, it must be done now, and quickly. Don’t think that there will be time enough for passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation when the new Congress takes over on January 3, 2019. We need this legislation now, because any firearms’ bills coming out of the House of Representatives, with its Democratic Party majority, will be nothing remotely like the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. You can be assured of that._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IT IS TIME FOR THE U.S. SENATE TO VOTE ON NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been at the forefront in the call for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Posting our first article on the subject in 2015, in our “Roadtrip with a Handgun” series, we have  remained a strong proponent of national concealed handgun carry, and have since published two dozen articles on the subject; our latest posted on November 30, 2018.We were very pleased when the Republican controlled House at long last passed their version of national handgun carry. But that was almost one year ago. The House bill is titled, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38. The House immediately sent the bill to the Senate for consideration. But, there has been no action on it to date. It has been sitting idle in the Senate Judiciary Committee ever since. That is unacceptable. More, this inaction is unconscionable. Millions of American gun owners want it, need it, and have the right to have it.We cannot wait because once the Democratic Party majority takes over control of the House on January 3, 2019, we will likely never again see it. The measure would have to be brought up once again, in the new Congress. It would then have to be voted on, and passed by the full House, and that won’t happen—not with a substantial Democratic Party House majority.The Democratic Party leadership that will define the measures to be taken up and voted upon by the full House has no desire to strengthen the Second Amendment. That is not part of the leadership’s agenda. Indeed, the goal of the Party leadership, for decades, has been, on that score—unlike its policy position on illegal aliens and border protection, where it flip-flopped—remarkably consistent. The aim of the Party leadership is to weaken the Second Amendment to the point that the fundamental right set forth in the Amendment ceases to have practical effect.It is therefore imperative for the Senate to bring the House version of the bill it has been sitting on for close to a year, to the Floor of the Senate for a vote by a full complement of Senators. The Senate will hopefully then pass the bill, and get the bill onto the desk of the U.S. President Trump, for his signature, before it adjourns. There is still time. But, the Senate must act now, without further delay.

National Handgun Concealed Carry Reciprocity Would Be a Good Thing; a Rational, Positive Step Forward.

A few readers of our articles have argued against passage of national handgun carry reciprocity, asserting the right of the people to keep and bear arms—as one of our fundamental, unalienable, and natural rights—rests beyond the lawful control of Government to regulate. If so, this would mean that present federal, State, and local Government regulation of the exercise of the right is facially invalid, and unlawful.The concern expressed is understandable. The Arbalest Quarrel has not been unmindful of the issue whether Government can legitimately regulate our fundamental, natural, enumerated rights at all, and if it can, then the extent to which Government can regulate these rights.The tension between Governmental power on the one hand and the rights and liberties of the people, on the other, was, in fact, a focus of attention for the founders of the Republic, and a dilemma. They came to an understanding, if guardedly and grudgingly by some, that, for the fledgling Republic to exist and persist through time, it would be necessary to establish a strong national government. But, having thrown off the yoke of oppression created by one autocratic rule—that of King George III—the founders, who met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787, had no desire to draft conditions, albeit unintentionally, that would allow for imposition of yet another such rule—and this one of their own making.The answer, for the framers of the Constitution, referred to as antifederalists, was to place an express Bill of Rights into the Constitution, to protect the rights and liberties of the people. The antifederalists saw inclusion of a Bill of Rights as necessary to curb a tendency of a national Government to exercise and accumulate ever more power at the expense of the people to whom that Government was, after all, designed and expected to serve.The federalists were opposed to this idea, but not because they were against securing fundamental rights and liberties for the people. Rather, they felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and redundant, as the power and authority of a central Government would be express and limited. Everything else—rights, liberties, powers—would reside in the respective States and in the people. Further, the federalists felt that, by placing emphasis on a formal Bill of Rights, this would obscure the need for creating an effective and efficient Government that could provide both national security and strength, and, at once, promote liberty. But, we have seen how this has played out, 200+ years later. And, it isn’t good. Thankfully, the antifederalists’ demand for inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution prevailed over the federalists’ objections against such inclusion.The federal Government has indeed, through time, become very effective and efficient in amassing unbridled power, along with securing, for itself, extraordinary levels and layers of secrecy, even as the American citizenry, conversely, has lost its own fundamental right to be free from unlawful Governmental searches and seizures. Indeed, there likely now exists a Government within a Government, an ominous, parallel Shadow Government, separate and apart from the apparent, ostensibly “open” Government the public sees.This Shadow Government likely siphons off billions of taxpayer dollars annually, using that money to advance its own illegitimate goals; money that serves its own interests, not those of the American people; hence, the concern of many citizens against any Government regulation of fundamental, enumerated, unalienable, and natural rights, including the right of the people to keep and bear arms, else Government inevitably, inexorably, and insidiously encroach upon and systematically and oppressively control the lives and actions of its own people.But, is there any statement in the Constitution prohibiting Government regulation of fundamental rights, as some readers assert? Let’s look at a few clauses.

The “Necessary and Proper Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution states in part that Government is “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. . . .”  This clause would appear to be an express limitation on Government regulation, certainly of the enumerated rights, as set forth in the first eight Amendments, apart from the unenumerated rights referred to in the Ninth  and Tenth. If so, the “necessary and proper clause” does restrain federal Government regulation of the Second Amendment and of other fundamental, enumerated rights of the people.

The “Supremacy Clause”

Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states in part, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . .”  The “supremacy clause” is essentially an assertion of federal preemption. The idea alluded to is that the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties are the Law of the Land and are subordinated to no other laws. But, contrary to some views expressed, the supremacy clause is not an assertion of the sanctity of the Bill of Rights, beyond the power of Congress to regulate. In fact, at least some antifederalists were much concerned about it, fearing the clause would give the federal Government too much power over the States. Yet, it may also be argued, that the supremacy clause implies that the enumerated rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are—since an express part of the Constitution, along with the Articles—well beyond the power of the federal Government to lawfully regulate. In that respect, the supremacy clause serves to contain and restrain Government regulation of the citizenry’s fundamental, enumerated rights.

The “Commerce Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution sets forth the power of Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  National concealed handgun carry reciprocity does implicate interstate commerce, but whether Congressional power to regulate the carrying of a firearm across State lines amounts to an over-extension of the commerce power, at the expense of the States, will require further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Will Happen When National Concealed Handgun Carry is Passed by the Senate and Signed into Law by the President?

Were the Senate to pass national concealed handgun carry reciprocity and the President sign it into law, it would be an odd thing, indeed, yet possible to see antigun groups and some pro-Second Amendment groups both opposing the law. Yet, both sides could do so, albeit each for its own reasons, both claiming Congress had gone beyond its authority to regulate firearms’ possession.Be that as it may, however this might play out, the Arbalest Quarrel feels that, given the myriad antigun laws already enacted, there would be far more to gain from having this one, at this moment in time, than not. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity would at least serve as a significantly pro-Second Amendment federal law to counter the plethora of State and Federal laws that aren’t. Still, we understand and respect such misgivings some pro-Second Amendment people may have on the matter._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

AS DEADLINE DRAWS NEAR, SUPPORTERS OF SECOND AMENDMENT DEMAND U.S. SENATE VOTE ON NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY.

THE U.S. SENATE MUST ACT NOW!

We have two weeks left before the Senate adjourns for the Christmas Holiday.If the Senate fails to act on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity within the next two weeks, any chance that this measure will be taken up anew and that it will become a reality when the House of Representatives seats a Democratic Party majority in 2019 will be virtually nil.The Senate Judiciary Committee has been sitting on the bill that was sent to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, last December 2017, when it passed the Republican controlled House. The version of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity that passed the House is designated, 115 H.R. 38, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” Once Senator McConnell received it, he sent it immediately to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, for action. Clearly, no work was done on it; and a year has gone by since the Judiciary Committee had received it.It is imperative we get the House version of the bill onto the Floor of the Senate for immediate roll-call vote.

THIS MATTER REQUIRES THE CONCERTED EFFORT OF EACH OF US.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been on the forefront of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity. We have written numerous articles on this subject. Interested readers are encouraged to read our articles by visiting our website.Our articles have also been published by Ammoland Shooting Sports News  See our article, “National ‘Right To Carry’ For Self-Defense Needs Your Help – Take Action.” And, we have recently posted our article on the website, The Truth About Guns. As a regular guest on “LockNLoadRadio,” hosted by Bill Frady, we have discussed the issue of national right to carry, at length.We have been getting positive responses to our articles. Many pro-Second Amendment groups, organizations, radio, respected news sources and social media, have joined us to mount a grassroots effort to strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right.We know that, as you have gotten the message, you are doing your part to get the Senate to move on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. Once the Senate passes the bill, it will be sent directly and immediately to the President for his signature. And, have no doubt about this, President Trump will sign it. He has made very clear both during his campaign for the Republican Party nomination and during his successful run against the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, that he avidly supports the natural, fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.It is time to urge Congress to act to strengthen our natural rights and liberties, not weaken them. We must have national concealed handgun carry reciprocity enacted into law now.For those of you who have not added your voice to this critical effort, there is still time.

IMPORTANT CONTACT INFORMATION:

Senator McConnell may be reached at 202/ 224-2541, but he does not provide a personal response and he will not take messages at this time. However, there is a referral to Senator McConnell's on-line email.Senator Grassley can be reached at: 202/ 224-3744. The Senator provides a personal response to your message and your message will be relayed directly to the Senator.Your Senate Delegation can be reached at: 202/ 224-3121. The switchboard will provide you the phone numbers for the Senators of your State.You can reach the White House at:  202/ 456-1414. At the prompt, you can leave a message for President Trump.The NRA can be reached at: 800/ 392-8683. You can leave a message, but be aware there may be a lengthy wait. You can also leave a message for the nra-ila.With your active assistance, we can turn the tide and see national concealed handgun carry reciprocity a reality. Please join us in this important, timely cause. Time is of the essence. We must get the Senate to act immediately on this._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ATTENTION ALL LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS: NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS IN JEOPARDY.

Concealed handgun carry reciprocity is about to die. It is about to die through deliberate inaction or callous indifference of the U.S. Senate. But we have a small window of opportunity: 21 days left to achieve the goal that has eluded us for years. It seemed assured of being accomplished by the Republican controlled 115^th Congress but, it wasn’t.Congress still has time to act before the end of the year, but that does nothing to explain why Congress failed to get this done. It certainly had ample opportunity to do so.

WHAT HAPPENED? WHY DID A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS FAIL TO FULFILL PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN PROMISE?

The House of Representatives and the Senate did introduce several national handgun carry reciprocity bills in the last two years. One such bill was 115 H.R. 38, titled, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. The bill's synopsis reads: “AN ACT to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.” The measure was voted on by the full House, and the Republican controlled House passed the bill, on December 6, 2017, by recorded roll call vote: 231 to 198. The vast majority of House Democrats voted against passage of the bill. Only 6 of 184 Democrats voted for passage of the bill. Contrariwise, the vast majority of House Republicans, 225, voted for passage of the bill; and 14 voted against passage.One day later, on December 7, 2017, the bill was sent to and received by the Senate, where it was read twice, in accordance with Senate protocol, and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for action. And, then we heard—Nothing! Dead Silence!The bill apparently fell into a deep, dark abyss.Senator Mitch McConnell, who, as Senate Majority Leader, has ultimate authority for determining what bills are voted on by the full Senate, said and did nothing to get the Judiciary Committee to act so that the bill could be voted on by the full Senate.Why didn’t the Judiciary Committee act on this? They certainly could have, but didn’t. And, why didn’t Senator Mitch McConnell urge the Judiciary Committee to action, so the full Senate would have had the opportunity to vote for passage of national concealed handgun carry legislation? We don’t know. He could have seen to this, but didn’t. Senate Republicans who can answer these questions, aren’t saying.Much about this, we don’t know. It is deeply perplexing.

BUT, THIS MUCH WE DO KNOW—

Senator Mitch McConnell can get things done when he wants to. Senator Mitch McConnell was able to get Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirmed as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This wasn’t easy, given the strenuous pushback by Senate Democrats. And the Senator should be commended for his zealous, unflagging effort in that regard. He should be just as zealous in getting national concealed handgun legislation through the full Senate. He certainly could have done so. For some reason, he chose not to. Yet, he still has time to get this done before the 116^th Congress begins its first term, on January 3, 2019, because, at that point, it would be futile. The House will seat a Democratic Party majority; and the Democratic Party leadership's agenda will include the drafting of bills to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not to strengthen that basic, fundamental, natural, and unalienable rightThe 2016 general election earned us President Donald Trump along with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. National Right-to-Carry was in our grasp. The timing couldn’t have been better. This is what law-abiding gun owners wanted, and NRA and other Pro-Second Amendment organizations campaigned vigorously for it. Our once-in-a-lifetime real hope for National Right-to-Carry is now slipping through our fingers.The Senate had over a year to act on the bill, from late 2017, when it first received the bill from the House. But the Senate failed to act.

CAN’T THE SENATE SIMPLY PASS THE BILL NEXT YEAR AND SEND IT ON TO PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS SIGNATURE IN 2019?

NO! IT CANNOT! All pending bills die.“At the end of a two-year session, Congress adjourns 'sine die' or 'without day' and not reconvene until a new Congress starts some time the next January.After that, the slate is wiped clean; there is no business pending. All of the ‘H.R.’ and ‘S.’ numbered titles that have been discussed and debated for the past two years will be archived. When Congress reconvenes, the process starts all over again.” When Congress reconvenes in 2019, House Republicans can reintroduce concealed handgun carry reciprocity but with a Democratic Party House of Representatives majority, the bill would never pass. So, whatever the Senate does in 2019, won’t matter because both Houses of Congress must pass a bill before a bill is sent to the President for his signature, at which point, a bill then becomes the Law of the Land, in accordance with Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

TIME TO PASS CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS OF THE ESSENCE!

There is no time to waste. The Senate is scheduled to adjourn on December 14, 2018. If the Senate fails to pass the bill by emergency roll call vote, we will have lost the only real opportunity to see concealed handgun carry reciprocity through to fruition.And, keep in mind: the Senate’s failure to act on national handgun carry places extreme pressure on President Trump who made this issue one of the signature issues of his campaign for U.S. President. Failure to accomplish this goal can well lead to Trump’s defeat in the general U.S. Presidential election of 2020. We must place the Senate’s feet to the fire.” This is where you can help!

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

IMMEDIATELY CALL:U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee): (202) 224-3744U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: (202) 224-2541Your Senate Delegation: (202) 224-3121TELL THEM THIS:“The Senate must vote on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 bill immediately. The bill passed the House on December 6, 2017, almost one year ago, and has since been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. That is unacceptable! We have only a few precious weeks to get this matter completed. The Senate must pass this bill and send it immediately to the President for his signature. President Trump will sign the bill into law, fulfilling an important campaign promise. My continued support for you will depend on your vote to approve this bill.”You should also contact NRA and President Trump, reminding them of their commitment to support national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. The contact numbers are as follows:The White House: (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414National Rifle Association (NRA): (800) 672-3888We must put pressure on those who can get this matter accomplished.Making a few important phone calls will only take a few minutes of your time. It is quick and easy, and critically important to safeguard and strengthen our right to keep and bear arms.What you do can make a difference and you will be proud to have taken an active part in protecting our natural, fundamental, unalienable, and sacred right to safeguard our lives and the lives of those closest to us, with the best means available: a firearm.If you chose to do nothing, you will only have yourself to blame.THIS IS OUR LAST REAL SHOT AT PASSAGE OF SIGNIFICANT PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT LEGISLATION!DON’T HESITATE TO TAKE THE SHOT. YOU WILL REGRET IT BECAUSE IT MAY BE YOUR LAST!__________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE MODERN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR: A CLASH OF IDEOLOGIES

PART THREE*

“A closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. These different premises—often implicit—are what provide the consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and groups on numerous, unrelated issues. They have different visions of how the world works.” ~ from A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell, Economist and Social Theorist; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.“You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve YOUR freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it.” ~John Adams“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.” ~Benjamin Franklin

A CLASH OF IDEOLOGIES; A NATION AT A CROSSROADS**

No one can reasonably doubt that the United States is in the throes of a major cataclysmic event. Two factions face off against each other in mortal combat for the soul and psyche of this Country. We see, in the desperation of one faction, the lengths at which it will go in its bid to regain control of its agenda. That faction through its proxies in Washington, comprising Congressional Democrats and Centrist “Bush” and “McCain” Republicans, has maintained control for the last three decades. That faction has exerted a stranglehold on the Country, slowly squeezing the lifeblood out of the Nation and its citizenry through control, inter alia, of Congress; the Federal bureaucracy; the federal courts; the mass media; and, of course, through the Federal Reserve, part of the Central Banking system--the brainchild of Mayer Amschel Rothschild--that has extended its tentacles around the world, up to the present day.The Leftist faction was well on its way toward completing the items on its agenda, as Barack Obama was ticking off the items during his two terms in Office. Hillary Clinton was poised to be elected U.S. President. Leftists of all stripes were smugly confident. After all, hadn't virtually all the exit polls predict a win--a landslide. They were certain that Hillary Clinton would secure the U.S. Presidency.Even if many on the Left would have preferred the Socialist, Bernie Sanders, as President, they knew, full well, that Hillary Clinton, would faithfully proceed, in the footsteps of her predecessor, Barack Obama, toward accomplishment of the Leftist agenda.Had Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, she likely would have re-nominated Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to the high Court; or, if not him, then she certainly would have nominated someone like him, someone who shares Judge Garland's jurisprudential philosophy and jurisprudential approach to case analysis--a man who had no fear of legislating from the Bench; a man who would contort and distort the dictates of the U.S. Constitution beyond anything the framers of that historic and sacred Document had intended or would have wished for. And, with control of two critical Federal Branches, the Executive and Judiciary, along with control of the mass media apparatus and the massive federal bureaucracy, the actual composition of Congress would, likely, have been, at least, in the short term of less critical importance. But, Clinton did not make it into the White House. Leftists, in our Country, including the internationalist billionaire benefactors of Leftist groups and causes, were thunderstruck, and they were already plotting their revenge, even before Donald Trump took the Oath of Office, as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

SEATING JURISTS ON THE SUPREME COURT WHOSE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACH TO CASE ANALYSIS COMMENCES WITH AN ABIDING LOVE FOR, DUE RESPECT FOR, AND DUE REGARD GIVEN FOR THE IMPORT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN, AND WHO INTERPRET FEDERAL STATUTE ACCORDING TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE TEXT, WAS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT GOALS IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT GOAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS IT MOST CERTAINLY WAS FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR HIM.

With the surprising election of Donald Trump as our Nation’s 45^th President, and with Republican control of Congress—especially, the U.S. Senate—and too, with Trump’s nomination of one strict Constitutional constructionist and originalist, Neil Gorsuch, presently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, and a second strict Constitutional constructionist and originalist, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, just confirmed as Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court now securely has a conservative-wing majority, albeit with one important caveat. Chief Justice Roberts is considered the new swing vote moderate. Chief Justice Roberts is, though, a more reliable conservative than retired Justice, Anthony Kennedy. So, where does this leave Leftists, and their agenda?Leftists and Leftist mobs are left scurrying about hither and yon; ranting and raving. The Leftist agenda seems to be on the verge of collapse or, if not, then, for the moment at least, the work of effectuating the Leftist agenda has certainly appreciably slowed. And, with the Left's failure to derail Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the high Court, that critical item of the Leftist agenda--preventing a conservative-wing majority, is a failed item. And the Leftist faction knows it. Leftists know that federal and State legislation that fails to cohere with the United States Constitution will not be allowed to go unchallenged. They know that, with Brett Kavanaugh on the high Court, those challenges will be taken up for high Court review. An "assault weapons" case, like the Kolbe and Friedman, would henceforth be heard. Leftists know that, if lower Courts continue to ignore the precedents of Heller and McDonald with impunity, there will now be a day of reckoning, and those lower Courts that so act with impunity will be called on the carpet for it.Democratic Party control of the Judiciary, is, then, critical to completion of the Leftist agenda and that can only be accomplished through election of a Democrat as U.S. President, along with Democratic Party control of the Senate. Failure to win the White House in 2016, and failure to control the Senate explains why Democrats have, themselves, gone off the rails in their attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court.And Americans have seen just how far Democrats are willing to go. After Judge Kavanaugh acquitted himself well in defending the vicious personal assault against him, they would not, could not admit even that much. Democrats speciously, even ridiculously, claimed that Judge Brett Kavanaugh has shown that he is unfit, temperamentally, to sit on the high Court, ostensibly because he happened to have the seeming audacity of displaying emotion and in having displayed righteous indignation in defending his character, his reputation, and his honor against a scurrilous, flimsy, rambling, barefaced, unsupported, uncorroborated public attack; an attack engineered by the Democratic Party leadership and by those Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as they desperately sought to prevent, by any means they could drum up, the Senate confirmation of a highly qualified Judge--however outrageous, patently unethical, and, perhaps, even illegal those means may be.These "Leftists" cared not one whit that they would be damaging, possibly, irreparably, the character and reputation of an honorable man. And they cared not at all that doing so would also endanger the life, safety, and well-being of Judge Kavanaugh and that of his family. They operated callously, maliciously, and reprehensibly, completely beyond the bounds of reason, and ethics, and human decency. Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee are utterly shameless. Their machinations and subterfuge rest well beyond the pale of human decency, let alone beyond the pale of what would count as proper U.S. Senate etiquette, decorum, and propriety. Americans have not, for decades, seen anything like the public spectacle they bore witness to that took place over several days of Confirmation Hearing. Democrats appeared, by turns, as circus clowns, sanctimonious inquisitors, and, as members of a cabaret burlesque troupe--many things, indeed, but not solemn, dignified members of the United States Senate, that a few Americans might have mistaken them to be.The disgusting displays of Democrats during the course of the Hearing, and the actions orchestrated by Democrats and by their allies behind the scenes is just a foretaste of what the American public may come to see, and would have every reason to expect if a liberal-wing Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps, or Stephen Breyer, retires or resigns from the high Court before President Trump’s first term in Office ends, and President Trump thereupon nominates a third Judge to sit on the high Court. Keep in mind that, according to USA Today, Justice Ginsburg is 85 years of age, and Justice Breyer is 79.If one more conservative-wing Trump nominee can be confirmed--assuming one of the liberal-wing Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer, retires--the conservative-wing majority, barring any unforeseen event, will be stronger yet, virtually impervious to Leftist attempts to complete the hijacking of the Nation and the Nation's  Constitution. The Leftist faction knows that it has suffered a profound defeat having failed to derail the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh or at least to delay a vote on the confirmation until after the 2018 Midterm elections, when it hopes to gain Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

LEFTISTS KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THE COMING MIDTERM ELECTIONS. CONSERVATIVES SHOULD KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE, TOO.

So, with the 2018 Midterm elections around the corner, Leftists are frantically, frenetically engaged in  sketching out new strategies in a bid to regain traction so that they can continue jumpstart the Leftist agenda. Republicans must not sit back and relax.The Leftist leadership, Congressional Democrats, and their billionaire internationalist benefactors know this; they know that they have been hamstrung, and they are literally exploding with rage. They have no cogent argument to make in their defense. Mobs of activists are enlisted to shout down conservative voices and anyone else who disagrees with the Leftist agenda. Mass demonstrations, violent outbursts, visible threats to those they target all point to the singular desperation of this faction. They can do nothing now, but flail about. So, the first order of business for Leftists is for Democrats to regain control of the U.S. Senate. But, even with a substantial number of reliable Democrats in the Senate, along with several swing votes in the U.S. Senate, that would not mean that more Democratic nominees for Federal Court seats, at all levels, would be confirmed. For, only the President of the United States can nominate federal judges, although Democrats can and in fact have blocked confirmation of many of Trump's nominees to sit on the lower federal Courts. So, then, the second order of business for Leftists is to make sure that Democrats can regain and hold control of the U.S. Senate through 2020 with the goal then of retaking the U.S. Presidency with a reliable Leftist. Once that step is accomplished, Democrats will be able once again to nominate reliably Leftist judges to sit on the federal Judiciary and will be able to confirm those Leftist Judges. Then Leftists will find themselves in a stronger position to reset the political and social direction of the Country, albeit with a little more difficulty now that the highest Court in the Land sits a reliable four Justice Conservative wing + one moderate/conservative Chief Justice majority.

CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME AMERICANS MAY THINK, THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THIS NATION IS DIRE. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A CIVIL WAR.

We see two distinctive political/social factions fighting for control of the Country's direction. Two visions for our Country are coming into sharp focus, into sharp relief. Whichever side ultimately prevails will see its world view realized. But, what are those two world views? How would each vision, if realized, affect this Country, and affect the lives of the Country's citizenry and affect the Constitution upon which the foundation of our Nation rests? We begin with this assertion: the two visions--the two world views--for this Country and for its people, rest on two mutually exclusive frameworks. Only one of the two can be realized. Democrats are a proxy for one vision. Republicans are a proxy for the second. It is not, then, a simple matter of a Republicans versus Democrats conflict that we are seeing. That is too simplistic. To frame the issue in terms of Republicans versus Democrats trivializes the matter before us.We are engaged in a Civil War. The central question before the Nation, then, can be stated thusly:Shall the Country continue to exist as an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic as the founders conceived and intended, with the Nation’s Constitution, laws, and judiciary intact and supreme, subordinated to no external system of laws and external tribunals; or, will the Country, as an independent Sovereign Nation and Free Republic, see its status as a singular, unique, independent, sovereign Nation State, at once diminished, impaired, or severely truncated?If the independence and sovereignty of the United States is impaired, we must consider a corollary question, namely, whether the supremacy of the Nation’s Constitution, its laws, and jurisprudence will similarly be impaired. And, if the United States finds its sovereignty and independence curtailed by pacts and treaties it happens to enter into with foreign entities through which such foreign elements insinuate their power and authority over this Country’s Government and institutions, will we then see the United States, as an independent sovereign political entity, subsumed into a new transnational political, economic, financial, and social framework, requiring that the Nation’s system of laws be subordinated to or otherwise replaced by foreign law and foreign jurisprudence? If such events were to occur, then this Nation and its Constitution will, de facto, cease to exist.If such were to occur we would see the United States and the American people effectively subordinated to the governance and will of a new transnational political, economic, financial, and social system to which the Nation would henceforth belong. This is not conspiracy. This is not alternative history. This is fact. The events that have played out before us in recent months dispel perfunctory dismissal of the seriousness of the situation facing the Nation and its people. We have seen clear and categorical attacks on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We have seen lower U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal flaunting the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and flaunting the President's Article 2 powers. We have seen indisputable, irrefutable evidence of high level federal bureaucrats having conspired against and continuing to conspire against the United State President; and we have seen indisputable, irrefutable evidence of high level bureaucrats actively attempting to sabotage the Administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. We have seen indisputable, irrefutable evidence of  the leadership of a few States openly defying Federal law; and in open revolt against Federal Officers tasked with enforcing Federal law. We see a Press, misusing its sacred right under the First Amendment. It has undertaken a campaign of disinformation and misinformation. It routinely smears the President, in a reprehensible attempt to discredit him, to isolate him, to prevent him from doing his job on behalf of the American people; and, in that reprehensible attack on the President, the Press has also attacked the very institution of Office of the U.S. Presidency, and, in so doing, has attacked our institutions, our Nation, and our people. We have seen an insidious attempt to question the sanctity of the very notions of, 'Nation State,' and of  'Citizen of the United States.' We see raging mobs in the Streets, on university campuses, and in the Halls of Congress. We have seen lunatics harassing both Government officials and members of Congress. We see sacred statues toppled; history rewritten; our Nation's Flag disrespected; our system of laws defied. None of this is accident. It is all by design.Ever since Donald Trump assumed the mantle of President of the United States, the ruthless, secretive, seditious, extraordinarily powerful, and inordinately wealthy forces that have worked to disassemble this Nation, have had to come out of the shadows, albeit reluctantly. What they could not accomplish quietly, within the interstices of the Nation's laws and institutions, they have come to realize they must use brute force. These forces are fomenting violence, anarchy, in a crude but, as they see it, necessary attempt, to force the Country back on the path they had established for the Country, a path that the Clintons, and Bush, and Obama--the willing accomplices of the Leftist agenda--had quietly, inexorably directed this Nation and its people to.As we continue to explore the two visions of the Country--one ascribed to the Leftist agenda, and the second ascribed to the Conservative cause--we need to take a closer look at the two factions--one of whom we have referred to here as "Leftist" and the other that we have alluded to as "Conservative." We must take a closer look at these two factions, and we begin with a consideration of the labels heretofore used as descriptors for them, even as we find all those descriptors  to be inapt. We explain why. We then consider better descriptors that better encapsulate the beliefs, precepts, assumptions, aims, and ultimate goals of each faction, each side, in this conflict. We will then take a close look at several of those beliefs, precepts, assumptions, and aims, and show the logical end point realizations of each.

WHAT EXPRESSIONS BEST DESCRIBE THE TWO FACTIONS?

In describing the two factions, the two combatants, we have considered various terminology and rejected that terminology because we considered the verbiage are either vague and ambiguous, and therefore likely to create confusion, or too narrow in scope or range, and therefore deficient as descriptors. We have heretofore employed the expressions, ‘Democrat,’ ‘Leftist’, ‘Progressive,’ ‘Liberal,’ and ‘Radical’ loosely and often interchangeably to denote one faction. And, we have employed the expressions, ‘Republican,’ ‘Conservative,’ and ‘Populist’, loosely, often interchangeably to denote the other faction. But, these expressions, as well, are too vague or ambiguous and too limited in range to be effective for our purpose here. Furthermore, they have been so overused that they are tantamount to clichés. A couple of the expressions may be considered to be, simply, pejoratives. Lastly, a few of the expressions,  may readily, or, at least, arguably suggest ideas, beliefs, and precepts of  both factions, as there exists significant overlap. Or, the expressions are simply and essentially empty and vacuous vessels, and so serve no useful, functional purpose.We have also considered using the expressions, ‘Globalist’ or ‘Internationalist’ or ‘Transnationalist’ to describe one faction and the expression, ‘Nationalist’ to describe the other faction. But these expressions as delineated come up short as apt descriptors, as they, too, have been overused; are, in fact, inaccurate descriptors; and, in reference to the term, ‘Nationalist,’ have been used as a term of  disparagement, as the mainstream media, when writing or talking about President Trump or anyone who supports him, equates the President’s nationalist fervor with fascism, even though President Trump is clearly not a fascist and the term ‘nationalism’ does not denote ‘fascism’ and should not be construed as synonymous with ‘fascism.’ But, the allusions are there, operating as a meme.A well-learned attorney, and legal scholar with whom we have discussed the matter, suggested that the expressions, ‘Collectivist,’ and ‘Individualist’ are the best terminology to be used to describe the belief system of a member of one faction or the other.’ And we concur. These two expressions are precise, carry no connotation of disparagement, have not heretofore been used by anyone, to our knowledge, to describe the two factions; and broadly embrace all beliefs, precepts, presuppositions and aims of the two groups facing off in this modern civil war taking place in America, but without any overlap. Therefore, mutual exclusivity in both the connotation and denotation of the expressions, as applied to each of the respective groups, is faithfully maintained. The expressions, ‘Collectivist’ and ‘Individualist,’ then, are the two expressions we will use as referrers and descriptors for each of the two factions at war with each other.Now, let us consider several of the basic belief systems, precepts, and ultimate goal and logical outcome of the Collectivist and Individualist philosophies. We will see in this delineated list two competing visions for our Country, one of which, taken to its logical conclusion, results in the ultimate dissolution of the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, together with the dissolution of the Nation’s Constitution and system of laws, and the other which preserves the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, with its Constitution and laws intact.We thus have two distinct, mutually exclusive visions of the Country and of the world; two distinct notions of law and government, and of the relationship of man to government and to each other—two distinct visions, only one which can be realized; and two ever diverging paths, only one, of which, our Nation can take! Our Nation is at a crossroads.

COLLECTIVISTS VERSUS INDIVIDUALISTS

COLLECTIVISTS’ BELIEFS, PRECEPTS, PRESUPPOSITIONS AND AIMS APROPOS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY

1) The ‘nation state’ is an archaic concept. The United States must eventually be subsumed into a new transnational political, economic, cultural, and social framework. This new framework will consist of the relics of the old western nation states, to be overseen by a world financial and technocratic conglomerate that will prescribe uniform rules of operation, behavior, and conduct of the various units and populations within it.2) Since the concept of ‘citizen’ is tied to rights and liberties, privileges and immunities of a select group of people within the nation state, called “The United States Of America,” and, as this nation state, as a political construct, is, eventually, to be dismantled, a concept of ‘citizen of The United States’ will no longer be meaningful. Individuals who were once perceived as citizens of The United States will henceforth be considered “subjects” within a greater, transnational political, economic, financial, cultural, system of governance, comprising people of diverse cultures.3) Diverse populations of people who inhabit vast regions throughout the world are henceforth to be integrated into a new global political and social and economic and financial and cultural world community.4) Since there nation states will no longer exist, there will no longer exist national borders to be protected. Hence, the subjects of this new transnational political, social, economic and cultural paradigm are free to travel to and reside in any geographical unit within the span or global reach of the new system of governance that the subject wishes to travel to and reside in. Such entry and exit points that had once demarcated geographical borders of nation states dismantled are henceforth erased.5) The U.S. Constitution which includes the rights and liberties of the citizens, codified in the Bill Of Rights, is meaningful only within the context of The United States, as an independent sovereign nation state. Once the United States ceases to exist, it follows that the U.S. constitution will be rendered ineffective and obsolete. Hence the political entity that existed as “The United States” is dissolved, along with the various states within the Union. The Nation will be subsumed within the new broad transnational system of global governance. 6) The U.S. Constitution need not be formally repealed. It simply will, upon the formal dismantling of The United States, have no legal force or effect. the governing board—the rulers—of this new system of global governance will prepare and implement a new legal and administrative framework for the system’s governance. This new legal and administrative framework—consisting of a new system of laws, rules, regulations, along with a new jurisprudential philosophy and methodology for handling civil disputes that happen to arise and criminal conduct that must be adjudicated—will be established, handled through civil and criminal tribunals, dispersed throughout the global system of governance. A constitution for the vast populations residing in this new world order may or may not be drafted. It may be useful, but is not required. The global system of governance will control the populace with a vast network of intelligence and police apparatuses. a standing army, with barracks throughout the global system of governance will also be established and maintained. 7) All populations that reside in the new global political and social, and economic framework are subject to the jurisdiction of this new transnational system of governance. This transnational system of governance will be created and enforced by overseers, appointed by the new global governing board, to mete out justice and to set forth those privileges the subjects may have and enjoy. such privileges that the subjects of this global system of governance enjoy may be refined, modified, or eliminated, as the global governing board sees fit. 8) Substantive and procedural rights are perceived as all man-made constructs. since it is decreed that, for political purposes, no creator exists, it follows, there are no natural fundamental rights intrinsic to man, endowed by a creator upon man. such rights and liberties that subjects have are deemed mere platitudes as subjects have no inherent rights or liberties as such, but, rather, privileges bestowed upon them, denoted by licenses, that are presented to subjects by the overseers of the new transnational system of global governance. licenses shall be surrendered to the overseers on demand or as prescribed by such laws and regulations, seen as edicts, that the governing board happens to create. and, since rights and liberties are no more than or other than licenses bestowed on subjects, they can easily be ceded to the overseers upon demand. It shall be declared, then, that no subject within the new transnational system of governance can claim any right or liberty as a matter of personal right, as no such personal rights exist inherently in man.9) Thus, all rights, privileges, and liberties are considered man-made constructs and artifices. The governing board may, at its pleasure, modify or eliminate outright such rights, liberties, and privileges as it deems necessary, as the members of the governing board hold exclusive power and authority throughout the reach of the global system of governance.10) The ethical system utilized by the governing board of this transnational system of governance, as applied to the subjects therein, is based on the notion of utilitarian consequentialism. This is a system of ethics in which “the good” is defined in terms of ‘utility’ maximization. What constitutes ‘the good’ is anything the rulers of this transnational system of governance, through their overseers, define ‘the good’ as applied to and as maximized for the greatest number of people.11) Morality: the concept of ‘moral good’ is determined by the consequences of one’s actions alone—not by one’s intention to do a good or evil act. What constitutes “moral goodness” in the broadest sense is, then, that which benefits the collective—the majority of people. What benefits the collective, does not necessarily also benefit the individual. In fact, what benefits the collective may be deleterious and detrimental to the individual. Thus, for example, if the ownership of firearms for self-defense is considered beneficial to the individual but detrimental to the masses, then firearms’ ownership must be curtailed. Similarly, if free speech, and free association among particular groups are deemed to harm collective cohesion, then freedom of speech and freedom of association are inferred to be contrary to maintenance of the ‘moral good,’ the moral fiber of the populations and must be constrained. Acts that neither benefit the collective nor are deemed harmful to the collective are considered to be morally neutral. Morally neutral acts are acts that can be tolerated.12) Results desired outweigh adherence to any constitution created or to any laws established. If the results to be achieved conflicts with the law as applied, then, the law must give way to the result to be achieved. Thus, the political or social end to be achieved or desired shall always override the constitution, if there is one, or such laws, rules, and regulations that are made. If, then, a desired political or social end to be achieved or desired can be achieved in no way other than by ignoring, suspending, or abrogating such laws, rules, and regulations, then such laws, rules and laws shall be suspended, abrogated, or simply ignored. Thus, the means to be achieved always justifies the end sought. thus, all laws, rules, regulations, or codes of conduct are merely ad hoc and, therefore, ultimately illusory.13) Thus, “law” is whatever the governing board essentially says law is. The governing board may create or suspend law by simple proclamation or government edict. Law is adjusted by demand or need to obtain a particular result. Order is maintained by force. the governing Board may, periodically, create disorder, too, as a political device to achieve their goals. 14) Individual ambition and motivation and desire is contained and constrained. It is collective will—the will of the masses—shaped, molded and periodically contorted, distorted, and then reshaped, remolded and reconfigured by the rulers as to garner, essentially a condition of neutral political stasis. It is this state of neutral stasis that is ultimately desired. So, it is that neutral stasis that is considered the “ultimate good” and it is thus that utility is maximized, and “the will” of the masses—“the will” of the collective is achieved. 15)The vast populations of the world that fall under the domain of this new transnational system of global governance will be reduced to penury and servitude.16) “Popular opinion” overrides the effect and impact of the constitution, if there is one, and overrides such laws that are created. But, ‘popular opinion’ as understood by collectivists is less a spontaneous public response to perceived grievances, emanating from the public, and more a political and social device, used by those who wield power to create the illusion that the masses, the collective ‘will,” wields power to affect political and social change and that the desire to do so emanates from the masses. It does not.  Popular opinion is driven by the demand of those in power to achieve a desired end, as power—its creation and use—falls within the purview of government, not the people. This illustrates, once again, that all law is ad hoc for the collectivist. Law, as such, is an artifice, another tool of government to be used as a mechanism of control. The transnational system of governance is a system of governance ruled by men—the rulers of this transnational system of governance; it is not a system ruled by law.17) Individuals, or groups of individuals, that, from time to time, happen to rise up against the global system of governance will be quashed by the police and army, if necessary. but, generally, the governing board will use the subjects, themselves, to constrain dissent. use of the populace itself, as a self-righteous horde, is preferred, to maintain order, as police and army standby at the ready. the illusion is maintained that the populace—the collective, the masses, themselves—are the rulers, as this fosters the false notion that it is the collective will that operates to create cohesion, order, and perpetual harmony in society. But that notion is the supreme, ultimate myth since governmental power and authority does not rest in the people, but in government itself and government is not answerable to the people, but only to itself, as it is the ruling “elite”—ever shadowy and secretive, who wield actual power and authority.18) Eventually, the unique history, culture, traditions, and values that identify the peoples of the various independent nation states will be forgotten, dissolved in the mists of the past. A new history will be drafted; a new culture, set of traditions, and set of core values will be created for this new amorphous mass of people that inhabit the vast lands overseen by the rulers of this global system of governance. A single currency will be used throughout the system of governance, and a single language adopted throughout the realm. the ministers of propaganda will periodically monitor and revise language to maintain homogeneity in thought and action among the subjects of this vast global system of governance.The vision of the proponents of Collectivism is inconsistent with the vision the founders of our Nation had for our Country. In fact, it is anathema to the vision of our founders.In the next segment we look at the founder’s vision. It is the vision of Individualism, and, up to this point in time, it has prevailed, albeit Collectivists have been slowly, quietly replacing it with their own vision.With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, Collectivists have had to come out of the shadows. Their vision for the Country is on full display through the antics of Democrats and through raging mobs of agitators, and, through the creation of and utilization of “false flag” operations. Collectivists are testing the limits of the American public’s patience for and tolerance to the changes they seek to impose on the Nation. They are doing this to soften the resolve of the American people; to disassemble the legal, social, financial, economic, and political framework and fabric of this Nation in order to pave the way for the ultimate dismantling of the Country as an independent Sovereign Nation State, thereby paving the way for the Country’s inclusion into a new transnational, global system of governance. If anyone should doubt what Collectivists are planning, keep in mind the steps they have taken to date that, even a few short years ago would have been so ludicrous as to be dismissed out-of-hand. Many of these Collectivists have, in fact, called for massive revision of the Constitution, and an end to the very concepts of ‘nation’ and ‘citizen’ as commonly understood and defined.Collectivists have lost power to effectuate the changes they seek, the changes to society that had been quietly unfolding through the the administrations of two Bushes; Bill Clinton; and Barack Obama; and which would have continued through the administration of a second Clinton, Hillary, or that of a third Bush, Jeb.  INDIVIDUALISTS' BELIEFS, PRECEPTS, PRESUPPOSITIONS AND AIMS1) the concept of the ‘nation state’ is not archaic. it is not to be perceived as applicable only to past eras. it is as basic and fundamental, and pertinent, and useful a construct today as in any past century. And, The United States as a Nation State is to be understood as an independent sovereign entity, neither beholding to nor subordinated to any other nation, commonwealth of nations federation of nations, or governmental entity of any kind; nor beholding to or subordinated to any one individual or group of individuals or to any corporate or financial entity of any shape or kind.2) The United States is a political construct, created by the people of The United States, through the nation's Constitution. Since the Nation and its Government were created by the people, the Nation and its government can only be dismantled by the people of The United States, if they so wish, in accordance with the Constitution they conceived, ratified, and implemented, or where the existence of tyranny in, of, or by government so demands it. 3) The federal government created by the people of The United States has only such power and authority as codified in the Constitution of The United States. The powers and authority of the federal government are limited, created by the people, through the Constitution. Ultimate power and authority rests with and vests in the people themselves, not in government.4) The concept of ‘citizen’ is tied inextricably to the concept of a ‘nation state.’ Certain rights and liberties, privileges and immunities exist for those people who are deemed citizens. 5) Rights and liberties, privileges and immunities cannot be and must not be summarily curtailed, contained, restrained, or erased, except as prescribed by and in full accord with and compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States. And, those rights and liberties deemed fundamental, natural, unalienable, as set forth in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, can never be eliminated by law or even by the Constitution, as those rights exist independent of the Constitution—are simply codifications of rights existent in the American citizen, him or herself. As codifications of preexistent rights and liberties they serve merely as reminders to those servants of the people, in government, that such fundamental, natural rights are bequeathed to man by the Creator. They are not privileges bestowed to man by government. If the servants of the people forget that fact, there is one right in particular—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—shall forever remain as a potent reminder to those who serve the people that true power and authority rightfully exists, has always existed, and shall always exist in the people themselves, and not in their servants. Thus, among the unenumerated rights and liberties of the citizenry, such specific fundamental, unalienable, natural rights and liberties exist are so indelibly linked to the Nation as a free Republic, that the containment or abrogation of those rights and liberties is equivalent to the destruction of the Nation as a free Republic.6) As the United States is an independent, sovereign nation, its Constitution and laws can never lawfully be abrogated or subordinated to the laws of any other nation or international or transnational body, federation, or commonwealth of nations. Thus, no person, group of people, nation, federation of nations, or entity of any kind outside the U.S. has authority over, nor shall such person or entity lawfully exert authority or power over the United States or its citizenry.7) As no person, group of people, nation, federation of nations, or entity of any kind external to the U.S. has authority over, or can lawfully exert authority or power over the United States or over its citizenry, similarly, no person, group of people or influences internal to the U.S. shall operate to relinquish authority of the Nation to an external power or force of any kind; nor shall any person or group of people or influences within this Nation denigrate or subvert the ultimate and absolute authority of the citizenry of this Nation; nor shall any person, or group of people or influences within the Country restrain or subvert the sanctity of the autonomy of the individual citizen 8) As a legitimate, independent, sovereign ‘nation state,’ the geographical borders of The United States are physically demarcated. the government of the United States has the right and the duty to protect the integrity of its borders from any intrusion by aliens who dare to cross the nation’s borders illegally and who dare remain in this country illegally.9) Thus, no one, not a citizen of the United States, can claim entry into this country as a matter of right, but may only enter and remain in the United States as the laws of this Nation and the Nation’s Constitution so prescribe.10) Those individuals who presume to enter this country as a matter of right, and do so, in a manner inconsistent with the nation’s laws and Constitution, have illegally transgressed the nation’s laws and Constitution. Such individuals are deemed, ‘illegal aliens,’ not ‘undocumented aliens’ nor ‘undocumented immigrants,’ nor ‘nondocumented citizens.’ When individuals have transgressed our Nation’s laws, they are not privileged to remain within our nation’s boundaries; nor are they entitled to the full panoply of rights and liberties, privileges and immunities that exist for the American citizen. Thus, those individuals, who enter this country illegally, are subject to prosecution and either confinement or deportation, as dictated by law and by the U.S. Constitution, and, further, such individuals rightfully merit public condemnation, not public approbation.11) The sanctity of the individual American citizen is not to be denied. Morality proceeds from the idea that whatever is in the best interests of the individual generally overrides the interests of the multitude, the Collective. the ‘morally good’ is defined in terms of those actions that serve the best interests of the individual American citizen, so long as the interest obtained does not negatively impact the life, liberty, and property, of another individual. A person’s intention to do good or evil, as well as all consequences stemming from that intention, determine that which is morally good as opposed to that which is deemed morally evil.12) the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, and the strictures of law must always be adhered to if this Nation is to be deemed truthfully to be a Nation that is governed by laws and not by men.13) No person, regardless of station in life, or personal monetary wealth, is considered to be above the law, on the basis of that station in life, or on the basis of ones’ personal financial means.14) Our Nation’s Constitution and its laws—statutes and body of case law—dictate a person’s rights, duties, and responsibilities in our nation.15) No person or political body shall contrive/conspire to ignore our nation’s Constitution or system of laws, or the rights and liberties existent therein; nor shall any person or political body establish its own set of ad hoc rules to be applied whenever that person or that political body so wishes in order to accomplish either a personal or political end; nor shall any person or political body contrive or conspire to apply laws unlawfully to denigrate, or disparage another person, or to deny to a person such rights, liberties, and procedural due process to which that person is entitled; nor shall any person or political body create ad hoc laws or rules to do same.16) The Nation’s history, traditions, and core values are sacred and sacrosanct. The Nation’s history, traditions, and core values are not to be abrogated, as they define our Nation. The Nation’s history, traditions, and core values create, together, this Nation’s identity, and the identity of its people.17) Popular opinion does not, never did, and never will control or supersede the Nation’s Constitution or laws or the supremacy of the fundamental rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.18) Results are never more important than adherence to the Constitution and laws of the Land. If the goal to be achieved conflicts with the law as applied, then law must never give way to the goal desired. No political or social end to be achieved shall ever dictate when or if, or how the Constitution or the laws of the Land ought to be or might be suspended, constrained, or abrogated.19) If the desired political or social end to be achieved conflicts with the Constitution or the Nation’s laws, it is the political or social end that must be forsaken, never the Constitution nor the Nation’s laws.20) Thus, suspension or repudiation of the Nation’s Constitutional precepts and laws must never be and can never be justifiably or rightfully suspended in favor of achieving the political or social end. For, it is understood that the danger of suspension, containment or abrogation of the Constitution or laws to achieve a political or social end is detrimental to the preservation of a free Republic and a free people.21) Thus, preservation of the Constitution and of the laws of the Land and of the Nation’s system of jurisprudence always outweighs the achievement of a particular political or social goal or end. The attainment or realization of any political or social goal, however seemingly critical to the well-being of this Nation or its people at a particular moment in time or necessitated by seemingly perceived changed circumstances, can never and must never be deemed more critical than strict application of the Nation’s Constitution and laws, that attainment or realization of a particular goal shall suffer cause to ignore, contain, constrain, or abrogate, whether for the particular moment or henceforth, forever. 22) Thus, the desire to achieve any political or social end can never justify the suspension or abrogation of the sacred precepts of the constitution and laws of United States.WHERE DO AMERICANS FIND THEMSELVES AT THIS JUNCTURE, NOW THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?With Brett Kavanaugh now on the high Court, the Individualists' vision for this Country now has a better chance to prevail in the decades ahead than the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the high Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a "Living Document," susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country's independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this Nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But, there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant. Be mindful of this fact: if, after the 2016 Midterm Elections, the Democrats—as a vehicle of the forces of Collectivism—gain majority control of the House, they can create serious obstacles to President Trump’s goals to bring this Nation back on track toward preserving the vision of this Nation as understood by this Nation’s founders.Collectivists want their power back; they want to place their agenda back on track. After the 2016 midterm elections we will see whether Collectivists regain some of their lost power by retaking the House of Representatives. Those who espouse Individualism can prevent that. Americans will have to choose the kind of Country they want or whether they still want a Country at all.The forces of Collectivism, as we have seen, are capable of planning and implementing the most obscene, insidious stratagems to frustrate the efforts of the Trump Administration and thereby frustrate the will of the American people. These Collectivists are ruthless, relentless, and seemingly impervious to defeat. They have unlimited stores of cash, along with extremely effective organizational skills. They are masters of propaganda. They control legions of agitators. They know how to whip the ill-informed among us into a frenetic, raging mob, urging them to coerce and intimidate law-abiding citizens, including Government officials and members of Congress. They are absolutely bent on getting their way. We must see to it that they don't.____________________________________________________________*Note: to readers: This is a substantial revision of Part Three.**After the fact, the Arbalest Quarrel came across a website, “Freedom Keys,” that does a good job in setting forth critical differences between the two mutually distinct and incompatible groups: Collectivists and Individualists. What the Arbalest Quarrel does, distinct from the creators of that website, is to take the key predicates of each group and draw the necessary inferences as to what the precepts and beliefs of each group mean and the end toward which the particular belief systems and basic axioms of these two distinct, divergent groups, point.

WHERE DO AMERICANS FIND THEMSELVES AT THIS JUNCTURE, NOW THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

With Brett Kavanaugh now on the high Court, the Individualists' vision for this Country is now more likely to prevail in the decades ahead than is the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the high Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a "Living Document," susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country's independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this Nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But, there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant.The forces of Collectivism, as we have seen, are capable of planning and implementing most obscene, insidious stratagems to frustrate the efforts of the Trump Administration and thereby frustrate the will of the American people. These Collectivists are ruthless, relentless, and seemingly impervious to defeat. They have unlimited stores of cash, along with extremely effective organizational skills. They are masters of propaganda. They control legions of agitators. They know how to whip the ill-informed among us into a frenetic, raging mob, urging them to coerce and intimidate law-abiding citizens, including Government officials and members of Congress. They are absolutely bent on getting their way. We must see to it that they don't. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A MODERN CIVIL WAR IN THE MAKING: TWO DISSIMILAR VISIONS FOR AMERICA

PART 2

“We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are.” ~ Anaïs Nin, French-American diarist, essayist, novelist, February 21, 1903 – January 14, 1977“The clash between the two visions is not over the actual or desirable degree of freedom, justice, power, or equality—or over the fact that that there can only be degrees and not absolutes—but rather over what these things consist of, in whatever degree they occur.” ~ from A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell, Economist and Social Theorist; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.The Nation sits, today, at a crossroads, just as it did at the juncture of the American Civil War. With each passing day, trust between the two sides further diminishes. The feelings of the one toward the other becomes more corrosive; the differences between the two ever clearer, ever more stark; the convictions of each, ever more entrenched.In an atmosphere of strong animosity and deep suspicion, compromise and negotiation between the two sides is impossible. Each side holds faithfully to a different vision of America. Each is insistent that its vision come to fruition. But, the two visions for the Country, grounded, as each is, in different belief structures, in different value systems, in different presumptive notions of justice and fundamental fairness, the two are inherently incompatible; so, even if the two sides were willing to negotiate, to compromise, any negotiation, any compromise would not bear fruit; would, in fact, be sterile. Where a path diverges, one or the other can be taken, but not both. Only one vision for this Country is capable of realization.One side, one faction holds to a vision of America that proceeds from the view that the Nation, conceived and created as a sovereign, independent Nation State, must always remain so, and must remain so in fact, not merely in name. That faction holds also to a vision of the Nation, where: the American people are the supreme authority; Government is understood to be a construct created by the people for the benefit of the people; certain fundamental rights and liberties preexist in the people, bequeathed to the people by the Creator; and, as the Government does not create those fundamental, natural, preexistent rights and liberties, Government lacks lawful authority to eliminate those rights and liberties. That faction’s vision coheres clearly, cleanly, and categorically with the vision of the founders of the Nation, the framers of the Nation’s Constitution.The other faction’s vision of the Country is predicated on an entirely different set of precepts. It does not accept the view that the people are the supreme authority; rather, it is Government itself that is deemed the supreme authority. This faction also does not adhere to the idea that rights and liberties are to be perceived as fundamental, natural, forces, preexistent in the people. This faction doesn’t see  some rights and liberties—or any rights and liberties, for that matter—as immutable forces endowed in man by the Creator at all; but, views rights and liberties as man-made artifices, no different than any law, rule, regulation, code, or ordinance. And, as such, this faction sees that rights and liberties may be lawfully modified or eliminated when Government deems it beneficial to do so for the good of the people as a whole, even as that “good” manifests as detrimental to the individual. This faction has, then, a vision of the Country completely at loggerheads with that of the founders of the Republic. But, this doesn’t faze the faction’s adherents. This faction has determined that the foundation of the Nation, its Constitution, the bedrock of a free Republic, along with the Nation’s most celebrated canons and cherished values, can and ought to be and must be altered or eliminated outright, consistent with what this faction perceives to be a new reality emerging in the world at large.The differences between the two factions cannot be reconciled for those differences rest upon mutually exclusive inferences—inferences that establish both the structure of government and society, and the relationship of man to those structures and to each other. And those inferences themselves follow from an entirely different set of axiomatic premises—premises at once basic and primordial.The two sides that fought each other in the American Civil War—the Union and the Confederacy—did not perceive their differences, profound as they were, as a vast existential divide between them, not to the extent seen today. The American Civil War was perceived as a confrontation between States’ rights advocates and advocates for a strong centralized Federal Government. Arguably, the nineteenth century conflict between the Union and Confederacy may be viewed as a continuation of a debate--a longstanding debate--commenced among the founders of the Republic. One side, the Federalists, espoused a strong central Government; the other side, the Antifederalists, suspicious of a strong central Government, espoused decentralization of authority. But, for all that, the South, in the American Civil War, still professed to hold to the relevance of the concept of the ‘Nation State.’ Its concerns were directed to the allocation of power within that Nation State; nor did either the Union or the Confederacy contest the inherent importance of and sanctity of the Bill of Rights. That is not the case today.Unlike the two sides that fought each other in the American Civil War, the Union and the Confederacy, one side, the leftist faction, has, in this present conflict, questioned the very meaning and meaningfulness of the concept of  ‘Nation State,’ in this age of Globalization and massive movements of people across national boundaries. That helps to explain why that faction would question, and abhor, and mock, President Trump’s* campaign slogan, ‘America First;’ for that faction sees the slogan as an affront to their bedrock principles; an unacceptable return to an archaic world view in contrast to their “modern” world view; and an obstacle to fulfillment of their goals.  That faction, too, believes that rights and liberties are subject to modification, or even elimination, when, their usefulness does not cohere with—as they see—changed circumstances in the world.The other faction holds to the vision of this Country that the founders of the Republic held. This faction believes in the continued relevance of the concept of ‘Nation State’ and, therefore, professes a strong need to preserve this Country as an independent Sovereign Nation; to preserve the supremacy of the Nation’s laws, and to preserve the integrity of the Nation’s physical borders. This faction also believes in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Modification, much less, elimination of any of the rights and liberties set forth therein is an anathema. This faction, then, holds to a vision of and for the Country that has stood the test of time; a vision that has endured for over two hundred years. The other side seeks to undo that vision of the Country. The other side seeks to construct the Nation anew. Its “modern” vision for this Country distorts and contorts the foundation upon which this Nation rests, as articulated in the Nation’s Constitution, and questions the very meaningfulness of the concept ‘Nation State’ and of the concept of ‘citizen of the United States.’Congressional Democratic Party members, the proxies for the leaders of the leftist faction—secretive, amoral, extraordinarily wealthy, and abjectly ruthless transnationalist, Globalist financiers and entrepreneurs—are well aware the power they wielded in Government, on behalf of their secretive, ruthless benefactors, has eroded; their agenda contained; their desires and aims to reshape the Country all but frustrated. They cannot abide this. They and the secretive, ruthless, inordinately wealthy and powerful transnationalists who seek to thrust the United States, “kicking and screaming” if need be, into their new international world order, have mobilized legions of progressive Leftist elements: agents provocateurs, agitators, to stir up dissension in society; to breed confusion and unrest in the Nation; to deliberately create and to maximize disorder and chaos in the Country. This, then, is their response to Governmental power and influence that they have lost but which they refuse to relinquish.Democrats seek to recover their lost power on behalf of the faction they represent. They seek to regain control of Government, to continue to work toward completing the items on their agenda, as their efforts to remake the Country into the image they envision had been rudely interrupted and disrupted through loss of 2016 U.S. Presidential election to the populist, Donald Trump. Too regain control, Democrats have reprehensibly dispensed with adherence to our Nation's laws even as they claim to abide by them. They are masters of deception. They are cunning, dispassionate, hypocritical, ruthless. They have plowed ahead with their agenda, even though doing so skirts the law and extends well beyond the bounds of common decency. To assist them in their efforts they coopted the feminist #MeToo movement. They have formed alliances with left-wing progressive groups on and off university campuses, and with the far-left radical anarchist group, 'Antifa.'  Their echo chamber, the mainstream media, works on their behalf, as do media moguls, actors, and directors in the entertainment business and in the technology sector; and, as do bureaucrats of the "Deep State" and left-wing jurists, sprinkled in federal courts across the Country by Obama.The police often stand at the sideline, forbidden by Leftist State Governments that control them, to interfere. But, police, and the military too, will need, eventually, to take a side, to take a stand in the conflict.Unless one side capitulates to the other—and that won’t happen—further and more severe clashes are inevitable.____________________________________*Trump, strictly speaking is not a Republican—certainly not in a conventional sense. And, while this leftist faction likely would have accepted a Republican Centrist as President--someone like Jeb Bush, albeit having preferred Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders as President, it does not see in the Bush clan, a mortal enemy, that it sees in President Trump, whom it attacks daily. The Bush clan, unlike Trump, shares the same neoliberal economic principles and much the same social, legal, political, and cultural precepts and interests that cohere with and complement those of the EU, that this faction emulates. Indeed, centrist Republicans, like the Bush clan, properly considered, belong to the faction that seeks this “new” vision for America. Trump and most Americans accept none of that. Trump's Presidency reflects a vision of the Country the founders intended for it. Americans, seeing that vision slipping away, elected Donald Trump to serve as U.S. President, to set the direction of the Nation aright. Many Americans recognized this Nation’s goals were off kilter; that the Nation had moved far afield from the core values and legal precepts of the Nation’s founding. But as Trump is now President, and not Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, and as the faction that wanted Hillary Clinton to be U.S. President, and fully expected that she would be President, cannot and will not abide the election results. Thus, the tension that has festered between the two factions for decades, have now reached a “tipping point.” The battle over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation is merely the most recent proof of and exemplification of that clash._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

THE UNITED STATES ON THE CUSP OF A MODERN-DAY CIVIL WAR

PART ONE

A WAKE-UP CALL FOR AMERICANS

“Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.” ~ from A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell, Economist and Social Theorist; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.Make no mistake about it: The United States is on the cusp of a civil war. It is a war fought not with swords, firearms, and artillery—at least not yet—but through throngs of people chanting and screaming in the streets; in buildings; on university campuses; and in the public square; even outside private residences. These throngs are threatening, ridiculing, harassing, and assaulting Americans who do not share their views, their sensibilities. And physical altercations and clashes have occurred. More of those are on the horizon; that is certain. No one should doubt it. The outcome of this modern conflict will have as deep and lasting effect on this Nation and on its citizenry as did the American Civil War.In the present conflict, there can be no negotiation with or compromise between the two factions, for the gulf dividing them is too vast, the chasm too deep. The outcome of the present civil war will be profound. This conflict’s outcome will determine the Nation’s social, political, economic, and legal contours for generations to come.Americans see the clash between the two factions playing out most aggressively, of late, through the Senate confirmation process of the President’s second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Brett Kavanaugh presently sits as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He is, by any estimate, a brilliant jurist with many years of judicial experience. No one should doubt that. No one can reasonably refute or rebut that. No matter. One faction intends to strike his nomination down.Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, pose, essentially, as proxies for the two factions in conflict. One faction supports confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court and is working to see it happen. The other intends to prevent it. Few Americans remain on the sidelines. Both factions in this modern civil conflict know that the Judiciary—more so than Congress, or the Chief Executive—has power, predicated on the jurisprudential and philosophical predispositions of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, either to strengthen or weaken the bedrock of the Nation: its Constitution. In their individual approaches to case analysis, through the methodologies employed, one vision of the Country sees actualization.Democratic Party proxies, frantic and frenetic, fearing imminent confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court, have lost all sense of decorum, all reason, all self-restraint. They have been unable to shoot holes in Brett Kavanaugh’s legal methodology; in his understanding of the law. That much is clear.Democrats, and the public at large that tuned to the Confirmation Hearing, know that Bret Kavanaugh has a keen analytical mind; that he is legally astute; that his years of experience as a lawyer and as a jurist make him eminently qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats and the public at large know that Judge Kavanaugh has a deep, abiding respect for the Nation’s system of laws; for its Constitution; and for the Nation’s massive body of jurisprudence, accumulated over two centuries.Democrats, and the lay public also know that Kavanaugh’s methodology for analyzing cases reflects respect for case law precedent; and for the plain meaning of statutes; and for adherence to “original intent,” when applying the U.S. Constitution to the facts of a case. And, as for the latter two points, there’s the rub. For, one faction seeks a jurist to sit on the high Court who has no qualms about legislating from the Bench: someone like Judge Merrick Garland,* a Judge, whose jurisprudential methodology and jurisprudential philosophy just happen to coincide with the political and social agenda championed by the previous U.S. President, Barack Obama, who nominated him to sit on the high Court—a jurist who would also be championed by the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton who failed to get elected. Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to case analysis and jurisprudential and ethical philosophies are antithetical to those of Judge Merrick Garland.Knowing what is at stake, Democrats have become frantic, desperate. At the last minute, in a last ditch effort to delay, with the aim of ultimately derailing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats have sought the last refuge of the hopeless: character assassination. As they could not successfully attack the man’s principles, his ability, his experience, they launched a vicious, audacious, reprehensible, despicable attack on the man himself.Each side, in this conflict, knows full well that the very soul and psyche of this Nation and its people is at stake. The outcome of the present conflict will, then, from that perspective, be far-reaching—conceivably more so than that of the previous conflict, devastating as that conflict was and as far-reaching in its consequences that it was for the Confederacy; and for the Nation; and for all Americans.Before we explain how the very soul and psyche of the Nation is at stake and what, precisely, we mean by that and why we say that the outcome of the present conflict may very well have consequences that are, potentially, more far-reaching than the consequences of the American Civil War, let us, for the moment, consider what resulted from the South’s defeat in that conflict. We see that:

• The secession of the Confederate States from the Union was withdrawn, and the Nation reunited.
• The Confederacy was placed under military rule.
• The Federal Government gained supremacy over the States (all States) and State Governments (all State Governments), clearly and unequivocally. In that regard, the diminution of the power of the States has negatively impacted the “Union” States as much as it has the States of the Confederacy. This “Federalism” pervades to the present day.
• Slavery was de facto eliminated. This led to de jure elimination of slavery with the passage of the 13^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The loss of State power to the Federal Government is, arguably, the most significant outcome of the American Civil War; and the Federal Government’s accumulation of power at the expense of the States has grown exponentially in the years and decades since the American Civil War ended.Now, suppose for a moment, that the Confederacy prevailed; this Nation would likely have formed a  confederation of two sovereign independent Nation States, comprising States of their own. But, the concept of 'Sovereign Nation States'—the USA and CSA—not beholding to or subordinated to foreign Nations or to political entities of one sort or another, unlike those Nations comprising the EU, was never at stake. Secondly, preservation of the fundamental, unalienable, natural rights and liberties of the people, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, was never questioned during the American Civil War, either. With the conclusion of the American Civil War, the United States remained a Sovereign, independent Nation State, albeit as one Sovereign Nation State, rather than two.We, American citizens, must keep these two points uppermost in mind, because the notion of ‘Nation State’ and the notion of natural rights preexistent in the individual—will either be preserved and strengthened, or they will not, depending on which faction prevails in this modern civil war.While the stakes in the present conflict are emphatic, the lines between the two factions in the present conflict are not. With the American Civil War, a clear physical demarcation existed for the most part between the two sides: North and South, and the Civil War combatants, “Yankee” or “Rebel,” aligned with one side or the other, although among the border States—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia—the demarcation was not clear-cut, static, but more tenuous, more fluid. Close family members took one side or the other. Brother fought against brother; father against son; cousin against cousin; and uncle against nephew.As with the border States during the American Civil War, we see today, too, that physical demarcations do not predominately mark the boundaries between the two sides, between the two factions, although a preponderance of one faction lives in the Coastal States, and a preponderance of the other resides in the interior States. But, ultimately, for most people, it is the precepts and tenets that one holds to that determines which side one fights on, rather than where one lives.The precepts and tenets one holds to determines whom one considers his friend or his foe. And, as the precepts and tenets held by one faction are inconsistent with the precepts and tenets held by the other, any compromise between the two factions is sterile, impossible. The Country is, then, very clearly in the midst of an existential crisis. It is a crisis taking hold of people on a primordial level. Americans are lining up; taking sides in a major clash of competing visions for this Country. Each faction’s vision for this Country rests on distinct, incompatible social, political, economic, and ethical philosophies. Only one side, one faction will prevail in the unfolding conflict.We will see either massive upheaval, a cataclysmic sea change in the political, social, economic, and legal structure of our Nation, or we will see preserved those principles, those core values and mores upon which the political, social, economic, and legal structure and fabric of our Nation has stood and endured for over two centuries—principles and core values that so many Americans had fought, and for which so many had died, to preserve: principles and core values—unchanging and eternal.[We continue with this article in the next installment]._________________________________________________*Under Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution the President nominates a person to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. But, the President shall do so only with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The "advice and consent" of the Senate operates as a condition precedent to actual appointment. But, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to give its advice and consent. And the Senate has not done so, here, with Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to sit on the high Court. Those Democrats and Leftists, of all stripes, who wanted and had expected the Senate to provide a Hearing and Roll-Call vote on Merrick Garland were apoplectic. Merrick Garland, who would, have been Barack Obama's third appointment to the high Court, would have given the liberal-wing of the Court a clear majority, sufficient to move the left-wing agenda along. Leftists conclude that Republicans have stolen a seat on the high Court that belongs to them. That helps, in part, to explain, but certainly does not justify the outrageous, reprehensible smear campaign Senate Democrats launched against President Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, in their late hour effort to defeat Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the high Court._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

DEMOCRATS ASSERT: “FOR THE SAKE OF OUR AGENDA, LET’S PUT TRUTH ASIDE; WE MUST DESTROY THE REPUTATION AND CHARACTER OF BRETT KAVANAUGH.”

SENATE DEMOCRATS, ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BLATANTLY ATTEMPT TO DESTROY A MAN’S NAME; TO DO SO WITHOUT CONCERN FOR THE TRUTH.

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”  ~ Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” May 4, 1979 through November 28, 1990“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls:Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he that filches from me my good nameRobs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ~ William Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3On Thursday, September 27, in a U.S. Senate Hearing Room, Christine Blasey Ford, testified before Senate Democratic Party and Republican Party Judiciary Committee members; and before the American public. This 11^th Hour Senate Hearing, an “addendum,” need not have transpired; and should not have occurred; for the Senate Hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications, character, and integrity that had taken place for several days, had concluded weeks before. Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated beyond any doubt that he is eminently qualified to serve as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, though, did not like that turn of events. What could they do? They decided to play a “trump card,” against President Trump, in a last ditch effort to undercut the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court.Senate Democrats sought to demonstrate that Judge Kavanaugh had a serious flaw in his character—a flaw that made him unsuited to sit on the high Court, regardless of his many qualifications and years of judicial experience. Senate Democrats sought, ostensibly, to portray Christine Ford as a victim—the only victim. But, contrary to Democrats attempt to portray Christine Ford as the sole victim, there was a second victim: Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Senate Democrats intended to use Christine Ford’s testimony against Judge Brett Kavanaugh as a cudgel—another planned assault, along with the Mueller probe—to frustrate the policy objectives of  U.S. President, Donald Trump. To derail the President’s nominee to the high Court, Congressional Democrats brazenly used Christine Ford for their own ends, not hers. The result was to turn a seemingly solemn endeavor into a Grand Inquisition, produced and directed by Senate Democrats.

SENATE DEMOCRATS DISPENSE WITH THE NATION’S BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AS SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND UNDER OUR PROCEDURAL LAWS.

Turning due process on its head, the accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, was presumed guilty, not innocent, of sexual assault. Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford, simply had to disclose in public matters that she had thought and hoped would remain private—allegations of sexual assault committed by Brett Kavanaugh, when they both were in their teens. The testimony of Christine Ford would be used, so it was anticipated by Senate Democrats, to support the inference that Brett Kavanaugh did in fact sexually assault Christine Ford, thirty-six years ago. Senate Democrats made clear that it wasn’t necessary for Christine Ford’s testimony to actually cohere with or correspond to the facts of the matter. It would be enough, so Senate Democrats assumed and argued that she merely appear to be honest, credible. But, due process requires more from an accuser than an accuser’s mere conviction; due process requires more than the accuser’s honest belief in the truth of her own allegations. And due process requires more than the mere perception, of the observer, that the accuser is, after all, really telling the truth. From both a logical and legal perspective belief does not ipso facto equate with truth.Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the testimony of an accuser is not sufficient to convict or condemn a man. Evidence to support a naked accusation is required, such as independent forensic evidence and corroboration of witnesses to the event—none of which Christine Ford had produced. So, regardless of Christine Ford’s personal conviction as to her certainty that the events she speaks of—that took place, thirty-six years ago—and however adamant her remarks, fact remains that, bare allegations, ostensibly based on recollections, in the absence of more, do not substantiate truth for the trier of fact. Under our system of laws and justice—a system built on over two centuries of jurisprudence—an accuser’s barefaced accusation of wrongdoing is constitutionally insufficient to convict one of a crime or, as in this case, simply constitutionally insufficient to condemn.Here, the accuser’s testimony came up short on critical details, painfully short. No matter. Senate Democrats had, before the fact, accepted the accuser’s testimony, on its face, as factually true. They accepted on faith alone the veracity of the allegations because, as they have said, in public, even before the hearing, they had found Christine Ford’s barefaced allegations of a crime to be credible and compelling; and, for them, that was enough, and they insisted that Christine Ford’s barefaced allegations of a crime should be considered credible and compelling for everyone else, too. That is patently ridiculous!Imagine if you will that an accusation were sufficient, of itself, to sustain punishment or public condemnation, irrespective of even a scintilla of independent corroborating evidence. What would that mean for someone; what would that mean for you if someone came forth with a damning accusation against you? What it means is that, you, the accused do not  have the right to face your accuser. You don’t have the right to test the sufficiency of the accusation through direct examination of the accuser. The presumption of innocence does not attach. Thus, the barefaced allegations of an accuser are presumed sufficient to convict or to condemn you and off to prison you go or otherwise, if not to prison, then, perhaps, you, the accused lose a benefit to which you ought otherwise be entitled; or you lose an opportunity you sought to obtain. Moreover, you will find your reputation, your honor, your integrity, your character are all irrevocably besmirched and stained, forever. This inversion of our basic principles of due process can happen to you. Don’t think it can’t! This inversion of our basic principles of justice is precisely what we see happening here in the case of Brett Kavanaugh. We see a planned coordinated, systematic, reprehensible attack to destroy a man’s character and reputation. Senate Democrats, who sit on the Judiciary Committee, along with the Congressional Democratic Party leadership, have connived, conspired and implemented a last minute plan in an unconscionable attempt to discredit the honor, character, and reputation of a man. They could not and cannot destroy the man’s judicial record, his jurisprudential philosophy, and his keen, analytical mind. So, they attempt to debase him. They resort to the last tactic available—a tactic of those in the throes of desperation. They resort to an attack on the man himself.Their plan is nothing more than a well-orchestrated, coordinated contrivance, utilizing their echo chamber, the mainstream media, to cherry pick details of the man’s history. They do this with the aim to come up with something, anything that might be used to cast aspersions on the man’s character. They take whatever they find, and then exaggerate the claim, blowing it up out of all proportion to reason and sensibility. Did the man ever drink alcohol in high school or college? If so, then the public must conclude that the man is a drunkard. A few women come forward with the most outrageous claims of moral turpitude. So, then, the public must believe their damning allegations and must conclude that the man is guilty of moral turpitude because of course these women are telling the truth; and because of course these women wouldn’t lie; and, because of course their memories of the events, if such events occurred at all, didn’t fade with time; and because of course a personal animus toward this man—toward all “white men”—doesn’t motivate them to attack the man. Democrats provide their echo chamber, the mainstream media, with tantalizing bits of garbage to rouse to rally and to rouse their base, the #MeToo movement, and the results are as expected: the lizard brain takes over; all reason goes out-the-door. The  #MeToo sorority becomes ever more indignant; and, then they lose all control. They shout, scream, rant, foam at the mouth, convulse with rage. The lizard brain completely takes over; eats away at them; consumes them. They know what they want. It is as clear as a bell. “Down with White Men! Down with Trump! Down with America!” The entire performance, the entire charade, the entire farce, has nothing, really to do with Brett Kavanaugh; nothing at all. It is, rather what, Kavanaugh represents to these people, who, one can reasonably infer, has not read the man’s legal opinions. They know nothing of his love and devotion and of his years of service to his Country. They know nothing of his love and of his devotion to his wife, to his children, and to his Church. They don’t want to know. They don’t need to know. For what it is they think they know is enough for them. It is what they hear from Democrats, and from the newspapers and from MSNBC and CNN and NPR and PBS. They know everything they have to know about him, which is what they think they know, and what they think they know is wrong. What they think they know has been planted in their lizard brain, and what has been planted there is enough: Brett Kavanaugh is President Trump’s nominee; Brett Kavanaugh is just a privileged “white man.” Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t respect women. Brett Kavanaugh is just plain “evil.” So, Down with Kavanaugh! Down with Trump! Down with white men! Okay—Let us now get back to some semblance of reality, as we consider the Confirmation process.Where, then, does that leave the accused, Brett Kavanaugh? Senate Democrats placed the accused in the legally dubious position of having to bear the burden of proving his innocence. They patently surrendered a presumption of innocence afforded an accused—a presumption that is not mere platitude, but the very cornerstone of our system of justice. Application of the presumption requires that accuser, in the first instance, sustain the burden of proof. But Senate Democrats insist on a presumption of guilt. They insist that Brett Kavanaugh rebut Christine Ford’s testimony even though Christine Ford’s evidence, consisting of her testimony alone, had met no recognized legal standard—not even the lowest standard—preponderance of the evidence that might otherwise, if satisfied, shift the burden of proof onto the accused. Be that as it may, Brett Kavanaugh did proffer his testimony willingly; insisting, in fact, that he be permitted to do so; and Judge Kavanaugh did so, professing his innocence through his own equally compelling, credible testimony. Judge Kavanaugh denied—clearly, succinctly, emphatically, categorically, and unequivocally—ever sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford, or anyone. By placing the initial burden of proof on the accused, as Senate Democrats did, though, it became clear even to a lay observer, that the entire hearing was nothing more than a shameless charade, a sham, a circus, complete with clowns; and the clowns in that circus turn out to be Senate Democrats. But, there was nothing for Americans to be amused about.Senate Democrats, looked on dispassionately as the man spoke eloquently, honestly, from the heart. Even so, the attack against him continued. Senate Democrats castigated Brett Kavanaugh and derided him, for they had cast judgment on him even before they heard him speak. And, what do these Democrats, these seemingly honorable people, themselves, really find Brett Kavanaugh guilty of? Just this: the hubris of daring to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court; for doing so wrecks the Democratic Party’s political, social, and economic agenda. The man must be taken down!

WHY DID CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AGREE TO TESTIFY IN PUBLIC?

As to the matter of Christine Ford’s public testimony, she didn’t really have a choice in the matter. Senate Democrats, dispensing with due process, had urged Christine Ford to testify. This was necessary if they were to delay or derail the Confirmation process. They knew this. They had to attach a face, an identity to a bare accusation against a man. They knew that much. So, even though the accuser sought to remain anonymous, clearly her identity had to be brought out. Only a few Democrats were aware of the accuser’s identity, and her identity was leaked to the Press. A reasonable person would conclude that the accuser did leak the matter since she made clear her wish to remain unknown. Congressional Republicans could not have leaked her name to the Press, for Congressional Republicans had no knowledge of the accusation. Democrats didn’t inform Congressional Republicans of the identity of the accused until the 11^th Hour, when they sprung the accusation on Republicans and on the public. So, a reasonable person would conclude that someone within the Democratic leadership or within the Senate Judiciary Committee had leaked the information. So, much, then for respecting Christine Ford’s wish to remain anonymous.But, whoever it was in the Democratic Party who leaked Christine Ford’s identity, this is what the public learned: The accuser is a middle-aged woman, Christine Ford, a year younger than Brett Kavanaugh; she is a College Professor and holds a Ph.D degree in psychology. Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford, made a conscious decision to attack the character of the man, even though she could not remember critical details, sufficient to support a criminal charge against Judge Kavanaugh; and, who, for whatever reason, never reported the matter she claims occurred, to the police, or to her friends, or even to her family, but who deemed the matter important enough to bring up now, thirty-six years after the alleged event occurred. She says she is 100% certain that it was Judge Kavanaugh who had attacked her, who had sexually assaulted her. Despite the many gaps as to when and where the matter in question occurred, and as to exactly what had occurred—if the matter had indeed occurred at all—she accuses Judge Kavanaugh, explicitly, of sexual assault.Christine Ford’s representative thereupon passed the information to Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking Democratic Party member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now Senator Feinstein, for her part, was ethically bound to share that information immediately with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley. If she had done so, the Senate Judiciary Committee could then have undertaken a discrete inquiry into Christine Ford’s allegations. But Senator Feinstein didn’t share the contents of the letter with Chairman Grassley. Senator Feinstein held onto the letter, for several weeks, albeit conceivably sharing the contents of the letter with her Democratic Party colleagues on the Committee and with Democratic Party leadership. Congressional Democrats apparently made a decision to spring the information onto Senate Republicans and the American public, days before the Judiciary Committee was set to vote on submitting the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the floor of the Senate, for a full Roll-Call vote. Possibly fearing that Judge Kavanaugh would be confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate, they sprung their trap on Senate Republicans and brought Christine Ford’s bare accusation of sexual misconduct to the attention of Chairman Grassley and other Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Clearly, they did this with the intention to derail, altogether, or, at least, to delay the Confirmation process.The failure to share critical information immediately with Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee—holding onto the information secretly, surreptitiously, to be used as a weapon to delay or to derail the Senate Confirmation process—is unethical, even reprehensible behavior. And everything that followed, from the point in time that Christine Ford’s damning and unsupported allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh became public up to and including the sham hearing that followed, illustrates the extent to which Democrats will go to get their way.Ranking Democratic Party Senate Judiciary member Dianne Feinstein and the other Senate Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, were, though, taking a gamble. Senator Feinstein and Senate Democrats knows that a barefaced accusation of sexual misconduct, especially an accusation going back decades, is, in the absence of supporting forensic evidence or, at least, corroborating witnesses, patently insufficient to convict or to condemn, under our system of justice. And there was none. That constitutes the crack, a chink in the Democrats’ armor, and Democrats, some of whom are attorneys at law, certainly know this. But, they played the game out, victim (the accuser) versus attacker (the accused), anyway.

ACCUSER AND ACCUSED ARE BOTH VICTIMS HERE.

Christine Blasey Ford had presented Democrats with a gift, a dangerous weapon, a barefaced allegation of wrongdoing. The Party, bereft of common decency, would be only too tempted, too willing to use the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, against Senate Republicans, against the President of the United States, and against the Nation to achieve their ends. Senator Feinstein knew that a barefaced allegation of sexual misconduct against another individual was patently unfair. But, Democrats didn’t hold back. They didn’t care. They gambled that this gambit would serve to derail the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court or, at least, delay a Senate Confirmation vote until after the 2018 Midterm elections. It is the hope of Democrats that they can gain control of the U.S. Senate after the Midterms. A cascading sequence of events thus unfolded, as deeply sensitive allegations came to the public’s attention—embarrassing and humiliating to both accuser and accused. These barefaced allegations would forever sully the reputation and character of an honorable man, a man with a distinguished record of judicial service, and would, at once, leave the accuser all alone, with her own reputation and honor tainted. Thus, along with the victim that Democrats played to the public—their “ace in the hole,” Christine Ford—there was another victim. This was a victim whom they failed to consider, whom they had no wish of considering as it was a victim whom they are responsible for creating, the victim whom in fact they made: Judge Brett Kavanaugh.Both Congressional Republicans, and conceivably even some Congressional Democrats, along with the American public, have learned that Democrats and Leftist groups will do anything to frustrate President Trump’s policy objectives. No scheme is too outrageous for them; no scheme too outlandish; no scheme too reprehensible if they can accomplish their agenda; their end goals. They intend to secure power for themselves and to proceed once again with accomplishing their own policy objectives—objectives at odds with the core values of most Americans people. With Judge Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, their plans to hijack this Country from the American people will be all that more difficult, if not impossible. They therefore had no pangs of conscience, no reservation as to what they would do; what they felt they must do to protect their plans, their agenda. They would be willing to destroy a man’s character and reputation, along with his very life, well-being, and personal safety, and that of his family. They would know and be willing to accept, at one and the same time, that their actions might very well endanger, too, the life, well-being, and personal safety of the human being they claimed to be concerned about, Christine Blasey Ford. This would be the price they would be willing to pay in order to regain power and to be able to proceed with the items on their agenda.The accuser, Christine Ford should be perceived as much a tool, here, as victim—a tool to be used and eventually to be discarded, when no longer useful. And Democrats used their tool, Christine Ford, to play her as victim in need of justice, albeit justice coming decades late. Christine Ford’s accusation became the highlight of the #MeToo movement; trumpeted by the mainstream media in the newspapers; hailed by Leftist pundits on the airwaves; a rallying point for Hillary Clinton supporters, thunderstruck and enraged at the Presidential hopeful’s seemingly implausible defeat in the 2016 general election; and the predicate for mass demonstrations.

THE AGENDA OF DEMOCRATS AND LEFTIST GROUPS

The Democratic Party has been, in great part, coopted by Progressive elements. But, progressives lack basic common-sense. Still, the aims of Progressive elements have gained support from the mainstream media—an institution also responsible for undermining our Constitution and for undermining the foundation of a free Republic. These elements promote an agenda that most Americans do not agree with and which can, if implemented, deleteriously impact our Constitution and the preservation of a Free Republic. The items on the Progressives’ agenda include, among other things, placing specific impediments on a citizen’s exercise of sacred rights and liberties: the right of free speech, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, for turning our system of laws and justice on its head; and for placing considerable limits on, and eventually eliminating altogether, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They know that it is only by curtailing the citizenry’s basic, fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties that the citizenry be effectively controlled. Most Americans, though, do not agree with these objectives. And, most Americans do not take kindly at attempts to manipulate them, urging them, cajoling them, to take action against their own best interests, which they well see. Most Americans abhor pretense; false preening; glib, self-assured proselytizing; and they particularly loathe hypocrisy which is abundantly in evidence.Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee did not realize the extent to which the most Americans would be appalled at Democrats’ attempt to reduce an honorable man, a distinguished jurist, to the point of tears. Americans’ felt the man’s pain; and they realized that this man could be themselves—a man accused of commission of a heinous act and condemned through mere accusation. The result: a man’s reputation is in tatters; his honor forever tarnished; his sincerity forever doubted.Brett Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, and honor were being directly and systematically attacked. Is it any wonder, then, that he would turn his righteous anger and indignation back on those Senate Democrats, who, curiously, showed surprise that an even-tempered man could exhibit anger. They must have felt: "How can this person, this nominee who sits before us, have the audacity to dare speak so rudely to us? Who does he think he is?" Who Brett Kavanaugh is, if these Senators would only stop to consider the matter, is a man with a sense of honor, pride, character, and integrity, well-deserved, who has served his Country well, in a distinguished career, spanning decades, having worked in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and subsequently working as a distinguished judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A man who graduated at the top of his Class at one of the premier Universities in our Country, Yale University, and then went on to distinguish himself at Yale Law School. That is who Judge Kavanaugh is. So, then, let us turn the question around on these Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Who do these Senators think they are to toy with a good man's reputation, honor, and character? Who are these Senators who would dare do those things that place the life, safety and well-being of my own family at risk?Apparently, these people, these Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have so little character, honor, and integrity themselves and so full of their own bravado, they could not understand how it was that a man, sitting before them, would dare remonstrate against them; perhaps Democrats thought, in part, that the personal attack on Brett Kavanaugh’s character should not be taken personally; for, after all, they simply don’t want to see him on the U.S. Supreme Court. And, didn’t they say as much? Didn’t minority leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and other Democrats say as much? Didn’t they ask him, plead with him, to withdraw the nomination, to step aside? If so, they had no idea of the fortitude of the man, for they, themselves have none. Could they truly believe Brett Kavanaugh would not take the attack on his reputation, on his character, on his integrity, and on his personal sense of simple human dignity, personally? Really? Of course he would “dig in his heels” and defend his honor, and his reputation, and his character, and his integrity, and his dignity, too, as a human being--all of which Senate Democrats dared to besmirch.Thus, they concocted an outrageous and outlandish plan to take down an honorable man. And, this all plays out oddly in the Press, as agitators in the #MeToo movement, and their allies, claim that the nominee’s anger, indignation, and, at times, loss of composure, somehow, oddly, bespeak guilt, and lack of proper respect for the Senate? Are they kidding? After what Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have done to this man? And, still, this outrageous, despicable attack against Brett Kavanaugh continues, unabated. Leftists, along with many Democrats, have lost touch with reality and have lost, as well, any sense of human decency.It is strange, indeed, that Progressive elements in society, along with many Democrats, tend to perceive the average American as wrongly attached to the past: wrongly attached to nationalism, patriotism, American history, pride in self and Country, morality as conceived through a Christian ethos; and wrongly attached to the plain meaning of the Constitution as conceived by the founders of the Republic. Progressive elements, many Democrats, the mainstream Press, and Leftists of all stripes, intend to eradicate this, all of it. They intend to destroy all that defines us; all that has defined us since the creation of a free Republic and since the ratification of our Constitution. And they intend to destroy the very conception of fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties, as codified in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.Those elements in our society—and what is becoming increasingly clear, Globalist interests abroad—intend to bring Americans, “kicking and screaming” if need be, into a new world as they conceive it, a new international world order. The world that Progressives, in particular, seek, is one wholly disconnected from our Nation’s past. It is one marked by multiculturalism; subordination of our Nation’s interests to those of a world community; subordination of the Nation’s Constitution and laws to international laws and norms; and the application of a conception of liberal democracy as played out in the EU. It is a view that, as we have seen, mandates the subjugation of whole nations and people; suppression of basic rights and liberties; submission of the populace of independent nations to solitary autocratic rule, emanating from one place: Brussels.Democrats realize that President Trump’s nominee to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, will, given the Judge's high regard for the plain meaning of Statutes, and for the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, neutralize the goals of Democrats and their allies both here and abroad. They tried to defeat Judge Kavanaugh through several days of Confirmation Hearing, attacking the jurist’s legal reasoning, his jurisprudential philosophy. But, they could not defeat the cogency and brilliance and intensity of Judge Kavanaugh’s legal mind, and of his singular regard to uphold the sacred precepts of the U.S. Constitution, consistent with the understanding and intentions of the framers of it. So, when the initial attempt to tear down his jurisprudential philosophy and methodology failed, and they could see confirmation as imminent, they resorted to more extreme and drastic measures. They attacked Judge Kavanaugh on a deeply personal level. They played their “ace card in the hole”—they brought up a matter that they should have brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, weeks ago, and that they should have done so discretely; a matter that they deviously, deceptively, secretly kept to themselves, to be used as a tactical device to defeat the Confirmation of a man who well merits a seat on our Nation’s highest Court of law. And, when they brought the matter up to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, they did so, at the 11th Hour, just before the Committee was set to vote on recommending confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the full Senate for a Roll-Call vote. They brought up a sensitive matter at the last minute and with great fanfare, so the public would become aware of a damning accusation before neither they, the Democrats, nor Republicans, had an opportunity, to investigate the matter privately, quietly, and thus protect the identities of both accuser and accused. But they didn't. They unleashed, at the last possible minute, a barefaced, unproven accusation to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the public before Republicans on the Committee had a chance to privately look at the accusation and to discretely investigate the matter. And, even after the fact, Democrats on the Committee refused to work with Republicans on the investigation. But, it is clear that Democrats don't really care to verify the truth of the accusation--especially if there exists no one to corroborate the accusation. Indeed, to date no one, whom the accuser named as witness to her damning accusation, sexual assault, has corroborated it--either asserting that they had not witnessed the event or, if at the scene, refuting that any such assault took place. But, that didn't stop Senate Democrats from attacking Brett Kavanaugh's character anyway. Democrats don't care. All they do care about is the fact of the accusation, not the truth of it. Thus, it is sensible to conclude that Democrats' attack on Brett Kavanaugh’s character is logically fallacious, legally faulty, and morally reprehensible. They directed a massive frontal assault on Judge Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, integrity and bearing, anyway. What took place in a Senate Hearing Room, on September 28, 2018, will go down in American history as one the most sordid, outrageous, abjectly shameless, and disgusting episodes in U.S. Senate history.Americans bear witness to nothing less than wholesale character assassination: the attempted murder of a person’s very self by Congressional Democrats. They have engaged in character assassination for what it is that Brett Kavanaugh represents to them--defeat of their Agenda for this Nation--rather than for who Brett Kavanaugh is. But, did these Democrats honestly think that this last minute gambit would actually work? Apparently so, since they made sure it would play out if Judge Kavanaugh would not step aside, as Senate Minority Leader, Schumer, pugnaciously, sanctimoniously insisted he do. One may well ask: would Chuck Schumer and other Democrats have stepped aside had the same attempt at character assassination been directed at them? Do they have the fortitude, the stamina to withstand such an attack. some of them, surely, do have serious character flaws—beyond any reasonable doubt. That, the public knows full well.Consider the flawed character of Senator Richard Blumenthal, for example. As one of the most vehemently, outspoken of Senate Democrats, he is, perhaps not surprisingly, also one of the most sanctimonious. It seems that Senator Blumenthal tends to project onto Judge Kavanaugh the Senator’s own moral failings, his own character flaws.Recall that Senator Blumenthal claimed to have served in Vietnam during the War. He didn’t. When called on the carpet for his blatant lie, Senator Blumenthal didn’t apologize. He didn’t show remorse. That isn’t in his nature. That isn’t in his character. Instead, Richard Blumenthal deflected the matter. He did so in order to salvage the lie. He sought to “clarify” his false remarks, rather than owning up to them. By failing to own up to his lie, Blumenthal merely compounded the lie; demonstrated to the public that here was a man who has a flawed character and is blind to his own flaws; and that he so contemptuously views the public, that he arrogantly assumes the public will be blind to those character flaws. What the public sees in this man, and in other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, though, are diehard hypocrites. The American public sees, in these Senate Democrats who sit on the Judiciary Committee, and the American public sees in the Democratic Party leadership, people so obsessed with their own sense of self-worth and so enamored with their own smug self-importance, and so dazzled by pretensions of personal grandeur that they truly believe Americans believe in the lies and delusions these Congressional Democrats created for themselves. But they are wrong. Americans, most Americans, at least, are not taken in by the air of pompous self-regard these Democrats have for themselves; nor do most Americans wish for the kind of America that these Democrats seek to create--the kind of America that President Obama had pushed the Country toward; and a kind of America that Hillary Clinton would have continued to work toward had she won the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.Could Senator Blumenthal and could other Democrats, who have a flawed character such as that of Blumenthal, withstand Senate inquiry and serious scrutiny into his character and reputation were he to have been nominated by a President—perhaps by Barack Obama—to sit as an Associate Justice on the high Court? One wonders.

BRETT KAVANAUGH DOES NOT OWE AN APOLOGY TO CHRISTINE FORD; NOR TO SENATE DEMOCRATS, NOR TO ANYONE. IF ANYTHING, CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS OWE AN APOLOGY TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH.

Senate Republican, Lindsay Graham, appropriately and rightfully excoriated Senate Democrats. And then speaking directly to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in an attempt to assist a man whose pain Senator Graham felt, as the man’s character was being improperly impugned before the entire Nation. Senator Graham told Judge Kavanaugh that he, Judge Kavanaugh, has done nothing wrong and does not need to apologize to anyone.Congressional Democrats obviously did not count on the courage and fortitude of Brett Kavanaugh—his tenacity to defend his honor, reputation, character, and good name; nor did they count on the American public’s own sense of fair play and human decency, as Americans have stood by Judge Kavanaugh.Democrats are so blinded by their own misguided sense of moral superiority that they have come to believe the deception they, and their allies, Progressives and Leftist agitators, dared play out on the American citizenry. But, “means do not justify the ends”—certainly not in this Age of Reason, and certainly not here, in the United States. Americans were justifiably appalled at Democrats’ chicanery; even more so once it became apparent that Senate Democrats had urged Judge Kavanaugh—plaintively, as a last ignominious and clearly futile attempt to delay a Senate Roll-Call vote on Confirmation—to ask President Trump to authorize the FBI to investigate Christine Ford’s allegations against the Judge. This was absurd.Senate Democrats, on the Judiciary Committee, know full well that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the nominee, cannot authorize FBI investigations into himself or anyone else; nor should he. The claim put forward by Senate Democrats that, if Judge Kavanaugh were truly innocent, he would authorize an investigation into the allegations was merely a red herring. How was Judge Kavanaugh expected to respond to that. Was he expected to capitulate? That would only serve to delay a Confirmation vote, which, of course, was what Senate Democrats hoped to accomplish. Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh would appear weak, having capitulated to the will of Senate Democrats. That would serve their own end; not his; nor ours, the American people.For all that, the FBI, as with any police agency, undertakes investigations on its own initiative when deemed necessary and has done so, many times, in the course of Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive work for the Nation. Nothing remotely came up, during seven thorough FBI investigations into Judge Kavanaugh’s background. That, in itself is telling. Also, the Senate itself can authorize an investigation; and the Senate itself can conduct its own investigation. In fact, Senate Republicans did undertake their own investigation into the barefaced allegations of Christine Ford, contacting individuals whom Christine Ford mentions as supporting her allegations. None of them did support Christine Ford’s allegations. Moreover, and oddly too, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, refrained from taking part in the Senate investigation, conducted by Republicans.Why is that? Could it be that the Democrats did not wish to know whether Christine Ford’s allegations could not be corroborated? For, if Senate Democrats learned that the accuser’s allegations could not be corroborated that would undercut the claim that Christine Ford’s allegations were true and that would have effectively ended the matter, as the accuser’s allegations would appear to the Nation to be less credible and Senate Democrats would have been compelled to acknowledge as much. But Senate Democrats would have none of that. Lastly, as Judge Kavanaugh pointed out, this latest hearing was itself an investigation. What more would actually be accomplished through an FBI investigation as the investigators would be doing no more than what Senate Republicans had already done: namely talk to those individuals whom Christine Ford had mentioned as people who could corroborate her story. They did not corroborate her story when interviewed by Senate Republicans, under pain of criminal penalty if they were caught in a lie. These individuals would not have corroborated the accuser’s story to FBI investigators as well. So, then what would be gained from an FBI investigation into the accuser’s allegations? Nothing. A call for a seventh FBI investigation at this time would serve nothing but make clear to the American public that Senate Democrats sought merely to delay a Roll-Call vote.*When one feels compelled to resort to chicanery, that chicanery comes back to bite them. And it has done so, here. The chicanery has come to bite Senate Democrats.

AMERICANS HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF DEMOCRATS’ DECEITFUL AND REPREHENSIBLE TACTICS.

Many members of the Democratic Party—certainly those members who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee—thought they could win over the public and, too, those few holdout Senators on the Republican Party. They apparently didn’t realize that, far from persuading Senate Republicans to turn against President’s Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, they have likely persuaded those Senate Republican holdouts to vote in favor of Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, and, perhaps, may have persuaded a few Senate Democrats to do so as well.Americans have now become increasingly aware that those Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Democratic Party Leadership and, many other Congressional Democrats, are “little people.” They have little empathy for human beings even as they claim empathy and concern for people. Their only concern is accumulation of power for themselves and to enable them to continue working toward completing the items on their agenda. They are people who have no integrity, no sense of human decency or character themselves, and therefore assume, wrongly, that no one else does either. Since they are flawed people, they are blind to their own flaws; and that will doom them and will doom the ignoble causes they seek to force upon our Nation and upon the American people. What they seek is massive social change and political upheaval, in order to remake this Country in a way far removed from a conception of a free Republic and a free people, propounded by the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution.A quotation from the 1951 Cary Grant film, “People Will Talk,” aptly describes what befalls those people who are so consumed with hate and vindictiveness and so convinced of their own moral superiority that they fail to see the flaws in their own character. Cary Grant, star in the film. He plays the protagonist, an idealistic medical professional, named Dr. Noah Praetorius. The antagonist in the film, Dr. Rodney Elwell, is played by the actor, Hume Cronyn. Dr. Elwell unfairly, spitefully, and ruthlessly attempts to destroy the character and reputation of Dr. Praetorius. Toward the end of the film, when Dr. Elwell’s attempt to destroy the character and reputation of  the man fails, he finds himself literally and figuratively, alone. As Dr. Elwell and Mr. Shunderson, Dr. Praetorius’ mysterious friend and personal servant, remain alone in a conference room at a college where Dr. Praetorius teaches, Mr. Shunderson privately scolds Dr. Elwell. Mr. Shunderson does so, not loudly and proudly like a victor might who had fought and won a brutal contest, but quietly, thoughtfully—and, curiously, in a way, that may be described as soothing, even melancholy—as he contemplates now a broken man, a disgraced man, a shallow man, sitting at the conference table. Here was a man who had been smugly self-assured, seemingly pious, but no longer.Dr. Elwell is now truly alone, a ruined man, and wholly irrelevant, as he has failed utterly to bring over others to his side in what was clearly found to be an unfair attack on Dr. Praetorius, a man for whom, it became clear, Dr. Elwell was deeply envious, and whose character and reputation he had, therefore, sought to ruin. But, those whom he had hoped to convince had heard more than enough. No one wished to listen to Dr. Elwell anymore. Dr. Praetorius character and reputation was vindicated and it was Dr. Elwell whose character and reputation now lay in tatters.Mr. Shunderson tells Mr. Elwell, this: “Professor Elwell, you're a little man. It's not that you're short. You're. . . little, in the mind and in the heart. Tonight, you tried to make a man little whose boots you couldn't touch if you stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. And as it turned out . . . you're even littler than you were before.”Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are, together, “Dr. Elwell,” and we would add the Democratic Party leadership, too, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Representative, Nancy Pelosi. They are attempting to take down Brett Kavanaugh, whose boots these Democrats couldn’t touch if they stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. These Democrats are, themselves, little people, and always have been even if that fact had been lost on many Americans; but no longer. And, after the disgusting sham hearing they put on to cut down an honorable man, a sham hearing they put on for the entire Nation to see—after behind the scenes machinating, conspiring—it isn’t Brett Kavanaugh who appears “little” to the Nation, whom they sought to make little. Rather, it is these Democrats who are “little, in the mind and in the heart.” Americans should seriously think about the matter witnessed in the spectacle they see played out before them. If they do so, and are not taken in by false rhetoric, they will become fully aware of what is really going on here: a ruthless attempt to destroy a man’s honor, character, and reputation, not because of some perceived flaw in the man—as there is none—but because Brett Kavanaugh stands in the way of their own lust for power; he stands in the way of their own quest for personal aggrandizement. And, through all that they have done and all that they continue to do to ruthlessly cut down the honor, character, and reputation of a man, they now appear, like Dr. Elwell, even littler than they were before.If there was any doubt whether Judge Kavanaugh merits ascendancy to Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Democrats have now, themselves put that doubt to rest. But they have done so not in the manner they thought; not in the manner they planned for; not in the manner they have hoped and expected. And, perhaps worst of all, for them, the public sees them now as disgraceful actors, as circus clowns, yet still bearing animosity, still bearing grudges, despite being found out for the buffoons they are. They hold high rank in Government, yes, but they have been thoroughly exposed for the hypocrites they were; for the hypocrites they are, and for the hypocrites they will, unfortunately, always remain. They are worthy of no American’s respect and should expect none.We implore our fellow Americans to contact their U.S. Senator immediately, telling their Senator they should do nothing to dignify the Democrats’ despicable last minute attempt to sabotage confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh through their outlandish scheme to impugn Judge Kavanaugh's character, reputation and honor. Tell your U.S. Senator to vote in favor of confirming the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. As is abundantly clear, the American people need Judge Kavanaugh as he will help preserve the integrity of our Constitution, and our  system of laws and justice as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court; and that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will do so in a manner consistent with the will and wishes of the founders of our Republic. We can ask for no more of Judge Kavanaugh; and would expect nothing less from him. You will find the name and contact number of your Senator at this link: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm._____________________________________________*As of the date of the posting of this article, President Trump, on his own initiative, has authorized a limited FBI investigation. The FBI is limited to investigating the specific allegations of sexual misconduct made against Brett Kavanaugh, however implausible the allegations are. Ostensibly, President Trump felt compelled to take this action because Jeff Flake, who had agreed to refer, along with other Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the full Senate, had, literally, at the last minute, reneged on that referral. Further, Senate Republicans, Collins and Murkowski, taking their cue from Senator Flake, have now made clear that they wish for the FBI to investigate the allegations of sexual misconduct, too, before they are willing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, apart from delaying a full Senate Roll-Call vote for another week, this places the FBI in an unenviable position. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, the FBI’s report will be deemed political. This, the FBI doesn’t need, given that the American public has been apprised that, both prior to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereafter, high ranking DOJ and FBI officials have operated as functionaries of the Democratic Party and not as independent police investigators and attorneys. Moreover, since Senate Republicans have, as they made clear during the last Hearing, already undertaken an investigation of individuals whom Christine Ford named as witnesses who might corroborate her allegations, and as none of those individuals had corroborated Christine Ford’s allegations, nothing would be gained through an FBI interview of those same people. Now, two other individuals, Debra Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, have come forward with their own allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. However, the allegations of sexual misconduct that these two new accusers have brought against Judge Kavanaugh are so patently ludicrous, that any time spent and taxpayer monies expended by FBI personnel to interview these women would serve only to turn what has already become a circus into a full-fledged farce. But that is where we, the American people, are, no thanks to Senator Feinstein’s unethical, and truly despicable 11^th Hour bombshell release of Christine Blasey Ford’s barefaced accusation against Judge Kavanaugh._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATS TRY AN ELEVENTH HOUR ATTACK ON JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH’S CONFIRMATION TO THE HIGH COURT.

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls:Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he that filches from me my good nameRobs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ~ William Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3_____________________________“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”  ~ Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” May 4, 1979 through November 28, 1990_____________________________

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAKE A MOCKERY OF A SOLEMN PROCESS FOR CONFIRMING A PERSON TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND, WORST OF ALL, DARE ATTEMPT DESTRUCTION OF A MAN'S GOOD NAME--FOR NO PURPOSE BUT THEIR OWN MISBEGOTTEN AND SELFISH POLITICAL END.

The American public’s patience with the Democratic Party and with the Democratic Party’s echo chamber, the mainstream news media, must be wearing thin, and rightly so. In a disgraceful, 11^th Hour attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democratic Party member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, brought to the attention of Chairman Grassley and to other Republicans sitting on the Committee, uncorroborated accusations impugning the Judge’s character.The accusations against Judge Kavanaugh came to Senator Feinstein, last July. No explanation has been, to date, forthcoming from the Senator, as to her reason or reasons for holding onto the contents of the letter for over two months, but we can reasonably surmise that one major reason Senator Feinstein held onto the contents of the letter has to do with the political usefulness of it in attempting to derail or, at least, holding up a Senate vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the 2018 Midterm elections, when the Democrats hope to gain control of the House and even the Senate. Senator Feinstein, and other Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee knew, full well, of the difficulty, if not the empirical impossibility, of holding up the confirmation of a person admirably qualified to sit on the high Court Justice unless she had a card, an “Ace,” up her sleeve that would rally Leftists in this Country. And, apparently, she did have an “Ace” up her sleeve. In a last minute attempt to throw a wrench into the entire Confirmation process, Senator Feinstein dropped a bomb shell on Chairman Grassley and on other Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee. The bomb shell took the form of an allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, ostensibly referring to an event that, if it occurred at all and if it involved Judge Kavanaugh, happened literally decades ago, when both the Brett Kavanaugh and the accuser were teenagers, in high school.The accusation came to the Senator in a letter she received from a person who, apparently, and not surprisingly, made clear to the Senator, at the time she contacted the Senator, last July, that the accuser wished to remain anonymous. From details of the letter that Senator Feinstein only made known to Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee just days before a Roll-Call vote of the Senate was planned, Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser cast a pernicious and potentially libelous accusation on Judge Kavanaugh. One can surmise the accuser’s motives and she should explain them to the American public. But, assuredly, the accuser, and Senate Democrats, sought to create doubt upon and to impugn the Judge’s good name, character, and reputation, and that is certainly the impact Democrats, through their echo chamber, the mainstream media, are attempting to invoke in the psyche of the American public. If their campaign of deception to cast doubt on the character of Judge Kavanaugh is successful, Senate Democrats will prevent confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh as the new Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is what they want and that is the reason Senate Democrats have implemented an last minute smear campaign. They have nothing else. Thus, they engage in the most despicable act of all: an attempt at character assassination. It is for this reason that Senate Republicans must remain firm in their own commitment to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and without delay, and not allow a false flag smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh to gain traction. Now, it isn't clear whether Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and other Congressional Democrats really aware of the content of the letter in Senator Feinstein's possession before releasing it to Chairman Grassley and to other Senate Republicans. Were other Senate Democrats aware of the contents of the damning letter? And, if so, who, and when did they learn about the contents of the letter? Did they know of the contents before the Confirmation Hearing even took place. After all, Senator Feinstein had the letter in her possession for several weeks, prior to the Hearing. Senator Feinstein could certainly have questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the letter's contents, discretely, when she met with him privately; or she could have brought the matter up at the Hearing, albeit, an attack on a person's character is hardly a matter that should be the subject of a Senate Hearing on the Confirmation of a Judge to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the subject of one's character and integrity and reputation should not even be in question. Judge Kavanaugh has served admirably as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for several years. Impugning a Judge's character serves only to degrade the entire Confirmation process and denigrates, too, the dignity of everyone present, Senators as well as the nominee himself.But, we have to ask: Were other Congressional Democrats—especially Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Senators Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar, Christopher Coons, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Mazie Hirono—also aware, last July, of the contents of the letter that had landed on Senator Feinstein’s desk? If so, they aren’t saying, and no one in the mainstream media seems to be interested in asking. But, they have lent their voices to impugning the character and good name of Judge Kavanaugh merely on the basis of an uncorroborated, unsupported damning barefaced, written accusation.*As Senator Feinstein certainly intended, Congressional Democrats, along with the assistance of the  mainstream media, launched an immediate, vigorous, aggressive attack against Judge Kavanaugh, shamelessly smearing and besmirching his name and character across the National landscape.Obviously, Democrats intend to squash the confirmation of the President’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court by whatever means available, however dubious and shameful those means may be.

THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO HAS ATTACKED JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CHARACTER, COMES TO LIGHT.

Eventually the identity of the accuser came to light—by whom it is not clear.  Conceivably, Democrats, themselves, leaked the name of the accuser. Democrats had certainly become aware that a damning, barefaced anonymous accusation would not delay a Senate Confirmation vote; nor should it. They had to attach a name and face to the accuser, and that would have been their motive, then, for releasing the identity of Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser to the public.The letter to Senator Feinstein, the Nation has learned, came from a middle-aged lady by the name of Christine Blasey Ford, a resident of California, and a Psychology Professor at Palo Alta University. Of note: Fox News reports that, “Ford is a registered Democrat who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington Post.” As a registered Democrat, that fact would certainly supply a motive for the Professor having contacted Senator Feinstein.Christine Blasey Ford alleges, in her letter, as relayed to the mass media by Senator Feinstein, that the U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, assaulted—or attempted to assault the woman (it isn’t clear which, nor is it even clear if the assault or attempted assault was in fact of a sexual nature)—when the two were in high school, an event that would have occurred, if it occurred at all, well over thirty ago. Notably, the accuser is short on critical details, such as when the alleged assault occurred, where the assault occurred, and, for that matter, what it is, exactly, the accuser claims, had occurred, but which, the American public is to believe, has festered in the mind of Christine Blasey Ford for decades.The problem, of course, is that there does not appear to be anyone around who is able to corroborate the accusation. Senate Republican Committee members attempted to find someone, anyone, who might be able to corroborate Judge Kavanaugh's accuser's story. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, for his part, categorically denies the accusation. No matter, Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, have presented the accusation, and continue to present the accusation to the public as gospel, however sketchy the details. Other, more reasonable, rational individuals, including Republican members, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, are not so obliging; nor should they be; no one should.

A WOMAN LODGES A BAREFACED, UNSUPPORTED, SERIOUS, HEINOUS, IF NOT ALTOGETHER SPURIOUS, ALLEGATION AGAINST A RESPECTED AND RESPECTABLE JURIST DESCRIBING AN EVENT THAT, IF THERE IS ANYTHING TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT AT ALL, REFERS TO A MATTER OCCURRING DECADES AGO; AND THE ACCUSER HONESTLY BELIEVES DOING SO WOULD NOT LEAD TO PERSONAL REPERCUSSIONS FOR HERSELF, HAVING PROFFERED IT? HOW CAN A MIDDLE-AGED, PRESUMABLY RESPONSIBLE, RATIONAL ADULT—REMEMBER WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A CHILD HERE—WHO HAS HAD MANY LIFE EXPERIENCES, AND WHO HAS EARNED A DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY, WHO TEACHES PSYCHOLOGY AT AN ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY IN CALIFORNIA, AND WHO IS, THEN, OBVIOUSLY INTELLIGENT, BE SO CALLOUS, SO HEARTLESS, SO SELF-CENTERED, AND, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, SO NAÏVE AS TO BRING UP A PERSONAL MATTER THAT DOES LITTLE, IF ANYTHING--CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME MAY BELIEVE--TO BUTTRESS HER OWN NAME, CHARACTER, AND REPUTATION?

A serious allegation has been lodged against a man whom dozens of other individuals, male and female professionals, know well. Individuals have come forward, pointing to a sensitive, caring person, with impeccable character and reputation; a person having a brilliant legal mind, honed through many years of service to the Nation as a Judge sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. So, if one person’s deprecating comments against Judge Kavanaugh are to be given honest consideration, as both the accuser and Democrats hope—as there are, to date, no negative remarks from those individuals who know Judge Kavanaugh either personally or professionally—then it stands to reason this person must come forward and explain herself to the Nation.We know, however, that Christine Blasey Ford, did not wish to come forward, and does not wish to come forward and that, through her attorney, Debra Katz,** she has made and continues to make many outrageous demands, frustrating, and, obviously, deliberately so, the patience of Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee.One of Christine Blasey Ford’s demands are that Judge Kavanaugh testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, before, Blasey Ford testifies. That is a ludicrous demand to make and it is one contrary to our system of justice and legal procedure.An accuser bears the burden of proof, and must present evidence in support of the accusation so that the accused has an opportunity to hear and view the evidence and has an opportunity to respond to it. It is patently unfair and contrary to our Nation’s judicial practice and procedure and, for that matter, illogical to demand that the accused testify before the accused has had an opportunity to know just what it is the accused is being accused of and has had no opportunity to rebut the accusation made against him or her.The accuser is also demanding that a Senate Confirmation vote be delayed so that she has time to prepare her testimony. But, does Christine Blasey Ford truly require time to prepare? She presented her letter to Senator Feinstein in July. She should have known, ultimately, that she could not simply present a damning accusation, attacking the reputation, character, integrity, and good-name of the man without personally testifying and presenting independent corroborating evidence, to support her accusation, if she has any, that is to say.Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney, probably working closely with Senate Democrats in the shadows, is  attempting to create unnecessary delay when there is no tenable reason to do so. She, and Senate Democrats working with her, are doing this, not because the attorney really needs to prepare her client's testimony before the Senate Committee, even as she says there exists a need to do so, but because they both want to delay a Senate vote on Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the  2016 Midterm Elections in the hope, once again, that Democrats gain control of both the House and Senate and can then prevent a majority vote in the Senate, in favor of confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Senate Democratic Party majority will effectively block Judge Kavanaugh from being confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, thereby frustrating the President, and also frustrating the people who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States, and who had every reason to expect that the President would nominate a person to the high Court who would preserve the Constitution and the rights and liberties of American citizens, in strict accordance to the plain meaning of the Constitution, as drafted by the framers of it. And, Donald Trump has kept his word. We, who support the President, seek to defend the U.S. Constitution, our legal system, the supremacy of our laws and the continued sovereignty of our Nation. And the best way to do so is to secure jurists on the U.S. Supreme Court and on the lower Courts who would do the same. Activist jurists who legislate from the Bench are precisely what supporters of the U.S. President do not want. That is what Barack Obama has given to the American people, and the American people have seen what that has wrought for Nation, and Americans have had enough of that. Is not the derailing of the Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, then, the central reason that Christine Blasey Ford, a supporter of Hillary Clinton, contacted Senator Feinstein? And, isn't the presentation of Christine Blasey Ford's barefaced damning allegation, to Senate Republicans and to the Nation--an isolated, solitary, ludicrous allegation attacking a good man's honor, character, good name, and reputation--the purpose of this smear, this attempt at character assassination? Isn't this what Congressional Democrats had planned all along: to deny Judge Kavanaugh a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of his ability and brilliance as a jurist and regardless of his integrity, character, reputation, sensitivity, and decency as a person and American citizen? Isn't this what a last ditch attempt to disrupt the assured confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh is really all about? Of course it is. And, Democrats have nothing else to use in their attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court. They can come up with nothing else. So, then, this is what Senate Democrats have allowed themselves to be reduced to, ghoulish wretchedness. They utilize the most despicable of tactics in a last ditch attempt to prevent confirmation of a man eminently suited to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. They resort to character assassination. And, they don't care whether the claims impugning Judge Kavanaugh's character are true or not. Indeed, they are reduced to lauding the truth of barefaced damning, unsupported, and vacuous allegation before the accuser has even testified, turning reason, and logic, and common-sense, and proper due process and procedure and judicial fairness; and simple, plain common decency our the door. Indeed, they claim that Judge Kavanaugh must prove his innocence. And, how in law or logic would he even do that, even assuming, for purpose of argument that the onus is on him to prove his innocence? How does one, anyone, go about proving a negative?For purpose of delay, Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney has also demanded that the FBI conduct an investigation of the charge her client has made against her client. That demand is equally absurd. No individual can demand as a matter of right—and, for that matter, it is even wrong to ask—a police department or agency to conduct a criminal investigation. It is the prerogative of a police agency, whether local, County, State, or Federal, to conduct an investigation if, in the first instance, proper jurisdiction exists and it appears worthwhile to do so, which means that forensic evidence likely exists that a crime actually occurred.In this instance it is particularly absurd for the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation. First, the FBI has no jurisdiction to conduct a criminal investigation. The matter would have been within the jurisdiction of the State where the alleged matter purportedly occurred, as the matter is a State matter, not a federal one. No federal law has been violated. So, jurisdictionally, the FBI cannot investigate the matter as a crime, even if it wanted to. Second, as a possible State crime, the State’s Statute of Limitations on assault, sexual or otherwise, may have expired if a Statute of Limitation exists in the jurisdiction where the alleged assault took place. And, even if a Statute of Limitations does not exist, still, in the absence of forensic evidence and in the absence of witnesses who can corroborate the allegation--both of which are highly unlikely--given the fact that the allegation refers to a matter occurring if it occurred at all, literally decades ago, no competent prosecutor would ever attempt to prosecute such a case, as there would be little, if any, chance of obtaining a conviction.If, third, the accuser is demanding that the FBI investigate the allegation not as a crime, but as an investigation into Judge Kavanaugh’s character, then that demand is pointless if not altogether absurd as well because the FBI has already conducted numerous extremely extensive background investigations on Judge Kavanaugh as he has worked for both the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and for the Judicial Branch of Government, the Federal Judiciary, where he presently serves as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.There is nothing further to be gained from use of taxpayer funds for the FBI to do another background investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as he has gone through thorough background investigations already, the last one of which would have been required in the Judge’s capacity as President Trump’s nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. If the FBI had come up with anything concrete to cast doubt on the Judge Kavanaugh’s character, to prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the high Court, the Confirmation process would have been short-circuited, at the inception. There would never have been Hearing. FBI background investigations are extremely thorough, and especially so for those individuals who are being considered to hold powerful positions in the Federal Government, as is true here.It strains credulity to believe the FBI would have been unable to obtain evidence of criminal wrongdoing or evidence of anything suggesting a person has character flaws if any such evidence truly exists.  We should not be looking at Judge Kavanaugh at all. Americans, should, rather, be looking at the accuser, Christine Basely Ford; for if her accusation were true, it is difficult to believe that she would not have mentioned the matter to someone, if not the police, then, perhaps, to a friend, or to her pastor, or, if not to one or more of them, then certainly to her parents who themselves would have contacted the police. In this era of the hysterical "Me Too" movement (or #MeToo) with women coming out of the woodwork, many with the most outrageous of claims, reason dictates that a reasonable person be skeptical of claims of moral impropriety or criminal wrongdoing when all that exists is a bare bones allegation.In the instant case, a decades old claim of assault (sexual or not)--and one, at that, coming from a person holding political views antithetical to Republicans, a person who is certainly no supporter of President Trump, and a person who is represented by an attorney who is, herself, a known hard-core left-wing activist--smacks of an orchestrated scheme, a design, a plan, concocted by Democrats and Left-wing agitators to undermine the President at every turn. The American public has certainly seen substantial evidence of that to date. A direct, concerted attack on the President's nominees to sit on Federal Courts, especially the President's nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, when that nominee would create a clear conservative-wing majority on the Court, is something that Democrats and Leftists cannot, it is evident, abide. Indeed, since a Supreme Court Justice holds a lifetime appointment, the power of the high Court, with Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, would provide the best means possible to preserve: the U.S. Constitution and a free Republic; the supremacy of our laws, and the sovereignty of our Nation; the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry, and an  appreciation for the continued autonomy and sanctity of the individual--all of which exists within the framework of our Constitution and system of laws, as established by the founders of our Nation. None of this, Democrats and Leftist groups want to preserve. Their aims and goals require a tortuous reading of the Constitution. They see our Constitution and fallible and malleable. They do not accept the supremacy of our Constitution and laws, but rather as contained within a broader spectrum of international law and pacts and treaties and foreign tribunals, all impacting our Nation and its people. They do not believe in the conception of natural law--that the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen exist beyond their lawful power to curtail or eliminate. They believe that all laws, even our natural unalienable rights, codified in our Bill of Rights are merely man-made constructs, and, as such, they see rights and liberties as subject to constant reconfiguration, refinement, regulation, even elimination; and they seek to create new substantive rights that nowhere exist in the Constitution, such as a right to an abortion on demand. These Leftists would destroy our Country, as originally constituted: an independent Sovereign Nation. They would accomplish this by opening up our borders to virtually anyone who wishes to reside within our borders, and they would provide these individuals, these aliens, with all the rights, liberties and privileges attendant to citizens, thereby destroying the very concept of 'citizen,' along with the concept of our Country as an 'independent, Sovereign Nation' in the process. These Leftists would destroy our Nation and its Constitution as assuredly as would a foreign military invasion. In fact, it would be worse, as destruction of our Nation and its Constitution would be completed, quietly, insidiously, from within. We have seen this playing out before, through the actions of the previous President of the United States, Barack Obama. We see this playing out now, even more clearly, only because Donald Trump, rather than Hillary Clinton, secured the Presidency in 2016. And Americans now know, cannot reasonably deny, that Barack Obama, when he held Office, was busy at work, not doing the work of the American people, but, rather, busy at work quietly creating within the federal bureaucracy and within the Judiciary, mechanisms to weaken our Constitution, and our rights and liberties and dismantling our Nation, a free Republic. Much of his disassembling, consisted in part of the placement of individuals in key positions, thousands of them--Leftist ideologues, who have, it is fair to conclude, no love for our Nation, for its Constitution, or for its system of laws--certainly no love for our Nation, for its Constitution, or for its system of laws, as conceived by our founders. President Trump has begun to rectify this. He has attempted and is attempting to reconstitute our Nation in the manner envisioned and implemented by our founders. Democrats and Leftist groups and agitators, and mainstream media newspapers and organizations, perceive what is happening; they see the turnaround, and they are unhappy with it; want none of it. And, we see them fighting back; and they are doing so through means that illustrate their contempt for our Constitution, for our laws, for our jurisprudence, as their methods and actions are patently unlawful. Again, they don't care, as it is their design to dismantle this Nation and to rewrite our Constitution anyway. They have an agenda; it is one that Barack Obama has been following. It is one that Hillary Clinton--had she gained the Office of U.S. President--would have continued. It calls for control of the massive federal bureaucracy. It calls for control of the Press. It calls for control of the Judiciary; it calls for the very destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry. This process was well underway during Barack Obama's terms in Office; and it is still underway, even as President Trump attempts methodically, albeit with great difficulty, to set things right; to set things back to the way they were; to the way they ought to be; to the way our founders intended. And, we see the Press, an organ of this vast bureaucratic and judicial conspiracy--publishers, editors, reporters, commentators, editorialists, commentators--working assiduously, aggressively, ceaselessly  against our Nation, against our Nation's Constitution, and against the best interests of the Nation's citizenry. They strive to force the United States into a trans-nationalist, globalist, world order. That do not deny this. They do not disagree with our assessment. They embrace it, talk lovingly about it. They argue that President Trump has a view of this Nation and its laws that are archaic, that our Nation must enter a new age; that it must become part of a larger community of nations, politically as well as economically. They argue that we must not be insular. That we must embrace multiculturalism, alien ideas, extreme diversity. They argue that we must be willing to relinquish our old jurisprudential standards, along with those  parts of our Constitution that reflect a history, a conception of our Nation and its people, that is no longer,as they see it, useful and relevant, and that is, in fact dangerous to a new conceptual schema, a new political, legal, economic, social, and cultural framework, a new paradigm, as the old ways--the Constitution as originally articulated, the Nation State as originally conceived--all of it is no longer consistent with conception of and aims of a new international world order. The Press is, in fact, correct in its assessment of President Trump of what President Trump is attempting to do. But, the Press is wrong in one critical respect. It is this: the conception of our Nation and of our Nation's laws, and of our Nation's Constitution, as conceived by our founders, is precisely what the American people do wish to preserve. The Press, as the mouthpiece of those elements both in our Nation and abroad that wish to reconfigure our Nation to cohere with the model of the EU, see the design of our Constitution, and see the notion of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State as old and archaic--reminiscent of  an Order conceived by our founders, that is no longer relevant and, so, no longer worth preserving, no longer worth even remembering. They see our Constitution, as drafted by its framers, and as ratified by the States, as anachronistic. They see our centuries of law and jurisprudence, and of the citizenry's rights and liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution as reflecting ideas that are no longer relevant or useful. They see the notion of the sanctity of the autonomy of the individual as altogether incompatible--which it is--with the utilitarian concept of "the good" achievable only when people are conceived as and ruled over as "a collective." All that, which the American public sees as timeless and which has preceded us and which the American public sees is worth preserving, and worth remembering, and worthy of adulation, these Democrats and Leftists, see as unimportant, and, in fact, destructive to their goal of incorporating our Nation into a new international, globalist world order, one where our citizens are perceived as no different than the citizens of any other nation of the world--where, in fact, the very notion of 'citizen,' so long pervasive in our society, is now perceived as detrimental to their goal of a one world government, requiring our citizenry to be shoehorned into the populations of the world, reduced to abject servitude. Those things that we see as timeless, permanent, worthy of preserving and, in fact necessary and vital, Democrats and Leftists have been altogether dismissive of. They have quietly, but, of late, vociferously, sought to undermine, our history, our culture, our pride of Nation, our system of laws and jurisprudence, our fundamental rights and liberties. There is a war proceeding now, a war for the soul of our People; for the soul of our Nation; for the soul of our Constitution and four our system of laws. Donald Trump was elected precisely because enough Americans realized--could see--the destruction of a Nation occurring before their very eyes and therefore sought a person to hold high Office who would prevent this, would turn the destructive tendencies, impulses, as well, as design for a new conception of our Nation, for a new conception of our laws and a new conception of our Constitution, completely around. There is a war brewing in this Country. It is a war fought, not, at the moment at least, with bombs, and guns and swords, but with words. But the winds of violence, of strife and turmoil are brewing, ominously on the horizon, as we see Leftist agitators, using violence, more and more: rapidly, incessantly, with more severity; and Democrats and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, the Press, do not condemn this violence. Far from it. They condone it, even encourage it. Democrats and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, the Press, are, therefore, complicit in the incitement of it.The Leftists in this Nation and abroad, who control the media--seek to control the mind, the psyche of the public. They are losing, nonetheless. Thus, they resort to the use of agitators; and they besmirch the character and reputation of those individuals who are not on board with their game plan. This much is clear; this much is obvious; this cannot be denied. As the Democrats and Leftist radicals lose control of the discourse, they become more discouraged, and then disgruntled. By degrees, they become agitated, then enraged, and ever more determined. They thrash about, making ever more ridiculous assertions, devising ever more noxious, disreputable schemes for fighting back. In so doing, they no longer appear like human beings. They take on the wild-eyed look of animals, of beasts. And, the more obstreperous they become, the more the public turns against them, in repugnance, in loathing, as well we should; for, these people, these Democrats, these Leftists, are not the voice of restraint. How can they be? They cannot even restrain themselves. And, so the public turns against them, enraging them even more; and they devise ever more outlandish schemes and make ever more outlandish pronouncements. They are not the voice of reason. Their claims of concern for the health, safety, and welfare of others are empty, vacuous, as the public knows their words are not heartfelt. It is no more than pretense; and not subtle pretense. Their moral tone is a charade, and so it appears to the public, as their outrageous actions belie their words. These Democrats, these Leftists, are not the voice of sanity; they are not the voice of morality, despite their claims to the contrary. They are not the voice of reason. How can they be? Their pronouncements are reduced to gibberish, mere sanctimonious patter, endlessly repeated, by one and then others of them. And, the American public has contempt for them and for good reason, as they are not sincere. The public is disgusted with their empty rhetoric, their bombastic retorts; their bald faced arrogance.These Democrats and Leftists, seeming liberal in outlook as they wish to appear, as they think they appear to others, become more and more radical in bearing, as their tone becomes more strident and either childishly simplistic, or completely incomprehensible. They resort to ever more alarming, ever more irrational assertions, remonstrations, and actions. As  more and more Americans turn against them, as they see the tide of the public turning against them in disgust, these Democrats, these Leftists, become ever more agitated, ever more desperate. They resort to ever more ridiculous, outrageous, and reprehensible assertions and actions; devise ever more insidious, outlandish, and illegal schemes in an attempt to turn the tide--to return to their program, their agenda. They cannot help themselves. They are on a runaway train. They don't even know how ludicrous they look; how clownish they appear; how irrational their actions are; how irrelevant they have become. As conservatives, we American conservatives--conservatives , indeed, in our very restraint, and in our thought and in our behavior and in our deeds, and in our outlook on life--hold more securely to our Constitution, to our Nation as a free Republic, to our system of laws and jurisprudence, to our great history, and to our core values, and to our pride. We see that Democrats in Congress, and Leftist radicals, become ever more radical in presentment of their schemes, and in their protestations, and in their aims; and in their attitudes and behavior toward others. They cannot and will not countenance any view but their own. They will not debate. For, they would lose. Their aims, and goals, and philosophy are nonsensical, completely at odds with our National character. They have lost their sense of balance; of reason. They have lost all semblance of self-control. They are completely forsaken. And, that fact has not been lost anyone.

THE AIMS OF DEMOCRATS AND LEFTIST RADICALS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY CLEAR, SELF-EVIDENT: THEY SEEK TO STRIP THIS NATION CLEAN OF ITS HISTORY, ITS HERITAGE, ITS DIGNITY, ITS UNIQUENESS, OF EVERYTHING THAT HOLDS US TOGETHER--EVERYTHING THAT HAS, SINCE OUR NATION'S INCEPTION, BOUND US TOGETHER, AS ONE NATION UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND CARE OF OUR CREATOR.

A Congress controlled by Democrats and Leftists of all stripes, would strip bare the framework of our Nation and reconstruct it as merely a unit within the structure of the European Union. Our Nation would become part of an international world order, unconstrained by traditions or history. Multiculturalism would dominate. Our Nation would become a heterogenous conglomeration of unassimilable people, holding alien ideas to whom our core values, our traditions, our Bill of Rights is simply indecipherable, meaningless. As our societal fabric becomes more tenuous, we will see our Nation, our Constitution, our system of laws fragment. The Nation will be ripe for a takeover by powerful international forces. This new "modern" America would no longer be recognizable. Democrats and leftist groups welcome the change; indeed, they are working for that change; they are working for that very transformation of our Country. And they think that is a good thing; that such transformation is proper; that the old Nation, conceived and established by our founders, no longer adequately "works;" that it no longer represents the values of the modern age; that the founder's "construct" no longer reflects the new age that exists. They see, President Trump's slogan, "America First" as representative of an archaic notion; that it is  anachronistic and, worse, that it is arrogantly defiant. Democrats and Leftist groups argue for a new conception of the way Americans should see themselves, namely that they should see themselves not as citizens of a Nation, the United States, but, rather, that they should see themselves as "citizens of the world,"--an empty concept really, as we, citizens of a new world would be reduced to serfdom, as we fit into a new world feudalistic order, as the European Union is degenerating into.Our Supreme Court, though, our third Branch of Government, that in previous years, the public has been little cognizant of, can prevent this. The public is certainly cognizant of and sees the importance of our high Court now. And, what is it that we want and expect from our Justices? Americans should want and expect Justices who test the lawfulness of Congressional and State action through the Constitution, as it is written, as the framers of it understood it. Such Justices would be a mighty force to be reckoned with even if Democrats to take control of the House after the 2016 Midterm elections. For, a conservative-wing majority on the high Court can withstand a Congress run amok. But, Conservative-wing jurists who defer to and respect the Constitution, who do not legislate from the Bench, will then protect our history; our heritage; our fundamental rights and liberties; the supremacy of our laws; and the sovereignty of our Nation. All that we hold dear would be undone if Democrats are able to prevent competent jurists, such as Judge Kavanaugh, from gaining a seat on the high Court. Yet, the Democrats' tool for thwarting the Confirmation process would be laughable in the contemplation if we did not see it unfolding in practice: a malcontented middle-age woman, holding a decades old grudge. That is what Senate Democrats are using to derail the Senate Confirmation process.One decades old barefaced allegation of wrongdoing, short on details, in the absence of forensic evidence and corroborating witnesses, is hardly a legitimate, rational basis for the FBI to seriously consider launching another background investigation even if they had the authorization to do so.Of course the U.S. President could ask the FBI to undertake an investigation (the seventh?); but one would hardly expect the President to authorize yet another investigation into Judge Kavanaugh's past, as Judge Kavanaugh, after all, is the President’s nominee to serve on the high Court. It would be against the President’ interest to request such an investigation, and there is no suggestion that Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee feel that a further FBI investigation is necessary, anyway.If Senate Republicans wish undertake an investigation of the allegation, let them do so. They have the prerogative to do so; and, likely, they have already quietly undertaken an investigation. For all that, there is nothing to suggest, from one solitary allegation of purported wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh--as brought to the attention of Chairman Grassley, at the 11^th Hour by Senator Feinstein--to support an FBI investigation were the President, in fact, inclined to authorize the FBI to do so. The fact of the matter is that any further background investigation would simply delay a Senate confirmation vote and delay a confirmation vote indefinitely—which, of course, is really the point. An investigation into the allegation would be interminable; it would and could never be completed because there is nothing to be undertaken. So, if one considers the entire matter rationally, another FBI background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh's past, would be futile, redundant, and silly, making a mockery of the entire Senate Confirmation process. But, Democrats don't care. They  want to prevent a confirmation vote of Judge Kavanaugh from ever occurring. That is their goal. And, even now, Democrats must be operating in the dark to devise ever more outrageous schemes to prevent Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, if the present "tool" doesn't work. And, they will undoubtedly pull out another"Me Too" tool to use against any person President Trump nominates to the high Court. They will do everything they can to prevent a Conservative-wing Majority on the high Court.

IS JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CREDIBILITY AND CHARACTER REALLY IN QUESTION HERE? IS IT NOT, REALLY, THE CREDIBILITY, CHARACTER, AND MOTIVATION OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S ACCUSER THAT ARE IN QUESTION?

It is not Judge Kavanaugh's credibility and character that are really in question, here, but those of Christine Blasey Ford. Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser’s recollection of the allegation she has lodged against Judge Kavanaugh demands she personally come forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee to offer testimony to support her allegation if she intends for it to be taken seriously.The Judiciary Committee should also question Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser as to her motivations for having brought a damning accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, pertaining to a matter that, if there is anything to it at all, references an event occurring well over thirty years ago. The Judiciary Committee might ask Christine Blasey Ford about the possibility of her having had an hysterical reaction to something unrelated to assault or attempted assault, and the nature of the alleged assault or attempted assault—whether of a sexual nature or not. There is a possibility, perhaps a probability, that Christine Blasey Ford is misremembering critical facts. There are certainly gaps in her account, as the accusation, as presented to the public, as reported in the news, is short on critical details. The Judiciary Committee might ultimately and reasonably infer that the event, in any critical particular, had not really transpired at all.Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser may simply be recalling a bad dream she had as a child or as a teenager, mistakenly, albeit honestly, believing the dream to constitute reality; or if the event described actually happened, she may be mistaken as to the identity of the individual she believes had assaulted her or attempted to assault her. The entire accusation, from what the public has seen, to date, is altogether murky, but Democrats expect the public and Senate Republicans to accept the account as given, as true on its face. That is decidedly irrational.The Judiciary Committee should question Christine Blasey Ford as to her political leanings, as the  motivation for bringing up the matter is definitely relevant. In that regard, would Christine Blasey Ford have sent her damning letter to Senator Feinstein, if the allegation in the letter pointed to a nominee of the U.S. President who happened to be favored by Democrats? If not, would not that mean that the purpose of the letter is not to preclude an individual from being confirmed as a Justice on the high Court because of purported character flaws, but to preclude an individual from serving on the high Court that the accuser, along with Democrats, doesn’t like because of his jurisprudential philosophy and approach to case analysis? And if the accuser and Senate Democrats do not like Judge Kavanaugh, not because of any doubt as to his professional qualifications, but because of negative and baseless presumptions about how, they believe, that Judge Kavanaugh might happen to decide a case; and based on their personal biases toward the Judge, totally apart from and irrespective of his qualifications to decide cases before the Court in a well-reasoned, sensitive manner, consistent with the import of Judicial precedent and with due regard to the plain meaning of words as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and in Statute. If, then, Senate Democrats--with assistance from a compliant Press sympathetic to Democrats' goals, and philosophy, and desires to rewrite the Constitution and to change the very fabric of American society to correspond to a "modern" world, as exemplified in the social and political and legal framework we see in the Nations comprising the European Union--have orchestrated a scheme, have hatched a devious plan, have devised a plot to undermine the Kavanaugh Confirmation process as part and parcel of a greater plan to contain the U.S. President and his policy goals and objectives as he promised, consistent with the will of the American people, to preserve the U.S. Constitution and a free Republic, as the founders of our Nation had intended, then Democrat's  attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court has nothing to do with and has never had anything to do with getting to the truth; it has nothing to do with and never had anything to do with the vindication of a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who claims to have been wronged by Judge Kavanaugh, and who brings up a decades old claim of  wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh; for that is nothing but pretext. No! The real reason Senate Democrats seek to delay a Senate Roll Call vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court is to frustrate President Trump; to frustrate the will of the people. And the attack on Judge Kavanaugh's character and reputation is merely one more tactic, like the Mueller probe. Simply, Judge Kavanaugh is in the way of the agenda that Democrats intend for this Country once they resume power. A conservative wing majority in the high Court would be capable of continuing to frustrate Democrats and Leftists groups in this Country from reconfiguring the Constitution and the institutions and laws of society to conform to their new world view. Hence, they are pulling out all the stops to prevent Judge Kavanaugh from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in spite of his good character, solid reputation, impeccable judicial work, intellectual brilliance, and love and respect for our Constitution and system of laws. If, then, the delay in holding a confirmation vote is politically motivated, and not rationally related to the qualifications or character of the President's nominee, as is obvious, Senate Republicans must stand firm, and make clear to their counterparts, Senate Democrats, and to the American people, that they support Judge Kavanaugh fully and that they will not allow Senate Democrats to take control of the Confirmation process, which, unfortunately, as is becoming increasingly obvious, is happening. Senate Republicans are allowing Democrats to do just that.Of course the American public knows this to be the case, but these facts are not supposed to be obvious. Increasingly, though, it is becoming glaringly obvious to the American people that the accusation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is nothing more than yet one more weapon in the toolbox of Democrats and extreme leftists in this Country, pulled out with no legitimate aim but only to frustrate the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States, in anticipation that, one day, they will regain control of the reins of Government.Judge Kavanaugh for his part is perfectly willing to come forward, once again, before the Committee, to respond to the accusations, to get this matter behind him. He has already categorically denied the truth of Blasey’s accusations. Christine Blasey Ford, an American citizen, has made a damning accusation against another American citizen; and there must be a public accounting for it. After all she made a conscious decision to contact Senator Feinstein, accusing Judge Kavanaugh of a heinous act. Christine Blasey Ford, and her attorney, and Senate Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee apparently believing it unnecessary for Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser to make a personal appearance before the entire Nation, despite smearing Judge Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, and good name before the Nation, and, in the process, potentially, psychologically harming Judge Kavanaugh’s wife, children, and parents. Many on the political left don’t seem to care, including those in the mainstream media. Nonetheless, as of this writing, Christine Blasey Ford, through her attorney has agreed to testify, albeit reluctantly, although the conditions under which and the manner in which Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser testifies, whether openly before the Nation, as she should, or secretly, behind closed doors, as she might, are, apparently, still being hammered out, by the accuser’s attorney and Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, along with other conditions, to be hammered out, patently ridiculous though they be.Chairman Grassley and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have made clear that, if they are compelled to play the game Democrats demand they play, then, Democrats are not going to make up all the rules as they go, changing them at will. His patience must be running thin, and with good reason. But, one thing is clear. Whatever the facts happen to be, surrounding the allegation that Christine Blasey Ford has brought against Judge Kavanaugh, and whatever her motivations for bringing it, Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser must come forward and testify. She must explain herself. Christine Blasey Ford, her attorney, and Senate Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee had thought that Christine Blasey Ford need not testify. They are all profoundly mistaken.

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS OPENED A PANDORA’S BOX WITH HER BAREFACED ALLEGATION, WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, SUPPORTING THE ALLEGATION, IS VACUOUS. NOW SHE MUST DEAL WITH THE TROUBLES SHE HAS UNLEASHED AND THAT SHE AND SHE ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.

Media accounts refer to the psychological toll the entire matter has had on Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, with little, if any, regard, shown for the psychological toll this matter has had on Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Why is that? Media accounts proclaim how courageous Christine Blasey Ford is to come forward with her allegation. Really? How much courage does it take to write a letter, attacking and impugning a person’s character, and demanding that and believing that one’s identity remain obscured, hidden in the shadows, and that the accuser’s identity will forever remain anonymous? Christine Blasey Ford is an adult, not a child; and no longer a teenager. She should have known that an intelligent person, as she undoubtedly is, cannot reasonably expect to smear the name of another, publically, especially a highly respected person—presently serving as a Judge on a federal Circuit Court, nominated by the U.S. President to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court—and, yet, expect no personal repercussions to emanate from that smear. Indeed, if the accusation is false, that amounts to the commission of a serious tort. What is clear enough is that this matter has political overtones—political overtones that cannot be denied. Christine Blasey Ford, along with her attorney, and along with Congressional Democrats, seek retribution against Donald Trump for having prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. They seek retribution against the President’s nominees to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. But, it is retribution on their own heads that they deserve and that they will receive from the American public.It must need be reiterated that no person has come forward, to date, to corroborate Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation. So, who can defend the repugnant claim, apart from the accuser, herself? Apparently they include only those people who would like to believe Christine Blasey Ford and who have become inappropriate stand-ins, in the absence of a witness to the purported event. One stand-in is Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand, a Democrat sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has her own agenda, which likely includes a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2020. This is what the Senator had to say about the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, as reported by the National Review:“‘I believe Dr. Blasey Ford because she’s telling the truth. You know it by her story. You know it by the fact that she told her therapist five years ago. She told her husband. This is a trauma she’s been dealing with her whole life. She doesn’t want to be in a bedroom that doesn’t have two doors. People knew that about her a long time ago,’ Gillibrand said.”“‘These are the hallmarks of truth, these are the hallmarks of someone who wants to be believed. I believe her because she’s telling the truth. She’s asking the FBI to investigate her claims,’ the senator added. ‘She’s asking for that kind of review, that investigative work, that oversight, that accountability. Someone who is lying doesn’t ask the FBI to investigate their claims.’” From these remarks, a reasonable person can come to two diametrically opposed inferences about Senator Gillibrand: one, either she is omniscient; or, two, she is a moron. It is unlikely that Senator Gillibrand is omniscient. Other Democrats have proclaimed similar ludicrous and imbecilic remarks.Curiously, though, Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself—the Democrat who tactically, but untactfully and disgracefully released Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation, inopportunely, on Chairman Grassley and on other Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, without, at the very least, attempting to investigate the veracity of the accusation before releasing it at all, and then having decided to release the barefaced accusation on the Judiciary Committee, as well as on the Nation, only days before a Senate Roll Call vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was planned even though Senator Feinstein had received the accusation, in the form of a letter, months earlier—pointed out, as reported by the Washington Times, that: “Ms. Blasey Ford has been ‘profoundly impacted,’ but [Senator Feinstein] added, ‘I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.’”  Those remarks were the most neutral and most reasonable of remarks that any Democrat has said to date on the matter, coming from any Congressional Democrat. But, perhaps, not unexpectedly, Senator Feinstein backpedaled—no doubt at the urgent behest of other Congressional Democrats as Feinstein had essentially contradicted Senator Gillibrand; for, Senator Feinstein had created a new narrative, with her account of Christine Blasey Ford's accusation--an account not synchronized with the narrative Democrats and the mainstream media had orchestrated for the American public and have been playing incessantly to the public to encourage public support in Democrats' attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Democrats and the mainstream media always operate in lockstep with each other, often reciting verbatim, ad nauseum, the same trite talking points.So, then, as reported in the same article by the Washington Times, “Ms. Feinstein . . . later clarified her statement on Twitter. ‘During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable. She knew this would have a huge effect on her life and she was incredibly brave to come forward.’” But, note: Dianne Feinstein’s “clarification” still falls noticeably short on one critical point, and this certainly wasn't accidental. While saying she believed Christine Blasey Ford’s “information” to be “eminently credible, sincere and believable,” the Senator still refrained from asserting a belief that the information is in fact true. Thus, to her credit—and Dianne Feinstein owes the American public that much since it was the Senator who, after all, brought the barefaced allegation, directly impugning the character of an honorable man, to the public’s attention in the first place—Senator Feinstein knows that, however “credible, sincere and believable” the allegation is, it may still be false. Displaying such obvious concern for precision in her remarks--something, by the way, that we do not see from Senator Gillibrand--and from many other Congressional Democrats, who have exhibit no inclination toward the importance of personal integrity and who have no sense of personal honor but only demonstrate concern for results and for the amassing of personal power--it is odd that Senator Feinstein released the accusation prior to undertaking a quiet vetting process, herself, before the fact. Perhaps, though, Senator Feinstein did attempt to conduct a quiet, secretive investigation into the veracity of Christine Basely Ford's allegation against Judge Kavanaugh when the Senator first received the Professor's letter; and, perhaps, Senator Feinstein was unable to obtain independent evidence to corroborate the barefaced allegation. This would not be surprising given the passage of so many years and given the extensive gaps pertaining to the account as related in the accuser's letter, as related to the public by the Press. Conceivably, as we speculate, Senator Feinstein may very well have fretted over all of this, but felt, ultimately, inevitably, calculatedly, and, perhaps, even resignedly, that, if Democrats were to have any appreciable chance at all of derailing, or, at least, delaying the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court--and despite realizing the damage that could and undoubtedly would be done to the Senator's own professional reputation by unilaterally releasing a barefaced, heinous accusation--Senator Feinstein would take the risk of damaging her own reputation anyway; and, so, she released a barefaced, unsupported, uncorroborated, damning allegation, that she knew or had every reason to presume would unfairly impugn the character and integrity of an honorable man and highly respected jurist, as well as doing psychological harm to Judge Kavanaugh's wife and young, impressionable daughters. Having taken this action, probably at the urging of other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein has done irreparable damage to her own personal and professional reputation, and deservedly so. Perhaps, then, Senator Feinstein’s “clarification” was meant to inform Congressional Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee that she bears some animosity toward those Democrats by having been urged by them to release Christine Blasey Ford's allegation to the Senator Grassley and to other Senate  Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, and to the Nation. That would certainly explain why Senator Feinstein's "clarification" still manages to conflict with Senator Gillibrand’s remark—and the remarks of other Democrats--who exclaimed, unabashedly, that they accept the veracity of the allegation on its face, even though there is no reasonable, rational basis at all to do so.

BELIEFS ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TO KNOWLEDGE

Senator Feinstein acknowledges, subtly, but more than merely impliedly, that one’s belief that a statement is true does not, of itself, make a statement true even if, as with Senator Gillibrand's comment and that of other Congressional Democrats, as a group,  for political reasons, the claim is made that beliefs about truth and factual truth amount to the same thing. Senator Feinstein is correct. They aren't the same thing. She knows that it is ridiculous  to say that because someone believes a statement to be true that that the statement is true.  So, it appears, on some level, at least, that Senator Feinstein continues to insist that she simply doesn’t know if Christine Basely Ford's allegation against Judge Kavanaugh is true. But, as she brought this mess to the attention of the public, Senator Feinstein, more than anyone else, is responsible for the mess she created.No one needs to take courses in formal or informal logic, or in epistemology, to know that beliefs, however sincere do not ipso facto equate with truth. Beliefs that such and such is the case may be false, and often are. Centuries ago most people believed the Earth was flat. They sincerely believed that and, given the number of people who believed that the Earth was flat and that if one travels too far on a flat Earth, one would fall off the Earth, were held to true and credible beliefs, insofar as the majority of the people believed this to be the case. But, scientists, of course have proved, conclusively—indeed Christopher Columbus has shown through his voyage to the "New World"—that the Earth is indeed round. The Earth is a sphere, not a flat disc or plate. The point is that bare beliefs, in the absence of evidence, do not equate with truth. They never did. There is, then, no reason to raise Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s asserted belief in the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation to the level of truth, however sincerely felt that belief may be, if, in fact, Senator Gillibrand does in fact sincerely believe the accusation and is not simply pulling a political stunt. Senator Gillibrand, as with many Democrats, are conjurers, sleight-of-hand artists, who attempt to control the public's perceptions, no less so than an actual stage illusionist, doing seemingly wondrous things, but merely playing tricks, controlling the audience's perceptions. Democrats are doing the same thing, and the mainstream media is merely one of the assistants of the Democrats. The mainstream media is not interested any longer in imparting truth to the public, passively, The mainstream media is, as well, attempting to shape public opinion.As to the matter at hand, we simply don’t know whether the accuser's “information” is true, rather than false. And, contrary to Senator Gillibrand’s remark, the Senator doesn’t know either. She may profess a belief in the truth of the accusation, but, once again, one's belief in the truth of a proposition does not make that belief, true. Beliefs can be and often turn out to be mistaken. Indeed, given the span of time, Christine Blasey Ford’s recollection of the event amounting to an assault may be wholly or partially false. Her recollection may certainly be false or fallible given the passage of time, even if she sincerely believes the account to be true. We simply don’t know in the absence corroborating reports, and forensic evidence—difficult things to collect now, from a decades old allegation. But, always keep in mind: it is not necessary for Judge Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s account. This matter does not boil down to a “He said; She said” debate, as some have argued, with due allowance, as some give it, but improperly, to the accuser, for presumptively assuming the truth of the accuser’s claim.In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is always on the accuser, as it should be, as it must be, and, as, under our system of laws and procedure, always is. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, never on the defendant. The defendant may remain silent and need not present any evidence to support or contradict the accusation. If the accuser’s evidence is insufficient or lacking in all or any important detail, then the prosecution’s case falls flat. The accused therefore has the presumption of innocence, not guilt, as that presumption must be given to the accused, if fairness is to prevail. Now, we are not, of course, faced with a criminal trial here. Still, the methodology of presumption of innocence persists and other important judicial presumptions, consistent with our legal procedure, still hold. If Christine Blasey Ford fails to testify and fails to provide credible evidence to support a bald allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh, then the allegation falls flat, and must be given no force or effect.

SO, WE ASK:

Do those individuals who believe in the veracity of the accusation that Christine Blasey Ford has lodged against Judge Kavanaugh—belief in the accuser’s account, without reservation and without need to hear her testimony, under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee and before the American public, and without need to see, and, indeed, to insist on seeing independent evidence that supports the bare allegation—believe the accuser because they happen to know the accuser personally and have, through their own observations, never known the accuser to fabricate a story or to have been subject to a delusion or hallucination, or do they elicit confidence in the truth of the accusation simply because it serves an agenda: namely keeping Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, and in the process, frustrating the U.S. President, and frustrating the will of the American people, who, in full accord with the Constitution, legitimately elected Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States. If the latter is the case, then these people—Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and in their echo chamber, the mainstream media; and Leftists, supporters of “Planned Parenthood” and the “Me Too” movement and supporters of other Left-wing radicals, among others—evince belief in the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation because they have a political and ideological reason to do so, they have items on a political agenda to see through to fruition. Now, these people and members of left-wing groups may convince themselves, albeit irrationally, that they really do believe the accusation of Judge Kavanaugh's accuser to be true, when, however, in a contemplative, self-reflective moment, they may admit to themselves, that they really do not know, as they have no basis in logic to do so. But, whether they do honestly, sincerely believe the accusation, or not, the belief is not equivalent to truth. Perhaps, as appears likely, they really don't care in the truth. They only care in the spectacle and if the spectacle operates well, according to plan, to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and others may, then, choose to believe whatever they wish to believe, whether sincerely felt or merely presented for political expediency. Whatever the case, that is no reason why anyone else should accept as true what it is that the Senator or others believe to be true and happen to say is true, however fervently and loudly they proclaim their belief to accord with the truth. And, the public must be mindful of an intricate illusion--a magical trick being played upon it.

THERE IS MUCH AT STAKE HERE.

For the sake of preservation of our system of laws and justice, Americans should not accept and should not be expected to accept an uncorroborated accusation as true simply because they would like to believe the accusation to be true. But that is likely what we are seeing here. Our Constitution and our system of laws require that one be circumspect, rational, and diligent.One should not be headstrong, emotional, haphazard, gullible, in accepting as gospel things that one would, perhaps, like to believe are true simply because they fit a particular paradigm of one’s personal reality, of the way one would like things to be, irrespective of rational reflection. Americans should expect no less from a jurist. Americans should want a jurist to be competent and capable, to dispose of cases, carefully, in accordance with law, as it is written, as it is. This is why, after all, Americans should want to see confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. They should not want a jurist sitting on the high Court who disposes of cases the way a jurist happens to believe the law ought to be. Unfortunately, we see the latter among jurists, at all levels. Judge Kavanaugh, though, is not that kind of jurist.Judge Kavanaugh has the temperament as well as the intelligence to serve on the high Court. He is careful to render decisions that comply clearly, carefully, and narrowly with the original intent of the Constitution, and does not go off half-cocked, as all to many jurists, unfortunately do, rendering decisions that comply with a personal ideological perspective, irrespective of the plain words of the Constitution, of Statute and of high Court precedent. Too many jurists render legal opinions that operate more like personal, rhetorical political tracts than as true legal opinions, demonstrating less the idea of cogent and clear and articulate knowledge and application of  and adherence of the law to the facts, and more like polemics, asserting the jurist's desire for the way he or she would like the world to be, fitfully forcing law to fit a particular factual paradigm. This explains why Democrats are afraid of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and why they have made a spectacle of the entire confirmation process. They do not want to see calmness, intelligence, rationality on the high Court; quite the opposite. They want to see someone sitting on the high Court who renders decisions on the basis of emotion, and sentiment, and sentimentality, those things that the Left ascribes to, devoid of sound reason, exhibiting little if any respect for the plain meaning of the Constitution and of our laws, as written. Indeed, haven’t we seen, during the Confirmation Hearing, Democrats exhibiting themselves those very attributes in a jurist that no American should want to see in a jurist: someone who renders opinions emotionally, irrespective of what the law and Constitution say? Haven’t Democrats shown the American people that they want jurists who render decisions beyond the scope of case precedent, beyond the plain meaning of Constitution and Statute? Hasn’t it become clear to all Americans that Democrats want jurists on the high Court who are not afraid to rewrite the Constitution and laws to reflect their view of what they think the law should be, to reflect a Country the way they think the Country ought to look, rather than what the law and the Constitution demand; what the law and the Constitution dictate? Don't Americans, rather, seek to maintain a Country operating coherently and cohesively and consistently as the founders of our free Republic prescribed; as the framers of the Constitution intended?

WHAT IS CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S BAREFACED ALLEGATION AGAINST JUDGE KAVANAUGH REALLY, THEN, ALL ABOUT?

The hysteria that is being displayed, deliberately whipped up by the mainstream media, exemplifies the character of the kind of jurist the Left in this Country would like to see sitting on the high Court: a person that mirrors themselves; their personal view of what a “modern” America should look like, completely at odds with the framework the Founders of our Republic established as set forth clearly, categorically, and meticulously, in the U.S. Constitution.Mainstream media newspapers, such as The New York Times, lost little time in posting numerous articles on Christine Blasey Ford, supporting the veracity and efficacy of her remarks in both news articles and editorials, lending a sympathetic voice to the accuser’s concern for her dignity and character and for her safety and that of her family. But, why is there no complementary statements made in the mainstream media for the well-being of Brett Kavanaugh and his family? After all, Judge Kavanaugh’s character has been seriously impugned by bald, sketchy, uncorroborated allegations of one person, purporting to recall an event going back literally decades. Judge Kavanaugh has a family, too, and that family includes a loving, devoted wife, and two young, impressionable daughters. The mainstream media expresses nothing that we have seen to suggest concern for Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Apparently, in the age of the “Me Too” movement, we are to throw out concerns for the harm that this heinous accusation has had on Judge Kavanaugh and his family, for the unstated but obvious purpose of political expediency.

THERE IS MUCH AT STAKE HERE.

Ultimately, Democrats and the mainstream media are not really concerned about the health, safety, and well-being of either Christine Blasey Ford or Judge Brett Kavanaugh. For Democrats, an accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, however weak, constitutes a last ditch effort to prevent the installation of a fifth originalist on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats know full well that the high Court has the last word on the constitutionality of State and Federal legislation. Democrats have an agenda and a policy that they seek to implement. It is one that essentially rewrites the U.S. Constitution. Democrats seek to create new “rights” out of whole cloth that don’t exist in the Bill of Rights, and never did. Contrariwise, they seek to constrain fundamental, natural rights, like free speech, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms--rights that are clearly and succinctly etched in stone. They know that any legislation that they enact that fails to comply with the Constitution of this Nation as originally conceived, as plainly set forth in text, will not withstand Constitutional scrutiny and will be struck down, as well it should. Thus, the idea of a jurist who applies rigor and restraint to legal opinions, with proper deference to the written word of the Constitution is not to their liking. The idea of a fifth originalist sitting on the high Court drives those on the political Left to apoplexy, as they see their agenda for a new kind of Country--one envisioned by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a Country uncontained by and unrestrained by the Nation's Constitution, laws, and jurisprudential history--completely undone.Democrats, both moderates and far left progressives, know that, once Judge Kavanaugh sits on the high Court, as the fifth and decisive conservative voice, Constitutional questions will be analyzed and decided utilizing the jurisprudential approaches and methodology championed by the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia’s approach serves to preserve and strengthen the Constitution, consistent with the intentions of the framers of it. The Constitution that we have that has served our Country well for over two centuries would be fractured, severing forever the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights, and severing the tenuous checks and balances that the framers carefully put in place as set forth in the Articles of the Constitution, if Democrats are able to sit activists on the high Court, as they would like to do, as Barack Obama has done and would have continued to do had Judge Merrick Garland been confirmed to sit on the high Court, and as Hillary Clinton would certainly have done had she prevailed in the 2016 general election for U.S. President.Leftists in this Country want to see high Court decisions that reflect radical narratives; that display a novel and disjointed view of our Nation; a view that is completely at odds with the Nation, conceived by the founders. The rights and liberties the founders codified in the Bill of Rights and the careful attention they paid to the separation of powers as exemplified in the Articles of the Constitution are in peril if Leftists have their way; for they do not see the Constitution as demonstrative of fundamental, core values, concrete and timeless. They see the U.S. Constitution as something equivocal, temporary, even archaic—subject to the whims of the moment, and to ideas that, if expressed in high Court law, would result in the disruption of our Nation’s core values, the diminution of our natural rights and liberties, and the fracturing of the fragile concept of “separation of powers” that, together with the Bill of Rights, comprise the mainstay of a free Republic. The late Justice Scalia, and the conservative wing of the high Court is careful, in their analyses of cases that come before them, to render opinions, consistent with the plain meaning of our Constitution and laws—opinions designed to preserve and strengthen our core rights and liberties and to maintain a free Republic, as the founders of our Nation intended. Do not expect anything like that from the opinions of the liberal-wing of the high Court, who tend to read the Constitution and laws expansively, to reflect ideas that go far beyond the parameters of text, and who, using their own methodologies, at odds with the methodology of the Conservative wing of the high Court, would, in so doing, destroy the very fabric of the Republic, given the chance if they ever secure a majority.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Take the matter of the fundamental and natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. Liberal Jurists sitting on the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have chiselled away at the holdings in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010). The reasoning of the majority in the Heller and McDonald cases has been patently ignored, thereby weakening State Court precedent and destroying jurisprudential history.Second Amendment cases that have, to date, wended their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, to challenge outrageous State gun laws, have failed to secure a fourth vote necessary for a case to be heard. Firearms that are in common use, including many, and eventually, most semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns, are in danger of being banned outright in many states.Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and the late Justice Scalia have made clear, in their dissenting comments, in cases that failed to secure a fourth vote necessary to have the cases heard by the Court, their frustration at the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear lower Court cases that directly confront and blatantly attack the import and purport of Heller and McDonald. With Judge Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, though, those cases will definitely secure the fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case, negatively impacting the core of the right, to be heard. Those lower Court cases that permit Government to subvert the rights and liberties of the American citizen, will be overturned. Once overturned, the Supreme Court will assert once and for all, through cases consistent with and building on Heller and McDonald, that which we know: semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment. States cannot ban such firearms outright under the guise of calling them illegal “assault weapons.” Democrats know this would happen. That worries them. That is why they do not want Judge Kavanaugh sitting on the high Court.Senate Democrats devoted substantial time directing questions to Judge Kavanaugh, during the Confirmation Hearing, concerning the legality of certain firearms. They are aware that Judge Kavanaugh understands and appreciates the precedential import of the Heller and McDonald cases—precedential import and value of cases they don’t share. Democrats want an activist on the Court. They want someone who shares their ideological imperatives; a jurist who does not defer to the plain written word of the Constitution; a jurist who is not afraid to legislate from the Bench. They won’t get that from Judge Kavanaugh or from any Judge that President Trump is likely to nominate. That disturbs Democrats deeply. That is why they have pulled out all the stops in a reprehensible attempt to disrupt the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh.Democrats succeeded in derailing the confirmation of the late Judge Robert Bork to the high Court, and they attempted, fortunately unsuccessfully, to do the same during the Confirmation Hearing of Justice Thomas. They are using the same strategy here. They are attempting to impugn the character of a great man, devoted father, and brilliant Judge who would serve this Nation well once he sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. They will not abide this. They intend to disrupt the confirmation process, as they have done during the Hearing itself. They intend to deny confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. They may try, but they will not succeed even as they, at the moment, attempt nonetheless to delay a vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the high Court until after the 2018 Midterm elections. Democrats hope they can obtain a majority in the Senate. If that happens, Judge Kavanaugh would not, of course, be confirmed to sit on the high Court. And that is the Party’s wish. That is their goal. That is their fervent desire. Of that, there can be no doubt; but—as to that end—these Democrats, moderates and  Progressives; Socialists and Communists, and Billionaire Globalists and Transnationalists, too, will certainly fail. As their wishes, their goals, their desires, are all immodest and impure; and as their wishes, their goals, their desires are antithetical to the needs, wishes, will, and welfare of the American people; and as their wishes, their goals, their desires, are completely contrary to the application of the laws of our Nation, they will fail. They will fail utterly.There exist forces in this Country that wish to recreate a reality that suits their personal preconceptions of what our Country should look like, based on a personal conviction and certitude that they know what is best for the rest of us. That is a very dangerous attitude to have and one, were it to prevail, absolutely destructive to the continued existence of the U.S. Constitution; altogether inconsistent with and contrary to the rights, liberties, dignity, and continued autonomy of the individual American citizen; altogether incompatible with the continued maintenance of a Constitutional Republic; and wholly inconsistent with the manner in which both our legal and political systems work. Even as these left-wing power brokers claim to follow basic precepts, namely the “rule of law” and “a Nation ruled by laws, not by men,” they mean, in practice, no such thing. These people are the implacable foes of a truly free people and they have silently declared war on the very concept of a free Republic, a Republic and Nation ruled by law, not by men, in accord with the Constitution, as written.To those on the political Left our fundamental legal precepts and, indeed, the words of the Constitution itself are nothing, mere platitudes—things that at the moment are seen as convenient, perhaps, merely to mention; but, in actuality, such lofty legal precepts, to the political Left, are no more than pretext, mere rhetorical verbiage, to be discarded, eventually, like old clothes. To these left-wing power brokers who claim to speak for all Americans, concepts such as ‘Sovereign Nation,’ ‘One Nation under God,’ ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ ‘Bill of Rights,’ ‘Rule of Law,’ ‘Individual Worth and Dignity,’ ‘Individual Liberty,’ ‘U.S. Constitution,’ ‘U.S. Law,’ and ‘U.S. Citizen,’ will simply be discarded when deemed no longer necessary; when the very meaning and purport of these great concepts grow dim in the American psyche, in the Nation’s memory; lost to history, as these left-wing power brokers intend to happen once their vision for a new Country, unconstrained by the U.S. Constitution, unconstrained by our system of laws, and by our core values and history has been realized.These people hold contempt for the President of the United States. They refuse to recognize him as our President and their President, too, duly elected by the people of the United States, in accordance with the Laws of the United States. They are so beset by rage and raw hatred, so motivated and mesmerized by personal lust for power and grandeur, so enamored with themselves and with their personal vision, so convinced of the righteousness and certitude of their personal beliefs, and so assured of their own infallibility, that they do not see themselves as the buffoons they are; the buffoons they demonstrate themselves to be to the American people. These people are blind to their own conceits and pride—to those things that comprise their passions; those things that drive their actions. They reproach, demean, lecture, and scold the American people they pretend to represent—the American people they no longer even pretend to care about; unaware that the public is aware of their deceit; of their feigned concern for the needs of the American people, of the needs of the citizenry of the Country. These left-wing power brokers are oblivious to how sordid and ridiculous they look; and how patently obvious it is, the drivel they spew out.Those forces in this Nation who seek to dismantle the Bill of Rights, to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, and who seek to weaken our Sovereign Nation State and free Republic must not succeed in their endeavor. The American people must not let them. Americans must vote in the 2018 midterm elections to maintain Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. It is all up to “We, the People” to protect our Sovereign Nation, our Constitution, our sacred Rights and Liberties from the forces that would, if given the chance crush this Nation and its citizenry into submission.________________________________________________________*The New York Times has provided a forum for those who wish to attack the honor and integrity of Judge Kavanaugh, merely on the basis of one bald-faced allegation, referencing an uncorroborated extraordinarily sketchy event that purportedly occurred over three decades ago—an event that Judge Kavanaugh categorically denies ever took place. But it is an event that those on the political “Left” take as self-evident true, nonetheless.In an Op-Ed, published in the NY Times, Saturday, September 22, 2018, titled, “The Case for Impeaching Kavanaugh,” written by a Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., Professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, Professor Krotoszynski lays out his argument for impeaching Judge Kavanaugh even before the Judge has been confirmed to sit on the high Court. What is this law Professor’s “case” for impeaching Judge Kavanaugh? In his article, Professor Krotoszynski’s argument for impeachment boils down to: (1) a single bald-faced, decades old allegation of sexual misconduct, brought to the attention of Senator Dianne Feinstein, by a middle-aged Professor of Psychology, Christine Blasey Ford, albeit in the absence of any corroborating evidence or independent forensic evidence; and (2) two claims that Judge Kavanaugh committed perjury in giving testimony to the Senate, predicated on “subsequently released emails [that] suggest [Judge Kavanaugh’s] answers were at best misleading and at worst false.” What? Does this make sense?Has Professor Krotosznski made out a decipherable, compelling basis for impeachment of Judge Kavanaugh? We do not think so. Let’s take a close look at the Professor’s stated grounds for impeachment.Professor Krotoszynski argues that impeachment of Judge Kavanaugh is warranted on two grounds, both of which are extraordinarily tenuous. One ground consists of a solitary, bald-faced allegation, extremely short on details, referring to a purported event that, if the accuser is to be believed at all, involved a matter that occurred over one-third of a Century ago. Judge Brett Kavanaugh categorically denies the allegation. Moreover the allegation, apart from the accuser’s recitation of the allegation itself, cannot and is not buttressed by any supporting evidence or argument. Whatever forensic evidence that existed, if any such evidence existed at all, has long since been lost to time; and no one else to date—after Senate Republicans did in fact conduct an investigation of the accusation, although neither Democrats nor the mainstream news media acknowledge as much—offer independent support for accepting the allegation as true. At the very least, the Senate certainly has the right to demand the accuser testify and respond to questions. At the moment, it is not clear, though, when and how exactly the accuser, herself, will proffer testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, if at all. And Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, some of whom are trained attorneys, are asserting, bizarrely, that Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser, should not be required to testify. Imagine what this means. It turns our system of law and justice on its head. For, if all that a person need do is simply accuse another person of a crime without any requirement that the accuser face the accused, testify in the open, in public, present independent evidence to support the accusation, bear the burden of proof, and be subject to cross-examination, then what does that do to the very notion of “due process” in this Country? Yet, Democrats claim the barefaced accusation can and should speak for itself.Granted, the matter here does not involve a formal criminal proceeding. Judge Kavanaugh does not face criminal charges and cannot. Nonetheless, his character has been impugned, and his fate—whether a Senate Roll-Call vote for Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court is to take place—is placed in jeopardy, at least if Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are to have their way in the Confirmation process. Apparently our system of laws and procedure are to be perceived as infinitely flexible, subject to the whims, and desires, and predilections of those powerful people who seek a predetermined outcome. That would mean reducing our system of laws to nothing more than ad hoc, rules of expediency, never concrete, ever changing; and that would mean no tenable system of laws and judicial procedure would exist in this Country that anyone could rely on. Thus, the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments would have no real effect. Any person could lose his or her life, liberty, or property by the decree of whomever it is that wields power. This is the Country that Democrats would bequeath to the American people; and we see this in the manner in which Democrats seek to use an unsupported allegation of a middle-aged college Professor, purportedly referencing an event that cannot be reasonably proved. Professor Krotoszynski, though, sees this allegation as sufficiently credible that it warrants a full Senate investigation—evidently one that would not be complete until after the 2016 midterm elections. That would be convenient! Obviously, the lack of forensic evidence and the motivations of Christine Blasey Ford are seen as inconsequential factors to Professor Krotoszynski.The second ground amounts, as Professor Krotoszynski acknowledges,—if a person wishes to give the law Professor even that much leeway—to emails that “suggest” perjury. Mere suggestions of perjury though—suggestions that a person would like to believe are true—hardly rise to the level of essential irrefutable, undeniable proof. There is, then, neither a cogent legal nor logical basis upon which to impeach Judge Kavanaugh, were he to be confirmed as Associate Justice to the high Court. But, Professor Krotoszynski would relax standards to allow impeachment to proceed on the flimsiest of reasons, and this what we see.So, then, what is really going on here? Just this: as with the election of Donald Trump to the Office of President of the United States, we see that Democrats and other elements in society—and, as it is becoming increasingly obvious, elements abroad as well—who resist political results they did not expect and cannot and will not abide—have taken it upon themselves to manipulate our Constitution and system of laws to support a reality that they personally want and had, as they felt, every reason to expect, the American public be damned. And, so, they attempt, through an abhorrent, illegal, unjustifiable misapplication of law and irrespective of the import and purport of the Constitution, to reset the clock to a time prior to the 2016 election—to a world they would like to imagine exists and imagine must exist: a world where Hillary Clinton prevailed and who would have, then, appointed two activist jurists to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. One such jurist whom Hillary Clinton would have been likely to nominate to the high Court would have been Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to sit on the high Court, or someone like him, a person who has no qualms about legislating from the Bench. A second activist jurist who Hillary Clinton would nominate to sit on the high Court would no doubt share the same non-orthodox philosophy and jurisprudential methodology of Merrick Garland and of other liberal-wing Justices who presently sit on the high Court. Consider the jurisprudence of retired Justice John Paul Stevens who would, as he has pointed out, rewrite the Bill of Rights to reflect his personal philosophical whims and who believes, as does Justice Breyer, that American Constitutional analysis and decision-making can and should take into account the laws of other Nations, including so-called international law. This jurisprudential methodological approach to case analysis is altogether anathema to that of Justice Thomas, of Justice Alito, of Justice Gorsuch, and to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The liberal-wing jurisprudential approach to case analysis that admits of judicial activism and to legislation from the Bench is, as we know, anathema to that approach utilized by Judge Kavanaugh in his judicial opinions, as well. Democrats don’t want jurists sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, or, for that matter, sitting on U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who do not share their philosophical perspective, requiring, then, that they wish to sit jurists on the high Court who read the U.S. Constitution and Statute expansively, and who would be willing to create new rights that nowhere exist in the Constitution, such as the “right” of a woman to abortion on demand, and who would be just as willing to curtail those fundamental, natural rights that do exist in the Constitution, as clearly codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, the free exercise of  of religion, and the right of free speech, among other fundamental, natural rights.The mainstream media continues to deluge the public with spurious reports and opinions concerning Christine Blasey Ford's accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. It does so with the clear aim of preventing confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court. In the New York Times, we see news reports and accounts written like opinion pieces. Reporters claim that Judge Kavanaugh will not be confirmed. How do they know this? The newspaper also claims that Democrats will secure a majority in the House, and conceivably the Senate; and news accounts of the Christine Blasey Ford spectacle readily assert that the Christine Blasey Ford accusation against Judge Kavanaugh will help Democrats to retake control of Congress. These are odd comments to make in news reports, as they are written as future forecasts--purportedly telling the public what will happen, rather than what has occurred or is presently occurring. They are also laying out the strategy of Democrats and of Leftist groups in this Country for retaking control power. The aim of the mainstream media seems to be to compel the public to believe the forecasts are true, so that Americans will lose faith and hope and acquiesce to the will of Leftists in this Country. Americans should not fall for that. They didn't fall for that by believing prognostications related to the outcome of the 2016 General Election, and they shouldn't for that now. Yet, the mainstream media intends to control the public discourse.It is clear that the wrench Democrats have thrown into the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court has utility for Leftists beyond the Confirmation process. Democrats, with the help of the mainstream media, do intend to take control of both Houses of Congress. If they succeed, they will be able, as is also their aim, to contain the President and to frustrate him at every turn. That means, as well, that Democrats, Leftist groups in this Country, "Deep State Bureaucrats" and the mainstream media--all of them, working in lockstep--intend to frustrate the will of the American people too. We must not allow these Left-wing elements to succeed.Americans should make clear they will not permit Democrats and their Leftist compatriots to control the Confirmation process. They must tell Republicans to hold firm. Republicans must not capitulate to Democrats as seems to be happening. Democrats do not now control the Legislative Branch, and "Deep State" Bureaucrats do not control the Executive Branch and the public should not allow Democrats and Deep State Bureaucrats to act like they do. The Judicial Branch, in particular, must remain pure and above the fray. Democrats know that, in terms of long range social policies and goals, the Judicial Branch of Government is the most important Branch. They seek jurists who read the Constitution and federal statute expansively, without concern with the literal word and without proper deference to the Constitution and our laws. What they don't want is the seating of jurists on the federal Courts who would preserve the Constitution as crafted by the framers of it. They seek to place jurists in the Federal Courts--from the U.S. District Court level, through the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, up to the U.S. Supreme Court--with activist jurists who have no reservation in rewriting the Constitution, as they view the Constitution expansively, interpreting the Constitution and laws in a manner that fits personal ideology, not hindered by precedent and demonstrating little if any deference to the plain words of the Constitution and federal statute. Barack Obama has done tremendous damage to the high Court with his placement of two left-wing activists on the high Court. Fortunately, the U.S. Senate was able to prevent Obama from placing a third activist jurist on the high Court, Merrick Garland. So, we know that Republicans can work successfully on the part of the American people to preserve our Nation, our core values, our Constitution if they set their minds to do so. Still, Barack Obama has done extraordinary damage through numerous appointments of left-wing activist jurists to the lower federal Courts--the U.S. District Courts and in U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. We have seen what this has wrought as activist jurists have frustrated the U.S. President's efforts to protect our Nation by enjoining the President from implementing his temporary travel bans. Only through a U.S. Supreme Court decision, secured by the Conservative wing of the high Court, as we have seen, has the President been able to salvage, if temporarily, some vestige of his policy to protect this Country from Mideastern terrorists. Democrats are determined to frustrate the President and the American people at every turn. Nothing less is at stake than the preservation of our Constitution, our core values, even our history, and, as well, the Sovereignty of our Nation, and the supremacy of our laws. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, on the high Court, as Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh can help, immensely, in preserving our Nation, its values, its history, and the rights and liberties of the American people, as the founders of our free Republic intended. Democrats and other Leftists--many on the extreme, radical Left--intend to dismantle our free Republic, curtail or end, altogether, our fundamental rights and liberties, subvert our core values, rewrite our history, and denigrate our Nation, subjecting it to a new Globalist world order where our Nation becomes subordinated to the will of an internationalist body--merely one more spoke in a massive wheel. Simply take a look at the EU, and you can see what Leftists have in store for our Nation and for our citizenry. We must not allow this to happen. It is imperative that Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed to a seat on the High Court. Failure of Republicans to confirm Judge Kavanaugh will serve both to encourage Democrats to continue in their destructive practices of frustrating the President and denying the public the exercise of their Will, and likely preclude a Conservative-wing majority in the U.S. Supreme Court from emerging, thereby endangering our Constitution, endangering our fundamental rights and liberties, and enabling Leftists to dictate the future of our Country, one countenancing a new paradigm, one completely at odds with the framework created by our founders. There is no doubt of this.___________________________________**Debra Katz is a left-wing activist attorney, who was also a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton. Please be advised that, Roger Katz, one of the authors of this AQ article, is not at all related to Debra Katz. We happen to share a common surname, nothing more. The New York Times reports that Judge Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has added two more attorneys to her legal team: Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich. Likely, Senate Democrats, with the assistance of Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, have had a hand in this and are, behind the scenes, controlling the Confirmation process. Judge Kavanaugh has retained counsel too, as the Daily Caller reports that Judge Kavanaugh "has retained . . . Beth Wilkinson, to advise and represent him." Recent news accounts mention that Christine Blasey Ford has agreed to testify in open, before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. It isn't clear whether she will be questioned by members of the Judiciary Committee or by an attorney appointed by Republicans on the Committee to question Ford. It does appear, though, that her testimony will be heard prior to the testimony of Judge Kavanaugh, as would be appropriate and consistent with criminal legal procedure. The question we have is why Republicans should allow the charade to go this far. It could only mean that Republicans do not believe that they can be assured of the votes they need to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. The Senate majority is a razor thin. They can survive through no defections. Politico points to several Republicans whose vote in favor of Confirmation is in doubt and who have, apparently, demanded to hear Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. It is these Republican Senators, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and a couple of others who have, unfortunately played directly into the hands of Democrats. Democrats, for their part, are cohesive. Republicans are not. This would explain why Senator Grassley has agreed to delay a Confirmation vote. It is unfortunate and deeply disturbing that some Republicans can allow themselves to be the instrument of Democrats and Leftists in this Country. The Christine Blasey Ford matter is a trap. Apparently, Democrats, with the aid of Republican Senators Flake and Corker, and with the complicity of a couple of other Republican Senators, are using this "Me Too" movement nonsense to destroy our Constitution. If the Supreme Court secures a liberal-wing majority, all is lost for the preservation of our Constitution, our  natural, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, and the continued maintenance of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic. Why would Senators Flake and Corker fall for this? Is their hatred of President Trump so pronounced that they would jeopardize the preservation of our sacred Constitution and the preservation of our cherished history; the preservation of our core rights and liberties; the supremacy of our laws and jurisprudence; and the continued independence and Sovereignty of our Nation, and its continued existence as a free Republic because they happen, simply, personally to abhor the present President of the United States. Apparently so. Their behavior is childish, churlish, disgraceful, altogether unredeemable. No American should expect this kind of behavior from any other American, least of all from a United States Senator. These individuals are not worthy of the status they have. They are not worthy of their station. Americans should well remember them for this if Judge Kavanaugh fails to be confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, for these people, these Republican Senators, have allowed a charade, a travesty, an illusionist's trick concocted by Democrats and Leftist groups to play out, to hijack our Nation and its Constitution--one so lovingly, carefully created by our founders--our Birthright. They wish to dictate a new Constitution, reflecting ideas alien to those of the framers of it. They will destroy our Constitution, and for what? Personal animosity? A private agenda? And, by what means? Well, we know of one, and we see it playing out in the matter of the Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.Here we see a disgruntled middle-aged woman, whom, it would seem, has a personal bone to pick with a man, as she tells us, having done harm to her. But did he? This woman concocts a story out of whole-cloth or dredges a story up--if one is to give any credence to this woman's story at all--relating an event that occurred, if "memory" serves her, literally one-third of a Century ago, when the two of them were teenagers. And, because this woman, who is a Leftist whose agenda coheres with that of other Leftists in this Country and with that of Democrats, she allows herself to be used for political purposes, truly unrelated to a matter, long-dead, trivial--one that no prosecutor who has any sense at all would ever dream of prosecuting, and a matter that no police department would ever investigate (how would a police investigator begin to investigate this matter, anyway, with no forensic evidence whatsoever available, the account itself extraordinarily sketchy, with no one at all able to corroborate it, and the accused, the true victim, adamantly denying it). And, why would this woman wait, at this juncture, 30+ years later to smear the reputation of a man she has not seen, or known--assuming that she ever knew him--for over thirty years. Bringing up such a matter in a reprehensible attempt to destroy a brilliant jurist, a devoted husband, and loving father, does nothing to serve  justice, or fairness; nor can it even provide "closure," for this woman. This is a matter of pure vindictiveness, brought to the attention of the entire Country to serve a political end, unrelated to justice or fairness. Christine Blasey Ford is merely a "tool," of ruthless forces that have not her well-being at heart, but a political goal to achieve. She is not even the real victim here. But, there is a victim. It is not the accuser, but the accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh; and the sad thing here is that Christine Blasely Ford, a college Professor and psychologist, no less, does not seem to realize that she is being used as a tool. She is simply a pawn in an elaborate chess game that Democrats and Leftist groups in this Country are playing and intend to win. Democrats and the Leftist interests they represent have lost power and they want it back; and they intend to get it back by any means, however reprehensible. They have goals for this Country that they intend to implement; that they began to implement with Barack Obama in Office, and which they thought they would continue to implement with Hillary Clinton in Office--Clinton, a felon no less, who only escaped prosecution and assured conviction because she, too, serves those forces that seek to destroy this Nation, its Constitution and the fundamental rights and liberties of its people; but she is a willing pawn too, who sold her soul for money, and influence and power. She is a wretched creature. But, a great switcheroo occurred. Hillary Clinton, lost the U.S. Presidential election.  Her election to the highest Office in the Land was seemingly assured. Horror of Horrors! What went wrong. The public did not play along? They didn't listen to the soundbites; the news accounts; the cajoling. So, what do Democrats and Leftist Groups both here and abroad that sought a Clinton Presidency to do now? Their game plan is not on track. So they plan, they theorize, they brainstorm, they conspire to come up with something, anything, however ridiculous, to contain and restrain the will of the American people who saw what was coming and who fought back. They work behind the scenes in an attempt to destroy the President whom the American people elected, in full and proper accordance with the Constitution. They see in the moronic, so-called "Me Too" sex harassment movement, a useful mechanism to bring low every man, any man who doesn't tow the Leftist line, who presents a danger to their agenda; to the Leftist Internationalist agenda. And, so, we see here an 11th Hour clown's act, entertainment for children and idiots, produced by and directed by Congressional Democrats with the avid assistance and complicity of the Press, and with the connivance of a few, wayward, unthinking Republicans, who have fallen for the spectacle, totally unaware, it would seem to them, what is clear enough to others: that they have been taken for fools. Stupidity of the Highest Order! Truly Incredible. Senate Democrats must be having a quiet chuckle over their successful manipulation of the public and of their brethren on the other side of the political aisle, during their private Happy Hour. Toasts for everyone! The Grand Game continues, as they see themselves as winning._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRETT KAVANAUGH SENATE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING: DEMOCRATS GRILL TRUMP NOMINEE ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”

DO NOT FOR ONE INSTANCE BE TAKEN IN BY FALSE CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS THAT "OF COURSE" THEY DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THAT THEY ONLY SEEK TO ENACT SO-CALLED SENSIBLE, COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS. THAT IS PURE, NAKED DECEPTION. THE KEY GOAL OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS IS AND, FOR DECADES, HAS BEEN THE REINING IN OF THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND THEY WILL NOT STOP THERE. CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ALONG WITH OTHER LEFT-WING ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING THEIR ECHO CHAMBER, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SEEK NOTHING LESS THAN THE UTTER, TOTAL DISSOLUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE DUBIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THOSE WHO SEEK DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REFERS TO A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, ASCRIBED ONLY TO ONE'S CONNECTION WITH OR ASSOCIATION WITH A MILITIA. WERE THIS TRUE, THE SACRED, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WOULD BE TRIVIALIZED AS WOULD THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES BE TRIVIALIZED. IF SUCH WERE IN FACT THE CASE, AMERICANS WOULD WITNESS THE FALL OF A ONCE GREAT NATION AND FREE REPUBLIC.

BUT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT HOLD TO A FALSE  NOTION OF THE IMPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. FOR, THEIR NOTION THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' THAT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY IN A "COLLECTIVE" CAPACITY OR SENSE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED. IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' AS IT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY OF THIS NATION IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR SENSE. AND THE RIGHT THEREFORE RESIDES, INTRINSICALLY IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NOT IN AN AMORPHOUS COLLECTIVE MILITIA.  AS SUCH, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS FUNDAMENTAL, AND MUST BE RESPECTED. THE RIGHT REFERRED TO IS NOT INCIDENTAL, AND, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT IS NOT TO BE PERFUNCTORILY DENIED, AS THOSE WHO DETEST THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE YOU, FALSELY, TO BELIEVE.

“The first salient feature of the operative clause [in the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Three provisions of the Constitution refer to ‘the people’ in a context other than ‘rights’—the famous preamble (‘We the people’), § 2 of Article I (providing that ‘the people’ will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with ‘the States’ or ‘the people’). Those provisions arguably refer to ‘the people’ acting collectively—but  they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.  Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . .This contrasts markedly with the phrase ‘the militia’ in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’We start therefore  with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. We move now from the holder of the right—‘the people’—to the substance of the right: ‘to keep and bear Arms.’”~ (A portion of the Opinion of the Majority, penned by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia), in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 578-581 passim (2008) Well before the Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings, the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out that Congressional Democrats’ assault on and goal of elimination of the right of the natural, sacred, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as succinctly codified in the Second Amendment, was and always has been a central plank of the antigun Democratic Party agenda. See "the United States Safe Act in the Making: Penned and Penciled by Andrew Cuomo."This was so even though in the weeks and months leading up to the Hearing. Democrats and their liberal media echo chamber talked incessantly about Democrats’ Party’s other goals. These goals included: one, open borders; two, expansion of personal federal income taxes; three, the complete elimination of ICE, and the hamstringing of other law enforcement agencies across the Country; four, the clamping down of all investigations into subversive activities of high ranking Governmental Bureaucrats of the Deep State; and five, the removal of Donald Trump from Office.

DEMOCRATS CONSISTENTLY REMONSTRATE AGAINST THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY SEE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS OUTMODED, DRAFTED AND RATIFIED TO REFLECT THE NEEDS OF AN ANCIENT TIME AND, SO, IN NEED OF DRASTIC REVISION. THUS, THEY SEEK TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENT TO REFLECT A MODERN WORLD. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, A NOTION  NOTION HELD NOT JUST BY POLITICIANS AND LAY PERSONS, BUT  BY JURISTS AS WELL. IN FACT, RETIRED LIBERAL-WING JUSTICE, JOHN PAUL STEVENS WISHES TO REWRITE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. HE SAYS SO IN A BOOK HE HAS PUBLISHED. AND, IN THE WORDS OF THE LIBERAL-WING U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, OUR CONSTITUTION IS, AFTER ALL, “A RATHER OLD CONSTITUTION” MEANING THAT GINSBURG, TOO, APPARENTLY THINKS OUR CONSTITUTION IS IN NEED OF RADICAL REVISION.

The Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on the President’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, that took place for several days, laid bare the Democrats contempt for our Constitution and, especially, their misconception of the Bill of Rights as framed by the founders of our Republic. Spending a good part of three days of the Senate Confirmation Hearing process, by turns pontificating, chastising, and even excoriating Judge Kavanaugh, it became clear to all Americans that those Democrats, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have succumbed to the will and wishes of Americans on the far left of the political spectrum, or otherwise always held to extreme left-wing views concerning the Constitution. Americans who believe that the Constitution, and especially that part of it--the Bill of Rights--that sets forth the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen, proclaim that the Bill of Rights can mean essentially whatever it is they choose it, or wish for it, to mean. They do not look at the plain meaning of the text, but read into the sacred Document what they wish for the words of the Document to mean; not what the framers of it meant, as clearly articulated in it.But, application of such an erroneous belief concerning the Constitution, destroys the very efficacy of it. Revisionists take the U.S. Constitution to be infinitely malleable, flexible, bendable. This is what they mean by the Constitution as a "living document"--that it can be changed to reflect changes in society, changes they seek to impose on the Nation. Thus, they would twist the Constitution and contort it to a degree that essentially destroys its import and purport, as conceived by the framers of it. These leftist revisionists don’t care, and they do not care for a jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, who does not share their view of a Constitution they perceive to be easily malleable, like a lump of clay that one might knead into any convenient shape.Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to Constitutional case analysis is in line with that of Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. These eminent jurists do not read into the Constitution what they may happen to wish to see. They take the Constitution for its literal word. That doesn’t sit well with Americans who hold to a Socialist philosophy; who have drafted a new plan, a new design for our Nation; who have a Socialist Agenda and who seek to implement radical Socialist policies for our Country--policies destructive to a free Republic and destructive of a free market Capitalist economic society; policies inconsistent with the Constitution of this Nation as ratified by the founders of our Nation. Hence, progressive forces in our Nation do not want Judge Kavanaugh—brilliant and thoughtful a jurist though he be—to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THEIR IDEAS AND GOALS PATENTLY CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee made no attempt to hide their distaste of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known. Even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly set down in stone in the Bill of Rights, these Congressional Democrats would like to see the Second Amendment weakened, disassembled, abandoned, and eventually, even obliterated from historical records and memory.Yet, curiously, wrongly, and even weirdly, Congressional Democrats believe it to be perfectly permissible to expand the domain of what they presume to be fundamental rights, worthy of protection, such as a right to abortion on demand, and equal protection rights expanded to include individuals exhibiting gender dysphoria—an expansion of purported rights, nowhere explicitly mentioned or even alluded to in the Bill of Rights. All the while, Congressional Democrats seem to be under no similar compunction to retain those fundamental rights that are expressly codified in the Bill of Rights.For example, Democrats see no legal or moral compunction against constraining Americans’ free exercise of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech—to proscribe what they, alone, perceive as permitting ideas anathema to their own—and they see no legal or moral issue with doing away with the Second Amendment altogether. That is their goal, clearly inferred through three days of Senate Hearing on Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and as further evidenced in antigun legislation Congressional Democrats have proposed in the last twenty plus years.Democrats argue, as they made pointedly clear during the Confirmation Hearing that, in matters pertaining to the citizen ownership and possession of firearms, State orchestrated cries for “public safety,” as the ground for curtailing the exercise of a fundamental and natural right should, and, indeed, must, invariably outweigh the personal right of self-defense. Moreover, Congressional Democrats consistently and continuously convey at best a blasé attitude toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a natural and fundamental right that the framers of the Constitution saw need enough to codify in the Bill of Rights, and did so to preserve a free Republic and to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the American citizen.From the questions posed by Senate Democrats to Judge Kavanaugh, and by the comments they made, these Democrats do not perceive the Second Amendment to be worth protecting and strengthening, or, otherwise they simply don’t care that, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution well knew, it is only through an armed citizenry that tyranny in Government can be ultimately, successfully, forestalled. The need for the free exercise of that right has not diminished with the passing years, decades, and centuries. Rather, contrary to the pronouncements of those who seek to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the need to preserve and to strengthen this sacred right has actually, increased, many-fold, as the power of the Nation's Federal Government with the assistance of technology has itself increased exponentially in the centuries since both the formation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic, and since the ratification of our Constitution.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ALWAYS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ CROSSHAIRS.

While expressing concern for the survival of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)* which was certainly a central point of discussion manifested through three days of Confirmation Hearings, Democrats made abundantly clear, on the flipside, their disgust for the salient holding in Heller vs. District of Columbia, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Indeed, at times, Democrats’ expression of their disdain for Heller eclipsed their concern for the preservation of Roe vs. Wade. In fact, as Senator Diane Feinstein began her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh, during the first day of the Confirmation Hearing, the first set of questions that she directed to Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee did not involve the issue of female reproductive rights, but were aimed squarely at the Second Amendment—namely and most notably at so-called “assault weapons”—which, as one of a plethora of antigun measures that antigun zealots would love to impose on the Nation as a whole, this one, in particular, has been, for decades, the especial target of Congressional Democrats. Wallowing in the abyss of fallacious reasoning and seeming self-pity, they plead with Judge Kavanaugh to forsake centuries of case law and jurisprudential history, ostensibly to ensure the safety of children, but oblivious to the fact that it is not the firearm, an inanimate object--their singular target for annihilation--that is the cause of violence, but, rather, a weakness of heart and will that prevents them from actively and avidly enforcing the hundreds of laws that Congress has enacted to forestall aggressive acts of those who would wreak violence on innocent lives: the lives of innocent adults as well as children.

WOULD DEMOCRATS BE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN 2019 IF THEY WERE TO CEMENT MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?

To be sure, it is by no means certain that Democrats will take control of the House in November, after the midterm elections. Less likely, but of greater concern, is the prospect of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate. If Democrats do take control of both Houses of Congress, what is certain is that they intend to muscle through Congress a new “assault weapons” ban, modeled on the New York Safe Act of 2013.Democrats would get substantial assistance from progressive State Governors, led by the virulently anti-Second Amendment Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo—assuming, which is likely, albeit depressing to contemplate, that Cuomo does prevail in the coming New York Gubernatorial election, in November, to secure a third term in Office.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN’S RAISON D’ETRE IS TO PROHIBIT CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ANY FIREARM THAT SHE PROCLAIMS TO BE AN “ASSAULT WEAPON.”

If you recall, Feinstein attempted to ram through an “assault weapons” bill in 2013. That bill was even more draconian than the original restrictive U.S. Senate Legislation, “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994.” In Subtitle A of Title XI of the 1994 Act, Senator Feinstein laid out a comprehensive nation-wide ban on an “assault weapons.”  Subtitle A of Title XI severely restricted the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.” The “assault weapons” provision included a sunset provision and, in 2004, the “assault weapons” provision of the 1994 Act did expire. It was not reauthorized by Congress.Feinstein wasn’t done. On the heels of enactment of, and in lockstep with, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s New York Safe Act, signed into law by Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, sought to generate public interest in a new and incredibly ambitious federal “assault weapons” ban, modeled in substantial part on the “assault weapons” provisions of the NY Safe Act. The Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy provided the pretext for this.Feinstein’s bill, used much of the language of Cuomo’s NY Safe Act, but to emphasize her personal distaste for firearms, the federal bill included over 110 specifically named firearms and categories of firearms. This categorization of specifically named firearms was unnecessary as the list was redundant. No matter, Subtitle A of Title XI “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994” included the list anyway. Feinstein’s “assault weapon”, bill, if successful, would have caused the entire Nation to suffer the constraints on a weapon in common use by the American citizenry that Cuomo’s New York assault weapons ban has imposed on residents of New York.Fortunately for American citizens, Feinstein’s federal bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, went nowhere because the Senate Democratic Party Majority Leader at the time--Harry Reid--stripped Feinstein’s assault weapon ban out of a broader gun control bill that Democrats sought to pass. Senator Reid evidently believed that doing so would make the restrictive gun control measures more palatable to reluctant members of the Senate. Feinstein was furious, but Reid remained undeterred. The bill, sans Feinstein's “assault weapons” ban provision, was still soundly defeated on Roll Call vote of the Senate held on April 17, 2013.

IF BRETT  KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BILL THAT BECOMES LAW IS LIKELY TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know full well that, even if they were to secure majorities in both Houses of Congress, any “assault weapons” bill they happen, in 2019, to enact into law would be immediately challenged on the ground that a ban on an entire category of weapons in common use is contrary to the core of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller decision and as reiterated by the high Court in the 2010 McDonald decision (561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Unlike the unhappy present situation with core Second Amendment cases that wend there way to the high Court, that are invariably not taken up for high Court review, this is likely to change with Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court as a petition for a Writ of Certiorari would likely be granted. Brett Kavanaugh would provide the crucial fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case (subsequent to the seminal Heller and McDonald cases) implicating the core of the Second Amendment, to finally be heard.** Once granted, and the case heard, a Conservative-wing majority, properly employing sound judicial and logical and jurisprudential reasoning, would likely determine that an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of a substantial number of semiautomatic firearms—including handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as well as non-semiautomatic weapons, such as  revolving cylinder shotguns, along with so-called large capacity magazines, that are all in common use in this Nation—would be and must be struck down as inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the high Court’s Majority in the U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald cases. And this explains why Senate Democrats are particularly worried over the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court—enough so that they devoted substantial time to questioning Judge Kavanaugh over his methodology for resolving cases involving the Second Amendment. And this explains why the American people must suffer through a delay on a confirmation vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, due to the 11th hour political stunt pulled by Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself. Feinstein has raised an issue concerning a naked, uncorroborated allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, of a purported event allegedly occurring decades ago, that the Senator learned about through a letter she received in July of this year, and which she had sat on all this time, obviously to bring up at an inopportune time as it serves purely as a convenient political delaying tactic. Chairman Grassley and Senate Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, should not allow Democrats to turn the Confirmation process into a circus act. Unfortunately, Democrats are not acting alone. Senate Republican, Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he wishes to hear from Judge Kavanaugh's accuser before he will vote to allow the Confirmation process to proceed. It is no secret, though, that Senator Flake, who will be stepping down from the Senate, anyway, has no love for President Trump, and apparently takes delight in constantly admonishing him to the Press. It therefore stands to reason why Senator Jeff Flake would jump ship and play with Democrats in opposing the President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court even though a brilliant jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, sitting on the highest Court in the Land would help preserve our free Republic and strengthen our Bill of Rights. Does Jeff Flake think so little of the President that he would be willing to sacrifice the well-being of both the Nation and the American citizenry by placing obstacles in the President's path. Apparently this is so. For our part, we believe that Jeff Flake cannot leave Congress soon enough. That is the best thing he can do for this Nation and its people.

IN OUR UPCOMING ARTICLE:

The methodology which Judge Kavanaugh utilizes to analyze and resolve Second Amendment cases, which Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Panel, scarcely touched upon, but denigrated nonetheless, will be discussed in detail in our next article on the Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing. We look specifically at Judge Kavanaugh's critical important dissenting opinion in the case popularly styled, Heller II (Heller vs. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 ; 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130).___________________________________________*Associate Justice Byron White and Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the Majority Opinion, penned by then Chief Justice Warren Burger. Note: Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been appointed to the high Court at the time Roe was decided. Justice Scalia was confirmed to the high Court in 1986, the same year that then U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist to serve as the new Chief Justice to replace retiring Chief Justice Burger, and whom the Senate subsequently confirmed as the new Chief Justice.Six years later, in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992), the high Court essentially reaffirmed the holdings in Roe, namely that a Constitutional right to elective abortion exists, but only until viability as the State “has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting . . . the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 846. The majority in Casey held that an elective abortion is a fundamental right but the Casey Majority loosened the standard for determination of whether a State regulation unduly burdens a woman’s right to elective abortion. The Court replaced the stringent strict scrutiny approach, that favors a State’s interest in protecting an unborn child, to a lesser standard that would operate in favor of a woman’s decision for an elective abortion. Note: Justice Scalia who dissented from the Majority made clear that nothing in the Constitution elevates a woman’s decision to have an abortion to the that of a fundamental right. His dissenting opinion is critical to the methodology of textualism and originalism. Justice Scalia opined: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 978. Further, Justice Scalia opined:“That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. . . . A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example—with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree—intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially ‘protected’ by the Constitution.The [majority on the high] Court destroys the proposition, evidently meant to represent my position [which they in fact misrepresent, namely] that ‘liberty’ includes ‘only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847 (citing Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 127, n.6, 105 L. Ed. 2d 91, 109 S. Ct. 2333 (1989). That is not, however, what Michael H. says; it merely observes that, in defining ‘liberty,’ we may not disregard a specific, ‘relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right,’ ibid. But the Court does not wish to be fettered by any such limitations on its preferences. The Court’s statement that it is ‘tempting’ to acknowledge the authoritativeness of tradition in order to ‘curb the discretion of federal judges,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847, is of course rhetoric rather than reality; no government official is ‘tempted’ to place restraints upon his own freedom of action. . . . The Court’s temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction—towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 979-981. Justice Scalia’s remarks are directed against a jurist’s wrong, albeit, natural tendency, as is the case with anyone who wields power, but particularly jurists, who--specifically invoking the force of law in their decisions--operate without restraint, when they ought to be circumspect. As a result, such jurists tend to create an ever expansive array of dubious substantive rights. Not surprisingly, we see these same jurists irreverently curtailing fundamental rights and liberties that do exist and have existed since ratification of the Bill of Rights, namely and particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which they happen to be personally philosophically opposed to.AQ’s Note: The liberal wing of the Supreme Court—and the liberal wing of U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well—sees fit to play with standards of review whenever it suits the result it wants. Thus, liberal wing judges and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court tend to revert to “interest-balancing” approaches to judicial review as that approach invariably serves to support the results they want, that is to say, tends to support predetermined decisions. Thus, in Second Amendment cases, liberal-wing Judges of the lower Courts and liberal-wing Justices of the high Court employ “interest-balancing” to support restrictive, draconian firearms’ regulations even where Government enactments clearly and blatantly impinge upon and infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right succinctly codified in the Bill of Rights. These same jurists also resort to “interest-balancing” in abortion cases, but, in those cases, rather than using “interest balancing” to support legitimate actions of Government that seeks to preserve the life of the unborn child, these jurists conclude that “balancing” the interests of Government, on the one-hand, and the interests of the individual on the other hand—the interests of the individual seeking abortion ought prevail over that of Government that seeks to protect the unborn child. With little wonder, then, Justice Scalia was leery of invoking a traditional, "interest-balancing" standard of review in Heller that might, after the fact, ostensibly, give judicial cover to a liberal-wing Judge who happens to detest the very existence of the Second Amendment.It is clear enough that some regulations, such as the District of Columbia law banning, altogether, citizen ownership and possession of handguns within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, are clearly, categorically unlawful. Thus, the majority in Heller saw no need to revert to an "interest-balancing" standard of review, when it rendered its opinion that the D.C. handgun ban is de jure unconstitutional; for, application of any traditional standard of review would amount to mere legal pretense—an empty, redundant exercise, devoid of import. Although Justice Scalia was circumspect in penning the Majority’s Opinion, one finds, clearly enough, when perusing the opinion, that the Majority in Heller knew full well that the D.C. handgun ban was audacious in its conception and abjectly ludicrous--a bald-faced "slap-in-the-face" at the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban therefore deserved no serious judicial consideration.If the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were to have any meaning and purpose at all, the D.C. restriction had, properly speaking, to be struck down, and struck down unceremoniously; and so it was. The Heller majority, though, used the case to exemplify once and for all, beyond any further need for clarification, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to one’s service in a militia. With that point now clearly articulated, it was the fervent hope of the Heller Court’s majority, that Government action that fails to give proper deference to the right as codified in the Second Amendment would at once be struck down; and that it would be unnecessary for courts to go through tortuous gyrations to strike down firearms’ laws and regulations that are facially unlawful.Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the tenacity of governments and courts that abhor the Second Amendment, to find lawful governmental action that is facially and categorically unlawful. The philosophical disposition of jurists who personally abhor the Second Amendment, as we have seen, leads them to patently ignore the principal holdings of, and of the Majority's reasoning in Heller and McDonald, even as they perfunctorily mention those cases in their opinions to which they give no more than lip-service. Unfortunately, too, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the reluctance of moderates on the high Court--now the lone Chief Justice, John Roberts, now that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired--to take up cases that blatantly ignore Heller and McDonald. This means of course that this Nation requires the swift confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Judge Kavanaugh would hold the crucial fourth vote, that would allow cases that infringe the core of the Second Amendment to receive high Court review that they deserve.The 11^th Hour attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to throw a wrench into confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh must not be allowed to gain traction. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and who, according to news reports, indicated they may refrain from allowing the vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh by the full Senate to proceed, then that would send a clear message to the American citizenry, that elected Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, that elements exist, both among Republicans and Democrats, who do not wish for the U.S. President to fulfill his promises to the American people. President Trump has promised to nominate people to the U.S. Supreme Court who believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights as ratified. A confirmation vote of the full Senate, on President Trump's nomination of John Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court, must proceed forthwith**See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, a Second Amendment case implicating the very core of the Second Amendment that failed to receive a critical fourth Supreme Court Justice vote, necessary for review. This case, as with others decided by liberal judges of the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who take a very dim view of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deals directly with the issue as to whether so-called "assault weapons" fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Jurists deciding these cases use methodologies at odds with the reasoning of the majority in Heller and McDonald. Not surprisingly, these Courts invariably find for the government and against the American citizen in holding that firearms defined as "assault weapons" in l0cal regulations or State law, are not protected by the Second Amendment.  That was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Friedman case. These are the pertinent facts of the case: The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans the manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic  firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons,” which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a. The City’s ordinances were challenged by an American citizen and resident of Illinois. The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the City. The Petitioner appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that routinely upholds such bans, affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied as the case did not receive a fourth critical vote from the Justices, necessary for the case to be heard. When cases are not decided for high Court review, the reasons for refusing to take up a case are not generally stated. The high Court simply asserts that a Petitioner's Writ is denied, and the Court leaves the matter at that. The nature of the votes cast by each Justice is never given, either. In the Friedman case, it is clear that the Seventh Circuit blatantly ignored the reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. The Writ for Certiorari should have been granted. It wasn't. It is clear enough that the liberal-wing of the Court and two members of the conservative wing, likely the so-called swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recently retired, along with Chief Justice Roberts, did not want the case to be heard, and they did not want the case heard for a specific reason. They obviously feared that application of the holdings of Heller and McDonald, together with the reasoning of the majority in those cases, would dictate the overturning of the Seventh Circuit Court's decision in Friedman, and that, in turn, would result in a cascading effect, across the Country, where assault weapon bans would be overturned in every jurisdiction that presently ban or severely restrict the ownership and possession of a large category of semiautomatic weapons, including firearms that are not semiautomatic in operation, namely, revolving cylinder shotguns. Understandably, Justices Thomas and Scalia were livid that Heller and McDonald could and would dare be blithely ignored by jurists for ideological reasons, predicated on personal biases, mandating results that are contrary to law. Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissenting comment in response to the high Court's failure to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Friedman. The late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller decision for the Majority, joined Justice Thomas in the Associate Justice’s dissenting comment. We can reasonably infer that Justice Alito, who penned the majority opinion in McDonald, also voted in favor of reviewing the Friedman case, even though he did not join with Justice Scalia in Justice Thomas' dissenting comment. Even so, that meant that, at best, only three votes--one short, of the required minimum, four--were cast for high Court review of the Friedman case.Justice Thomas wrote in salient part:“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 903; id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3058, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 938 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below — have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410-412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. . . . Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald.The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Had Judge Kavanaugh been sitting on the high Court, instead of Justice Kennedy, at the time the Court was considering Petitioner’s Writ in Friedman, it is highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh would have provided the critical fourth vote necessary for the Friedman case to be heard, along with one vote each cast in favor of review from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. Were the Friedman case heard, then consistent with the Heller and McDonald holdings—and this is a point that bears repeating—it is also highly likely the majority on the high Court would hold that so-called “assault weapons,” which include many popular semiautomatic weapons, and other kinds of weapons, including shotguns that operate through revolving cylinders, do in fact fall within the core of the Second Amendment. That would put to effective rest all the media fanfare and ridiculous uproar over this matter. Thus, any legislation that bans the civilian citizenry of our Nation from owning and possessing such weapons would be struck down as unconstitutional. This, then, easily explains, in great part, the apoplectic reaction by progressives, and by other left-wing radical elements in our society, toward Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to sit as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. These left-wing elements know that unlawful legislation, which includes much of what it is they want, and what they would have obtained had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Presidential election--and had she appointed non-originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she would certainly have done--will not withstand judicial scrutiny at the level of the Supreme Court, with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to sit on the high Court, that will put a damper on the efficacy of a Socialist agenda, ever coming to fruition, long after Donald Trump’s Presidency has ended. Thus, Donald Trump's legacy and, indeed, the jurisprudential legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, will be preserved. Thus, the blood spilled by those who sought to create a free Republic, and the blood spilled by Americans, since--in all the wars and conflicts fought to maintain our free Republic--will not have been in vain._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO SAYS: "AMERICA IS NOT GREAT."

CUOMO DEMEANS THE NATION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH INSULTING, OUTRAGEOUS, VINDICTIVE REMARKS.

Ever pandering for votes in his bid for a third term as Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo shamelessly blurts out increasingly incendiary, outrageous, and shameful remarks.During a speech on Monday, August 13, 2018, at an event hosted for women and girls, this so-called “leader” of New York, who might harbor greater ambitions—U.S. President perhaps?—slammed, denigrated, and insulted the United States and its people. Yet, strangely, he evidently believes he is the best person to represent and to lead this Country and its people even though he has such a low regard for both. In pertinent part, he said this, as reported by one source, the Daily News:"We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great. We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.” Without going into the nuances and expansive exposition of the meaning of the word, ‘great,’ suffice it to say that the common understanding of the word when applied either to a person or to a Country is that such a person or country is great if perceived as eminent, honorable, or worthy of respect, reverence, and veneration.By exclaiming that America “was never that great,” and that the Nation “has not reached greatness,” Cuomo has denigrated the Country he resides in; the Country he would deign to lead. And he has denigrated, too, the people whom he believes he can, in good conscience, represent and lead.Cuomo’s half-hearted attempt to walk back his explosive, inane diatribe—after the fallout that, not surprisingly, ensued—cannot reasonably be, and should not honestly be, considered heartfelt. But, were it so, still, Americans should not forgive Cuomo’s use of reprehensible insults leveled at the Country and its people. Some words, by their nature, cannot be taken back. Cuomo’s insolent words fall into that category. Like a bullet from a spent cartridge of a gun, once a shot has been fired, the bullet, like Cuomo’s abhorrent remarks, cannot be taken back.The defeated Democratic Party Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, learned this hard lesson when, at a fund raising event on September 9, 2016, she insulted Trump supporters, saying that half of them are a “basket of deplorables.” Americans don’t take kindly to politicians that scoff at them; nor should they.What this man blurted out to his audience that Monday night—a group of people on the far left of the political spectrum, whom Cuomo felt, would, apparently, be receptive to anything this left-wing politician had to say, even the most hateful, spiteful, disgusting, disparaging anti-American rhetoric he could muster—shocked the conscience, as it turned out, as well it should have, of many, even in that audience. The depths of depravity to which Cuomo could and would wallow, as illustrated in his abhorrent rhetoric, amply reflects what this man is and always has been: a petty, yet pompous  politician—a man surrounded by sycophants; a megalomaniac, bloated with delusions of grandeur and feelings of smug self-aggrandizement; a man who will do or say anything, no matter how ludicrous, or outrageous, or abhorrent the pronouncements or actions may be, as long as they happen to serve the particular moment and the serve the man’s copious and ruthless, power hungry ambitions. But, some assertions fall well beyond the pale. Some words cannot be convincingly retracted.

EVEN THE LEFTIST LATE-NIGHT SHOW HOST, STEPHEN COLBERT, WAS SURPRISED BY CUOMO’S VITUPERATIVE REMARKS, AND SAW FIT TO ADMONISH CUOMO.

As reported by The New York Times, Stephen Colbert exclaimed on hearing Cuomo’s bizarre remarks: “That is the dumbest thing you can say as a politician.” One may wonder whether Colbert, hardly one averse to taking cheap shots at his favorite target—Republicans and Conservatives—was, as an American, himself, really put off by Cuomo’s loathsome remarks, or felt, rather, that Cuomo, along with the despicable messaging, and antics, and violent tactics of extremist socialist, communist, and anarchist groups, active in this Country, was harming Democrats’ chances to retake the House in the 2016 Midterm Elections.

CUOMO’S DIABRIBE OPERATES AS A PERSONAL VITUPERATIVE, VINDICTIVE INDICTMENT OF THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE.

Americans need only consider what Andrew Cuomo’s damning pronouncements mean. In pertinent part Cuomo has, through his disrespectful, insulting, damning words, vehemently denounced this Nation’s history, its culture, its values, its laws and legal system, its institutions, and its people.This, then, is, in part, the import of Cuomo’s words:1)  In pandering to the progressive far left, Cuomo apparently cares not at all of the work and effort of those men who founded our Nation and wrote its Constitution. For Cuomo, the founders of the Nation, who had the courage to stand up to the might of Great Britain— a despotic Monarchy and the most powerful Nation on Earth at that time—who placed their good names and their lives on the line, and, who, having done so successfully, established a free Republic, where sovereignty resides in the people, not in the State, are not, according to Andrew Cuomo, worthy of emulation. For Andrew Cuomo, neither these men, nor the Republic they established, nor the natural, unalienable rights and liberties they codified in a Constitution that has stood the test of time, are worthy of emulation, or respect, or reverence. They are not deemed to be great; they were not engaged; and this Nation has not, for Cuomo, achieved greatness.2)  Americans who fought and, for many, who died in foreign lands to secure this Nation’s safety and security and the safety and security of many other Nations, from the threat and scourge of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, are not, in Cuomo’s estimate, to be considered great, and are not to be considered to have achieved greatness either for themselves or for their Country.3)  This Nation and its people that stood up to and that defeated the threat posed to the security of the World by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—the old USSR—and the economic doctrine this despotic empire espoused for the entire world—communism—are not to be considered worthy of respect, or reverence, or emulation. This Nation and its people are not, then, to be considered, great, according to Cuomo. And, these Americans according to Cuomo, were not to be considered, “fully engaged.” Really? What, for Cuomo, amounts to the full engagement of the American people?4)  This Nation that provided economic opportunity for its people, creating more wealth for more people, through the operation of free market principles, and through the principle reflected in the private ownership of property—a Nation that has become the envy of the World—is not considered worthy of reverence and veneration. This Nation and its people are not to be considered, great, for Cuomo; they have not reached greatness; and they have not been fully engaged.5)  This Nation and its people that provided incredible innovations in science, technology, nuclear physics, medicine, aerospace, are not to be considered worthy of respect, and awe, and reverence. This Nation and its people are not to be considered, great; have not reached greatness; and were not fully engaged.6)  This Nation that realizes the importance of diversity of thought and of expression and that understands that this Nation’s strength and fortitude rests first and foremost in its armed citizenry, composed of the common man—and not in such power of arms that a small group of elite noblemen and royalty might bear for themselves—is not to be considered worthy of respect. This Nation and its citizenry are not to be considered great, according to Cuomo; are not to be considered to have reached greatness; and are not to be considered fully engaged.

IF THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE ARE UNREMARKABLE, OF WHAT, THEN, DOES "GREATNESS" REALLY CONSIST?

We must ask Andrew Cuomo, if this Nation and its people are not great, have never been that great, and have never achieved greatness, and have not been fully engaged—are, in a word, ‘unremarkable,’—then:1)  Why do tens of millions of foreigners seek, nonetheless, to come to this Country?2)  How is it that this Nation is the wealthiest, per capita, in the World?3)  How is it that this Nation has become the most powerful Nation, militarily?4)  Why is it that many Nations espouse to adopt our Nation’s democratic principles?5)  Why is it that in no other Nation but our own do we see the sanctity of the individual held to such great esteem?

IF OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED GREAT, WE HAVE A MODEST SUGGESTION FOR ANDREW CUOMO.

If you, Andrew, have such a low opinion of this Nation, we think it best that you renounce your citizenship, and, simply, leave.Select a Country that meets your personal standard of greatness, whatever that standard happens to be; however it is that you define, ‘greatness,’ in a Nation and however it is that you define ‘greatness’ in a Nation’s people. For, obviously, your standard for "greatness" has not been met in the United States, nor has it been met by any of its people, either now in the present; in the recent or more distant past; or at the founding of our Nation.Clearly, you do not deem this Nation and its people to be worthy of your talents, of your own greatness of spirit and of your piety. That being so, we think it best for all concerned, that you take "your own “greatness” somewhere else, to a land where the populace can truly appreciate "your greatness" and where the people are truly worthy of "your greatness." There, perhaps, in some other land, among another group of people, where "greatness," as you understand it, as you define it in your own private dictionary--where "greatness as you see it, already exists, in that land and in its people--"your own greatness" can, perhaps, shine and flourish. But that, obviously, isn't here, in the United States, among the American people. Clearly, "your own greatness" will not be able to shine and flourish in a Nation and in a people whom, as you say, are not and never have been great, and likely never will be great._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CUOMO VERSUS NRA: NEW YORK GOVERNOR ATTACKS NRA AND SILENT MAJORITY IN BID FOR THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK.

“ ‘It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages.  The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great.  The  public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.’ ” New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 281; 84 S. Ct. 710, 727; 11 L. Ed. 2d  686, 707 (1964), citing, Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711, 724; 98 P. 281, 286 (Kan. 1908)(Opinion by Judge Burch, Kansas State Supreme Court).{Parenthetical Note to Our Readers: The Arbalest Quarrel took the original version of this article off the site yesterday in order to do an extensive rewrite. We apologize for any puzzlement this may have caused.}

IS CUOMO USING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR A THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK TO LAUNCH A BID FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2020?

Andrew M. Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York and present sitting Governor, seeks a third term in Office. But is Cuomo contemplating a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2020, as the Democratic Party nominee? To the casual observer, it certainly appears so, even as he leaves the option open when asked.  That would certainly be in keeping with Cuomo's character, for Andrew Cuomo is an ambitious man. It is “Andrew M. Cuomo, 46^th President of the United States,” that Cuomo  may very well see in the mirror when he looks at himself. But, if this is indeed Cuomo's desire--this ultimate prize--the Silent Majority*  cannot allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must not allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must stop Cuomo in his tracks, and that means stopping Andrew Cuomo's election to a third term as Governor of New York.  But to stop Cuomo, the Silent Majority must first understand Cuomo.

WHO IS ANDREW CUOMO, REALLY?

Andrew Cuomo is a self-complacent, ruthlessly ambitious, smugly self-assured man. He is the last of “The Three Amigos,” all three of whom, under cover of darkness, spawned and machinated to secure enactment of the oppressive and reprehensible New York Safe Act—legislation that undercuts, and in its very conception is designed to undercut, the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The New York Safe Act also negatively impacts the personal property clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as language in the Act makes it impossible for one spouse to transfer his or her firearms to the other spouse as well as to other family members.But, what became of the two close allies of Cuomo—two of the “three Amigos” that we hear so little about today? One of the two Amigos, Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the New York Assembly, resides in federal prison. The New York Post reports that a federal Court sentenced Silver to 7 years in prison, and  fined Silver $1.75 million dollars, having found Silver guilty of public corruption. In that article, the Post reports that the judge reduced an earlier sentence of 12 years imposed on Silver, apparently as an act of mercy, given Silver's advanced age.Ten days after Sheldon Silver, was sentenced, a U.S. District Court, as reported by the Daily News, sentenced Skelos, Speaker of the New York Assembly, to 5 years in prison, for bribery, extortion, and conspiracy, and ordered him to pay $500,000 in fines. Skelos presently remains free on bail, according to The New York Times, while the Court considers the former Speaker's conviction on the specific charge of graft.And what of the kingpin, himself, the third Amigo, Andrew M. Cuomo? The Governor of New York has since attempted to distance himself from his two former friends and allies. Cuomo seems to remain unscathed, while his underlings, Silver and Skelos, get hit with criminal indictments and convictions. But perceptions can be deceiving. Public corruption is systematic in, systemic of, and endemic to Cuomo’s Administration, and, in fact, to Andrew Cuomo, himself.

ANDREW CUOMO: A MAN OF THE PEOPLE? HARDLY!

Several years ago, when Cuomo first ran for Governor of New York, The New York Times wrote that Cuomo was a man of the people. But, fast forward several years to this present moment in time, it is clear that Cuomo is nothing of the sort. No doubt Cuomo would claim that, then, as now, he represents the best interests of New York residents, but, truthfully, Cuomo has done nothing to earn the trust, support and confidence of New York residents in the heartland of the State.In point of fact Cuomo is unaccountable to and dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of New York. By extension, Cuomo would be unaccountable to and would be dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of citizens of the entire Nation were he to win the Oval Office in 2020.Cuomo cannot wash the sins of public corruption away, much as he may try. Evidence of Cuomo's embrace of public corruption is legion. The New York Post's expose of Andrew Cuomo is telling. The New York Post writes, ". . . Gov. Cuomo’s political interference with his Moreland Commission panel’s investigation of public corruption pulled the veil from one of the biggest open secrets at the state Capitol: The governor is a liar and almost anything he promises will turn out to be false. Cuomo’s betrayal of major pledges is well known: the promise to cut taxes in a meaningful way, encourage job creation without government handouts, reduce local mandates, conduct public work transparently and have science — not politics — determine if fracking can be done safely.But it wasn’t until it Cuomo violated his No. 1 pledge to rid New York of the “culture of corruption’’ that has dominated Albany for decades that the full extent of his betrayal of the public became clear.People who have known Cuomo for years, including some who go back to the days he served as the thuggish chief enforcer of his father, then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, say they aren’t surprised Cuomo’s penchant for lying has finally exploded in full public view.Andrew Cuomo has surrounded himself with unsavory characters. His own disreputable character is longstanding and his ties to unsavory types deeply entrenched. A case in point: Joe Percoco, a former aide to Governor Cuomo who was sentenced for public corruption. The times union, pointing to charges brought against Percoco in a federal bribery and fraud case, in 2016—which, according to the NY Post, subsequently led to Percoco's conviction on several charges—said that:“Joe Percoco, ‘has long been a bruising political enforcer at times feared by those in the Capitol sphere.‘Trained as a lawyer, he had the guts, brains and stick-to-itiveness necessary to attack any project — hard,’ Gov. Andrew Cuomo called his longtime confidant and former aide in his 2014 memoir, ‘All Things Possible.’ Percoco [first] worked for Andrew Cuomo's father, Mario, during his time as governor, beginning political life at the age of 19, according to Cuomo's memoir. At Mario Cuomo's January 2015 funeral, Andrew Cuomo called Percoco ‘my father's third son, who sometimes I think he loved the most.” 

ANDREW CUOMO IS, DEFINED, FIRST AND FOREMOST, BY HIS OPPOSITION TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND HE IS DEFINED, SECOND—WHETHER THROUGH PERSONAL CONVICTION OR SIMPLY THROUGH POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY—WITH THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT OF THIS COUNTRY, AS HE HAS, THROUGH BOTH HIS WORDS, AND ACTIONS, CAST THE FATE OF HIS POLITICAL FUTURE WITH THAT FAR LEFT-WING POLITICAL FACTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Andrew Cuomo is known as the man who, more than anything else, detests the Second Amendment, and the NRA, and all those Americans, the silent majority who reside both in New York and in the heartland of this Nation. Nothing defines Cuomo more than his utter contempt for, and his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. His signature Legislation, the New York Safe Act, more than anything else, defines what he stands for and what his vision for America consists of. The NY Safe Act is a testament to his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.Residents of other States may scoff at Cuomo, perceiving him to be little more than a political con artist who, for political reasons, has consciously, calculatedly cast his lot with the most liberal elements of the Democratic Party, who also detest the Second Amendment and who have, of late, insinuated themselves inextricably into the web of the Democratic Party machinery. Centrists within the Democratic Party seem powerless to constrain these insurgent progressive left elements, or otherwise lack the will to do so, and have capitulated to their aims and wishes.The Democratic Party is the mechanism through which these insurgent progressive elements intend to destroy this Nation; and the centrist liberal elements within the Party, headed by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, have shown, through their clearly abject weakness, a willingness to join these progressive forces by either echoing the sentiments of their sentiments and aims or otherwise standing by placidly, ineffectively, unable or unwilling to control them.  Make no mistake about this. The Progressive Left in this Nation seeks to undermine this Nation’s sovereignty, and to undercut this Nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Ever since Donald Trump’s inauguration, as the 45th President of the United States, the Progressive Left in this Country have been systematically working toward their destructive goals—although more openly than they had wished; for, with the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, much to their surprise and consternation, they have been forced to show their hand.To accomplish their reprehensible goal, those who would destroy our Nation and who would destroy our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values have launched an all-out war—a war against the very foundation of our free Republic and of a free People: a war against the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is destruction of the Second Amendment that exists, first and foremost, in their crosshairs. It is the destruction of the Second Amendment they want. It is destruction of the Second Amendment they need.  And it is the destruction of the Second Amendment they intend to bring off, to effectuate their ultimate goal: subordination of the Country as an independent sovereign Nation State; subordination of the Nation's Constitution and the Nation's laws to international laws and international tribunals; and the erasing of our history, traditions, and values, and the subversion of the very concept of  'citizen,' paving the way for the infusion of tens of millions of unassimilable illegal aliens into the heart of our Country. To accomplish their despicable end game, Andrew Cuomo is their man.The destroyers of this Nation, no less so than the silent majority, know that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the very backbone of this Nation. Were the Second Amendment eliminated, the entirety of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, along with the autonomy and sanctity of the American citizen, and, too, the very structure of this Nation’s Government, as laid out in the Articles, as set forth in the Constitution, would topple like a house of cards. The socialists, communists, anarchists, and those that finance their operations in this Country are working tirelessly, unceasingly to see that this happens. The silent majority in this Country, for their part, must see to it that this doesn’t happen.

ANDREW CUOMO ATTACKS THE NRA

Lest there by any doubt, the National Rifle Association (NRA)—as the preeminent defender of the Nation’s singularly critical core, defining precept, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and as preeminent defender of the very bedrock of a free Republic—is the first civil rights organization. It was founded in 1871 ((incidentally, nine years before the founding of the National Association for the deaf (NAD), in 1880, and almost forty years before the founding of the NAACP, in 1909)). Left-wing progressives, becoming increasingly emboldened and radicalized, and with the backing of the mainstream media, have the audacity to call NRA a terrorist organization. Left-wing progressives seem oblivious to the fact that NRA is the first and certainly the most important civil rights organization in this Country. By calling NRA a terrorist organization, left-wing progressives are implicitly, ludicrously calling millions of NRA members, terrorists, too. And, by calling the NRA a terrorist organization, these left-wing progressives explicitly denigrate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, impugning Americans who choose to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment, and making a mockery of the Nation's Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a salient, critical part.The mainstream media does not so much as try to restrain the inane pronouncements of and the dangerous actions of these left-wing progressives elements in society but ignores—indeed, even repudiates—the sacred duty owed to all Americans, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, namely, to defend the rights and liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights—all ten of them—by seriously investigating and calling out the Un-American activities it observes through the words and actions of these left-wing progressive elements. The mainstream media unconscionably echoes the sentiments of this faction, thereby assisting in and hastening the breakdown of the institutions comprising our society; the destruction of our Constitution and its system of laws; the collapse of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation State; the extinction of our traditions, our history, our core values and our code of ethics; and the defilement of our citizenry.Of course, the silent majority of this Country can readily dismiss the vitriol and antics of these left-wing progressives who attack NRA, who attack supporters of NRA, and who seek de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. These left-wing progressives in our society have no credibility. For, the Silent Majority knows what they aim to do. They seek nothing less than to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and to subordinate our Constitution and laws to those of foreign bodies.It is one thing for individuals and for the Press to attack our Constitution, repugnant to the conscience as that is. It is quite another thing when politicians, themselves, denigrate the Second Amendment and attack NRA. For politicians—the representatives of the people—were elected to represent the citizenry. They have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the preservation, protection, and defense of the Second Amendment, as a critical, and, arguably, most critical component of the U.S. Constitution.When these politicians—these representatives of the people, themselves—voice opposition to the sanctity of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to the premier Civil Rights Organization, NRA, that exists for the sole purpose of defending that right, then, they have betrayed their oath of Office; they have betrayed the Constitution they swore to protect, preserve, and defend; and they have betrayed the American people, the Nation's citizenry, they claim to represent. At that point, the American people, the silent majority of this Nation, can no longer remain silent; must no longer remain silent. The silent majority has the duty to call these disrupters out for the evil they do.

NRA FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST ANDREW CUOMO

On May 11, 2018 NRA filed a lawsuit against the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS).** In the lawsuit, NRA sets forth: “This case is necessitated by an overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign against the NRA and the millions of law-abiding gun owners that it represents. Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal – to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment. The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign is a series of threats to financial institutions that DFS, an agency created to ensure the integrity of financial markets after the 2008 credit crisis, will exercise its extensive regulatory power against entities that fail to sever ties with the NRA.”Last month, NRA filed its Amended Complaint. Cuomo immediately fired back with a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that NRA’s lawsuit is “frivolous.” But, the appellation, ‘frivolous,’ is more aptly applied to Cuomo’s lack of regard for and respect for the Second Amendment. For, in his outrageous attack on NRA, incongruously using the mechanism of a boycott—a singularly bizarre and illegal maneuver by a Governmental entity to utilize—Andrew Cuomo has made clear that, as Governor, he intends to destroy the efficacy of the Second Amendment in New York. This should give all Americans pause. For, as President of the United States, Andrew Cuomo would do much, much more damage to the Second Amendment. He would work toward excising the Second Amendment from the Constitution of the United States, altogether. 

ANDREW CUOMO MUST BE STOPPED!

Cuomo’s malevolent ill will toward NRA is clear. Indeed, he has had the affront to call NRA--as the first and premier Civil Rights organization, defender of a sacred component of our Bill of Rights--an “extremist organization.” And, in a mocking tone,  as reported by the Daily News, denigrating NRA, and by implication, mocking the organization's members, millions of Americans, the silent majority of our Country, and mocking our Nation's sacred  Bill of Rights, Cuomo retorts: “If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers.”In making these insulting statements, Andrew Cuomo can no longer be considered a respectable leader of New York, much less of this Nation, in the event he decides to make a run for the Office of U.S. President in 2020. Cuomo has shown an utter lack of restraint and demonstrates a marked deficiency in character. He does not identify with and, obviously, he has no desire to identify with the vast number of Americans, the silent majority, both in New York and in the Nation as a whole, that reveres the great document, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution that our founders lovingly gave us and spilt their blood for, on our behalf. Cuomo identifies himself with a small, albeit vociferous, faction of society, left-wing progressives, who do not represent the vast majority of the American citizenry, who do not represent, we the silent majority. Cuomo has through both his words and deeds made himself into an outlier, even an outcast, who, has cast his lot with a small virulently Anti-American segment of the population, left-wing progressives. Cuomo is not the defender of our Nation's liberty and security that he pretends to be. He is, as with the left-wing progressives he identifies most closely with, a disruptor and destroyer of our Nation's traditions, values and history. He is openly contemptuous of the salient right of the people of this Nation to keep and bear arms as etched in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights, and therefore disdainful of all those--the silent majority of this Nation--that support NRA and that support the Bill of Rights in its entirety.Cuomo says he merely seeks to make New York and the rest of the Nation "safe" and will work with other States to make his vision of America a reality as he cannot get Congress on board with is plan for America. Yet Cuomo's vision for New York and for the rest of the Nation serves not to defend the American people but seeks to undermine our Nation and to dismantle our Constitution. Cuomo resides well beyond the pale of decency and respectability and properly merits the condemnation of the American people.

IN CONCLUSION

Andrew Cuomo has given up all pretense of representing the interests of the people of New York, and he has made abundantly clear, both through his statements and actions, that he has no desire or inclination, whatsoever, of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. He should not serve a third term as Governor of New York. That would do a disservice to the citizens who reside in New York. And, Cuomo definitely should not serve as President of the United States, if he harbors any secret inclination to do so. For, were he to do so, that would inevitably prove fatal to the Nation’s Bill of Rights; fatal to the continued existence of a free Republic; and fatal to the continued existence of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State, neither subordinate to or subservient to nor beholding to any other nation, federation of nations, or transnational authority._____________________*The expression, ‘silent majority,’—referring to the vast majority of American citizens throughout the Country whose voice is drowned out by the cacophony of noise incessantly, unceasingly, and obnoxiously generated by the mainstream media and by a vocal minority of extremists around the Country and in the halls of Congress whom the mainstream media represents and with whom the mainstream media is closely identified—is, perhaps, most closely associated with and most likely popularized by President Richard Nixon, after a speech he gave to the Nation in 1969. But, significantly, it was President John F. Kennedy, not Nixon, who earlier coined the expression. The expression appears in President Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize winning book, “Profiles in Courage,”where he wrote: “Some of them may have been representing the actual sentiments of the silent majority of their constituents in opposition to the screams of a vocal minority. . . .”  **See August 3, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in the Daily News, and the August 5, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in The New York Times. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.