SEDITIOUS PRESS GOES TO BAT FOR CHINA, NOT TRUMP, DURING GLOBAL PANDEMIC CRISIS

PART ONE

THE WORLD IN THE GRIP OF AN OMINOUS, DEADLY PLAGUE: THE CHINESE CORONOVIRUS*

Is this the day? Is this the beginning of the end? There is no time to wonder. No time to ask why is it happening, why is it finally happening. There is time only for fear, for the piercing pain of panic. Do we pray? Or do we merely run now and pray later? Will there be a later? Or is this the day?Opening narration from an episode from the original Outer Limits, sci fi series, first televised on September 20, 1963.**The number of Hollywood films utilizing the trope of alien invasion—and we are referring here to outer space alien entity invasion, not inner space illegal alien invasion—is legion.A common theme of these sci fi films centers around our little world, Planet Earth, on the brink of nuclear annihilation. The major powers arm up and prepare to battle each other. But, at the Eleventh Hour the nations of Earth face a common threat: a malevolent, and immensely powerful adversary from deep space. The nations realize the necessity to set aside their differences and band together to defeat a ruthless, relentless, and sinister foe; one that poses a threat to the entire human race.The world is now faced with an enemy as aggressive and as merciless as any threat posed from outer space. This is not Hollywood cinema; this is real. The ongoing pandemic is the most serious threat facing the world today and, in fact, the worst threat facing the world for decades. The COVID-19 Pneumonia Virus, commonly referred to as the Coronovirus, by virtue of club-shaped spikes on its surface is also referred to as the Wuhan or Chinese Virus, and those appellations are apt, since China—and specifically the Chinese Province of Wuhan—is the place where the virus originated.The threat this Chinese Coronovirus poses to the life, health, and well-being of the populations of Earth bears a commonality with an alien invasion from outer space. Like a ferocious, seemingly unmanageable, implacable,  foe from outer space, the Chinese Coronovirus doesn’t discriminate against particular nations or people. It coldly, unemotionally attacks all alike, both high and low in the social pecking order as the BBC, reports, exclaiming that, "His Royal Highness," Prince Charles has contracted the disease.The virus has traveled quickly around the world. It propagates rapidly, mercilessly, and relentlessly, injuring or destroying everything in its path. And it does so with cold, callous, methodical, precision, at a geometric rate, until “IT” becomes satiated, if it becomes satiated and allows ITSELF, to burn itself out. As of this writing, we have yet to see that happening. Indeed, the appetite of this virus appears insatiable, expanding rapidly throughout the Nation.And, what are we doing about it? There is just so much the Trump Administration can accomplish alone but he did act quickly when he imposed travel restrictions from China in early February 2020. That is indisputable fact, and, in hindsight, Trump’s quick action on behalf of the American people, proved entirely appropriate, even as, at the time, seditious media outlets, such as CNN, citing their own cadre of “experts,” condemned Trump’s actions as precipitous and ill-advised. The CNN had this to say, on February 7, 2020:“‘All of the evidence we have indicates that travel restrictions and quarantines directed at individual countries are unlikely to keep the virus out of our borders,’ Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week. ‘These measures may exacerbate the epidemic's social and economic tolls. And can make us less safe.’‘The director-general of the World Health Organization also weighed in this week, calling on countries not to impose travel restrictions.’”Fake cable news shows, like CNN and MSNBC, and seditious newspapers, like The New York Times  routinely cite experts, such as Dr. Nuzzo, who support the newspaper's narratives. Each New York Times' narrative is grounded on one or more baseless assumptions. The paramount assumption of those Times' articles that have, as the central theme, the U.S. President, Donald Trump, is that Trump  is an unworthy and illegitimate President.In its endless, vicious, vindictive attacks on the President, The New York Times has in recent months cited to Dr. Nuzzo, whom the paper mentions as "a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security." Apparently, Dr. Nuzzo doesn't support the President's policy initiatives pertaining to the horrible Chinese Coronovirus. That makes Dr. Nuzzo a useful expert, since her medical opinions cohere with the newspaper's narratives--the theme of which is to attack the President at every turn. For example, on March 29, 2020, the Times quoted Dr. Nuzzo saying, "the Trump Administration had 'incredibly limited views' of the pathogen's impact.'" In an earlier Op-Ed, authored by Dr. Nuzzo, appearing in the Times' newspaper on March 20, 2020, Dr. Nuzzo authored a piece titled, "We Don't Need to Close Schools to Fight the Coronavirus." The article is subtitled, "Shutdowns could likely do more harm than good, since there's little evidence that children are a major source of the spread," Dr. Nuzzo writes in substantial part:"Facing an accelerating spread of Covid-19, Italy and Japan have closed schools to impede the epidemic. Some communities in the United States have done so too, agreeing to significantly disrupt people’s lives on the theory that it will prevent deaths and serious illness.

But there is no clear evidence that such measures will slow this outbreak.

Most of what we know about the impact of school closings on disease transmission relates to influenza, to which children can be particularly vulnerable, sometimes dying or becoming seriously ill from it.

Children are important drivers of influenza infections because they have more interactions with people than do most adults and also give off more of the virus. Closing schools, it is assumed, reduces the number of contacts and thus the rate of transmission.

During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, schools across the country were closed. A C.D.C. study showed that parents largely supported these measures, but other studies found that children frequently got together outside the home or visited public sites, despite official recommendations not to do so. Fortunately, schools reopened in less than three days in most cases because data showed the flu strain wasn’t as severe as had been feared.

Still, some evidence suggests that these measures didn’t reduce the number of infections and only slowed the spread — although that could help reduce burdens on health systems.

That’s influenza, though. Covid-19 is different.

There have been very few reports of children contracting Covid-19. It’s not clear why. It’s possible that children do get infected, but so mildly that it is not noticed or tested.

If children don’t experience severe illness from or contribute to the spread of Covid-19 — and so far we have found no clear evidence that they do — it’s likely that school closings will have little effect on its spread."

A few days after the article's posting, President Trump declared a National Emergency. Curiously, immediately following the President's National Emergency Declaration, Governors in twelve states immediately shut down their schools, to protect the children from the virus, notwithstanding that Dr. Nuzzo felt school closures, across the board, were unnecessary, since, as she says, such "school closings will have little effect on its [the virus'] spread." Maybe the State Governors hadn't read Dr. Nuzzo's Op-Ed. Or, perhaps, they did read the Op-Ed, but weren't convinced, adhering to the adage that "prudence is the better part of valor." The Governors were taking no chances where the lives of the children are at stake, as the USA Today article makes very clear.In the March 13, 2020, USAToday article, titled, "Coronavirus updates: Trump declares national emergency; schools in 12 states shut down; cruise lines halted," the authors of the USAToday article write:

"Twelve states and several large urban school districts are shutting down all K-12 schools as part of a sweeping attempt to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

Ohio, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, Michigan, West Virginia, Virginia, Louisiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Washington and Alabama have ordered all schools closed. The governor of Kentucky has recommended closing all schools in that state. Major metropolitan districts in Atlanta, Denver, San Francisco, San Diego, Washington, D.C. and Austin, Texas have also shuttered. And a growing number of smaller districts around the country have also chosen to close.

The actions are the first wave of widespread school closures in the U.S., and they stand to upend school and family routines for millions of children. 

Thus far Washington State appears to have put the longest closure into place. There, public schools will not reopen until at least April 24 by order of the Governor. Gatherings and events of more than 250 people are banned statewide

Such closures will also throw into sharp relief the deep socioeconomic divides in American education. Disadvantaged families who rely the most on schools for stable services, such as meals and access to learning materials, will be some of the most negatively affected."

Dr. Fauci, the National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases Director (NIAID) and a member of the Coronavirus Task Force formed by President Trump in late January might disagree with Dr. Nuzzo's apparent certainty about keeping schools open. Dr. Fauci, appearing on a Hannity Fox News segment, that aired on March 10, 2020, the same day that Dr. Nuzzo's Op-Ed, supra, explained:"But, Sean, to make sure your viewers get an accurate idea about what goes on, you mentioned seasonal flu. The mortality for seasonal flu is 0.1. The mortality for this is about 2, 2.5%. It's probably lower than that, it's probably closer to 1. But even if it's 1, it's 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu. You’ve got to make sure that people understand that."

Actually, as Chinese Coronovirus spreads rapidly across the United States, it turns out Trump was absolutely correct in taking the actions he did. Dr. Nuzzo, the Johns Hopkins expert, might wish to walk back her February 7 comments and the certainty she expresses in her March 10 Op-Ed.For his part, Dr. Fauci would air on the side of caution. The Daily Caller asked Dr. Fauci his opinion about the dangers of public contact and whether major business and school closures during the spread of the Chinese Coronovirus is the appropriate response:"When asked directly if that meant closing bars and restaurants, Fauci said, 'Obviously, you’re going to have people go to restaurants anyway, but for the most part, and particularly if I can say this, this is particularly appropriate and relevant for people at the high risk: the elderly and those who have underlying conditions, right now should really hunker down.' When asked about closing schools, the doctor insisted that 'you always want to be ahead of the curve. The golden rule I say is that when you think you’re doing too much, you’re probably doing enough or not enough.'"The Washington Post reports that:"Public health experts, school administrators and parents are divided about the risks and benefits of school closures, sparking debate in communities where the virus is rampant and in places with only fleeting exposure.Even the nation’s top disease experts seem unable to provide clear guidance. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Tuesday that a decision about closing schools depends on how far the disease has spread in a community. If the virus has spread little, there’s no point in closing, he said. But wait too long, and closings will not help.

'Everything is on the table for consideration,' he said. Closing all schools in the country would not be appropriate, he said, but it might make sense for a community “when you start to see, ‘we’re getting a little bit of danger here.’ ” The goal, he said, is to 'do real mitigation sometime before you think you really need it.' '

The reactions by districts to similar facts have varied widely."

And the reactions of the experts and of the newspapers on how best to deal with the Chinese Coronovirus also demonstrates a variance in opinion. But that doesn't stop the seditious mainstream media from glowering openly, unabashedly, and unceasingly that, whatever the President does to battle this plague, it is wrong. That negative reporting on President Trump's efforts doesn't do anything to benefit the citizenry and makes abundantly and disturbingly clear that, even in a time of horrific crisis, the seditious still continues its relentless assault on the President and that is equivalent to a relentless assault on our Nation and on our people. Where, then, does the allegiance of the mainstream media fall?

And, this brings us back to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (“W.H.O.”). For his part, the Director-General—the obsequious toady of China’s Xi Jinping, the principal responsible party for this world plague—clearly has an agenda, at once duplicitous and hypocritical, directed to harming the well-being of the world, not protecting the world from global pandemics, predicated on its stated, ostensible mandate. We provide evidence infra, showing Premier Xi is the Director-General’s overseer.

HAVE THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD COME TOGETHER TO BATTLE A GLOBAL PANDEMIC, OR IS IT THE CASE OF DIFFERENT SIDES-DIFFERENT ALLEGIANCES?

You would think the nations of the world would set aside their differences and definitely, definitively, unite, at least for a time, to battle a common scourge to humanity. You would think that, perhaps; or you would like to think that. But, unlike a Hollywood film, the nations of the world do not always unite to battle a common threat. Such is sadly in evidence here.The Chinese Coronovirus has brought into high relief a sad reality about the functioning of some Governments and some of their agents, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)—and we are thinking here of the Chinese Government and of a specific NGO, the World Health Organization (“WHO”). We, Americans, bear witness to how the NGO, “WHO,” a puppet of the Chinese Communist Government of Xi Jinping was slow, deliberately slow, in communicating to the world just how dangerous and prolific the Chinese Coronovirus is. We see this Government and the Non-Governmental Organization “WHO,” using this threat for their own nefarious purposes.True to form, we see the Communist regime of Premier Xi Jinping the Director and its obsequious puppet, the Director-General of the World Health Organization doing their damnedest to mask their own failure to timely warn the world of a coming plague, and at once, dare to chastise and blame other Nations for failing to act timely enough to curb the spread of the Chinese Coronavirus.We must ask: Does this blatant attempt by Premier Xi and by the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, to shift blame for the present scourge negatively impacting the world—and particularly negatively impacting the physical health and well-being of Americans along with the American economy—suggest collusion: a criminal conspiracy; a secretive, orchestrated scheme, to deliberately sabotage global efforts to effectively, timely eradicate this plague so that China can gain economic supremacy? If so, Can we, Americans, and can the citizens and subjects of other nations, not rightfully, justifiably, ascribe to the Chinese regime and to the NGO, “WHO,” an elaborate, well-organized, highly coordinated, and secretive scheme concocted by both the Chinese Premier and by the Director-General of “WHO,” directed to disrupt the economy of the United States? And, have not the Chinese Premier, Xi Jinping, and the Director-General of “WHO,” implemented a False Flag Operation—as a component of their scheme to disrupt the U.S. economy—designed and calibrated to shift blame for the global scourge onto our Nation and others? Is the unleashing of a viral plague on the U.S. and upon the world at large, all part of a malevolent, malicious, deceptive, duplicitous, hypocritical plot to devastate the U.S.economy so that China emerges as the sole economic power of the world?If so, then sacrificing the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, or, conceivably, even millions of innocent lives—including many in China, which, with a population of 1.4 billion people, may willingly suffer the loss of a few million of its own people—to secure global economic dominance may have been factored into the equation. Is this idea really so far-fetched? Consider———

THE FAILURE OF CHINA TO TIMELY WARN THE WORLD OF THE CHINESE CORONOVIRUS THREAT

The website, Foreign Policy, FP, reported in in mid-February 2020:“As the deadly coronavirus began to spread, Beijing wasted the most critical resource to fight it: trust.Are China’s official reports, including claims that its control efforts are succeeding and the epidemic will soon peak, credible? Omens look bad. Once praised by the World Health Organization (WHO) and scientists worldwide for its quick, transparent response to the newly named COVID-19, China now faces international vilification and potential domestic unrest as it blunders through continued cover-ups, lies, and repression that have already failed to stop the virus and may well be fanning the flames of its spread”.

THE FAILURE OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION TO TIMELY WARN THE WORLD OF THE CHINESE CORONOVIRUS THREAT

The sinister World Health Organization is a component of the United Nations. That fact, alone, should tell Americans much about the danger this NGO represents to the well-being of the U.S. and of the well-being of other Nation States. The website study.com points out this Organization’s ties to the UN:“The World Health Organization, or the WHO, is a part of the United Nations that focuses on global health issues. This organization has been working for over 60 years on such issues as smallpox eradication, family planning, childhood immunizations, maternal morbidity rates, polio eradication, and AIDS.”But, does the World Health Organization, “WHO,” really operate for the betterment of the world’s population? The website, Business and Politics, BPR, reported very recently, in March 2020:“The Director-General of the World Health Organization admonished the world’s “slow” reaction to the coronavirus outbreak though his organization downplayed the seriousness of the now-global pandemic months ago.WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is under fire for remarks on Wednesday saying the ‘world was slow to react to the coronavirus’ even though he previously praised China’s handling of the outbreak and WHO officials claimed in January the virus could not be passed by human-to-human contact.”

BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, THERE EXIST COLD, CALCULATING, RUTHLESS FORCES THAT SEEK DOMINION OVER AMERICANS AND OVER THE POPULATIONS OF OTHER COUNTRIES

No less than the Regime of Xi Jinping, and its puppet, “WHO,”  we, Americans, bear witness to a sinister cabal within our own Government. There are those who seek a political, social, economic and cultural metamorphosis of our Nation into something hideous; something antithetical to the philosophical underpinnings of a free, Constitutional Republic. These elements seek to turn Americans against each other even as they proclaim the opposite intention. They seek political, social, and economic upheaval.With the coming general election in November 2020, and as all previous attempts to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump have failed, malevolent forces have one remaining gambit: use of a global pandemic to excoriate the President.Back in mid-January, well before the U.S. and other nations were apprised of the threat of the Chinese Coronovirus, Fox News contributor, Andy Puzner, pointed out that———“Over the last six months, it has become increasingly obvious there is no limit on how far Democrats and their media allies are willing to go to bring down President Trump. Because of their obsessive hatred of the president, they have wantonly placed our economy at risk of collapse, created a false constitutional crisis, and most recently, opposed the takedown of an Iranian terrorist leader.”The Fox News article illustrates the bizarre and sad truth about the cold and ruthless ambitions of those elements within our Nation that will use any calamity to their advantage. Remember the coarse and callous words of Rahm Emmanuel, prior Mayor of Chicago and Obama’s White House Chief of Staff:“You never want a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”Compare Rahm Emmanuel's disturbing comment with the very recent and equally disturbing remark of Representative James E. Clyburn, (D-SC), the House Majority Whip.During Congressional Republican and Democrat negotiation of the $2.5 Chinese Coronovirus relief package for the Nation, Clyburn could hardly contain his exuberance over a horrific event that he sees as an "opportunity" and that most Americans see as a National crisis.The mainstream media was obliged to acknowledge Clyburn's off-putting remark. Try, as it might, even the seditious New York Times could not put a good spin on Clyburn's audacious remark. The New York Times reported:"Republicans were . . . outraged when they saw the draft House bill, a $2.5 trillion measure that included an array of progressive policies well beyond the scope of emergency aid, saying Democrats were trying to use the crisis to advance a liberal agenda. They seized on a comment by Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat, who said on a private conference call with Democrats that the pandemic presented “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to our vision” — a comment Mr. McConnell brought up repeatedly."People such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, puppets, of the transnational Global "elites," have not been able to take down the U.S. President, Donald Trump, try as they might. They could not do so so through the fanciful and abjectly wasteful Mueller probe; nor through the imbecilic impeachment hoax; nor through the hyped up Ukraine nonsense. All attempts by the Radical Left Democrat Party Leadership to destroy the Trump Presidency have failed. But, still they persist.The Radical Left Democrat Party leadership now has, at its disposal, a new, potent weapon in their arsenal: the Chinese Coronovirus; something they did not create but which presents for them, as James Clyburn refers to it, an "opportunity" that, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, they dare not "waste": their vision for the Country: A Socialist nightmare.We point out, as the Democrats know full well: The U.S. economy under Donald Trump has prospered. But the impact of the deadly Chinese Coronovirus viral plague is devastating our economy, through no fault of the Trump Administration. But, instead of working willingly and diligently to work with President Trump and with Congressional Republicans to protect the critical health needs of Americans, together with the U.S. economy, we see Pelosi, Schumer, and others of their ilk in Congress doing so only grudgingly, planting obstacles in his path, attempting to take advantage of a horrific situation, to pursue their agenda. Even Joe Biden has gotten into the act. These Radical Leftist malcontents, along with a seditious Leftist Press are even now trying to  figure out how best to use this viral pandemic to promote efforts to unseat Trump in November 2020. The Washington Times makes this point clear, reporting in mid-March 2020:“No matter what Mr. Trump does, he will be accused of 1) reacting recklessly; 2) reacting too slowly; 3) being racist; 4) ignoring medical advice; and 4) treating the health crisis as a partisan issue.” 

TO PRESERVE THE FOUNDERS’ VISION OF OUR NATION, IT IS IMPERATIVE, NOW, MORE THAN EVER, THAT WE SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP

Ever since President Trump swore his Oath of Office to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States, there have been efforts both at home and abroad to unseat him. The Founders’ vision of a Nation where the American people themselves are sovereign is now looked on by ruthless elements, both at home and abroad, as archaic and injurious to their own plans for a new world order. They have been engineering our demise as an independent sovereign Nation-State for decades.The autocratic regime of China’s Xi Jinping operates as one monstrous threat to our Nation’s continued survival as a free Republic and as the most powerful economic engine and military power in the world. The transnationalist corporatist elites of the West—those who have already harnessed the Nations of Europe into a centralized union that they alone control—represent the other major threat to our Founders’ vision, as they seek to expand their domain to include the military and economic assets of the United States. And then there are the centrist status quo Republicans, and Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats, both of whom fear and loathe the Trump Administration. Both of these groups, here at home, have been quietly engineering the creation of a shadow Government within our Government; a Government that doesn’t serve the best interests of our Nation and its citizenry, but is one decidedly detrimental to and antithetical to the preservation of our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic—a Nation where, as the founders intended, the American people themselves are sovereign and the Federal Government is servant. These two groups are working hand-in-hand as puppets of the West's transnationalist corporatist elites; but they are certainly not averse to striking side deals with the Chinese Premier, Xi Jinping, in order to line their own pockets. And, as the Chinese regime steals our technology, and gobbles up U.S. Corporations and real estate, that is of no apparent consequence to these Congressional sell-outs who see no profit in preserving a free Constitutional Republic.Anti-Constitutional elements within our midst--who take money from the Chinese Regime to line their own pockets and, at one and the same time, willing toadies of the European Rothschild clan and its minions who seek the abolition of nation-states and the creation of a one world political, social, economic, and cultural government--are the worst sort of people. They are the "dry-rot" that eats away at the frame of a house, from within.Ruthless, remorseless elements, both inside our Nation and outside look upon our Nation’s resources jealously. They seek at once to mine our Nation and its physical resources and to discard our people, hollowing out our Nation, as private equity firms hollow out companies, leaving our people destitute and our Nation, an empty shell. The present Chinese Coronovirus pandemic has provided abjectly ruthless, evil elements with a useful weapon. And we, Americans, find ourselves caught in the middle of a titanic struggle between two brawling monsters, both of which view the United States with covetous eyes.In the next two articles we will explain in more detail the dire threat posed to our Nation and our people by the Xi Jinping Regime of China, and by those evil and ruthless forces right here at home.____________________________________________*Note to our Readers: This article segment includes new content, added, on March 31, 2020.**Further, from the sci fi series the Outer Limits episode, "The Architects of Fear":“The world has entered a Cold War-like setting in which nuclear holocaust appears imminent. In the hope of staving off an apocalyptic military cen.wikipedia.org/…/The_Architects_of_Fearonfrontation between nations, an idealistic group of scientists working at United Labs plans to stage a fake alien invasion of Earth in an effort to unite all humanity against a perceived, common enemy. The scientists have managed to study the planetary conditions on the planet Theta. They draw lots, and physicist Dr. Allen Leighton is chosen to undergo radical surgical procedures that will transform him into an inhabitant from the planet Theta. Leighton's death is faked, and the bizarre series of transplants and modifications to his body proceed. His wife, Yvette, persists in not believing he is dead; she even feels sympathetic pain as Allen suffers on the operating table. Complications arise when the effects of Leighton's transformation extend beyond his physical appearance and begin to affect his mind, a situation compounded by the scientist's strong emotional connection with his now pregnant wife.The scientists' plan is for Dr. Leighton, as the Thetan creature equipped with an energy weapon and spaceship, to land at the United Nations in an effort to create initial panic. This panic, in theory, will be resolved as the world unites to fight the invader. Leighton, now a perfect simulation of an inhabitant of the planet Theta, is launched into orbit as a weather satellite, but the mission goes awry when the spaceship comes down off course and lands in a wooded area near the United Labs facility. After disintegrating their station wagon with his laser pistol, Allen is severely wounded by three armed hunters as he emerges from the underbrush. With nowhere else to go, Allen stumbles back to the lab. Yvette, sensing trouble, hurries to the lab looking for her husband. She arrives as Allen, now hideously transformed, enters and collapses to the floor. Before dying of mortal wounds, Allen makes a sign in the air with his hand, one familiar to his wife, and she then realizes the horrifying truth that the alien is, in fact, her husband.”Closing narration:“Scarecrows and magic and other fatal fears do not bring people closer together. There is no magic substitute for soft caring and hard work, for self-respect and mutual love. If we can learn this from the mistake these frightened men made, then their mistake will not have been merely grotesque, it would at least have been a lesson. A lesson, at last, to be learned.” ____________________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BIDEN’S ODIOUS REMARKS TO CURTAIL SECOND AMENDMENT INVITE QUESTION OVER HIS ELECTABILITY AND SUITABILITY FOR HIGHEST OFFICE

JOE BIDEN WANTS YOU TO KNOW HE SUPPORTS THE SECOND AMENDMENT; IT'S JUST THAT HE DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR OWNING AND POSSESSING FIREARMS

PART ONE

“Hello, I'm Mr. Ed.A horse is a horse, of course, of course,And no one can talk to a horse of courseThat is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.Go right to the source and ask the horseHe'll give you the answer that you'll endorse.He's always on a steady course.Talk to Mr. Ed.People yackety yack a streakAnd waste your time of day.But Mr. Ed will never speakUnless he has something to say.A horse is a horse, of course, of course,And this one will talk till his voice is hoarse.You never heard of a talking horse?Well, listen to this:‘I am Mr. Ed.’”(Song lyrics to farcical television comedy, airing on CBS from 1961 to 1966)Can anyone talk to Mr. Joe Biden? Here is a man who tends to yackety-yack a streak even when he has nothing to say—which is all the time, or nearly all the time. You would think a person running for President of the United States would have something intelligent to say, and that he would be willing, able, and capable of orating intelligently, eloquently, and solicitously to the American public. That, though, isn’t Joe Biden.Biden is a windbag filled up with ill-conceived, half-formed thought forms, many false; dredged up from his distant past, sloppily pasted together, and then delivered pontifically to the American public as an incomplete, incoherent, haphazard, unconvincing, rambling sermon on the purported foibles of the Trump Administration; providing, too, an inkling of the way things will be and ought to be once he, Joe Biden, becomes President of the United States. Mr. Ed, at least, can speak coherently. Maybe Mr. Joe should receive coaching lessons on the art of oral communication from Mr. Ed.Consider Biden’s policy prescriptions for dealing with American’s fundamental, immutable, unalienable natural right as codified in the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights; a right bestowed on man by a Loving Divine Creator; natural law, not man-made law; God-given law, not Congressional enacted law; natural law upon which a free Constitutional Republic rests; upon which the personal autonomy of Americans depend; upon which the sanctity and inviolability of the individual is grounded, and upon which the sovereignty, supremacy of the American people over a centralized Government and over the crushing power of the State, is maintained—the right of the people to keep and bear arms; a right that shall not be infringed.And, yet there are those, both inside the Federal Government and outside it, who are all too happy to infringe this hallowed  right, this sanctified law, even as they say they would not; that they never would infringe it.Recall Hillary Clinton blatantly lying to the American people about her position on firearms and the Second Amendment when she gave her acceptance speech at the 2016 Democrat National Convention:The website Vox reported: “Clinton wants you to know one thing about her position on gun control: ‘I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. . . . I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.  ‘We should be working with responsible gun owners to pass commonsense reforms and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and all others who would do us harm.’Clinton is essentially sticking to the stance that Democrats, including President Barack Obama, have followed over the past few years: They want to restrict certain weapons and keep certain people from getting guns, but they’re not interested in taking away everyone’s firearms.”Clinton has offered up a policy prescription, amounting to a logical contradiction. So, reading between the lines, what Clinton is saying is this:I don’t want to take away your firearms and you can trust me when I tell you I will not take away your firearms; it’s just that you have to realize I do need to take away your firearms, much as I don’t want to; and, so, I will be taking your firearms away, and this is for your own good; to keep you safe from yourself and to keep me safe from you. I hope you understand, and I hope you’ll vote for me. Oh, and have a Good Day.Recall, too, Senator Leahy’s (D-VT) blatantly dishonest remarks, during Elena Kagan’s Confirmation Hearing as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, prompting Kagan’s dutiful reply. The website, On the Issues, reported:Senator Leahy: “‘I am a gun owner, as are many people in Vermont, and I agreed with the Heller decision. And just yesterday in McDonald v. the City of Chicago, the Court decided the Second amendment right established in Heller is a fundamental right that applies to the States as well as the Federal Government. Is there any doubt after the Court's decision in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment to the Constitution secures a fundamental right for an individual to own a firearm, use it for self-defense in their home?’ SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan: ‘There is no doubt, Senator Leahy. That is binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case. So that is settled law.’”Sure, Heller and McDonald are settled law—until they aren’t—and they won’t be if the Left-wing of the high Court, gains ascendancy. It will overturn those seminal Second Amendment cases if Radical Left and  new wave Progressive Left Democrats are able to “pack” the high Court with Left-wing Justices.And, this brings us back to Joe Biden, the apparent presumptive Heir Apparent Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President in 2020. How can a person believe Joe Biden’s claim of devotion to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution—the mere assertion of his claim to support it—when his policy plank and his policy prescriptions serve clearly to shred it.When an American citizen dares demand that Biden provide concrete support for his policy position and policy prescriptions on the Second Amendment and on firearms, Biden is unprepared to discuss his position and the policy prescriptions he would implement. He becomes visibly, plainly flustered, and loses his temper. He lashes out. This unseemly behavior occurs because Biden doesn’t expect Americans to speak out. He perceives this as audacious conduct rather than acceptable behavior. Yet, you would think a U.S. Presidential candidate should expect questions from the public; that a Presidential candidate would invite and welcome questions concerning his or her policy prescriptions; and that the candidate would be able and willing to discuss, candidly, cordially, even cheerfully one’s policy prescriptions.A U.S. Presidential candidate should come before the public, fully prepared to clarify and support his or her policy positions and prescriptions—especially those affecting fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural rights, not least of all the right impacting firearms and the American citizens’ unconditional right to own and possess them.Yet, Biden lashes, out; he treats the American public as if it were a conglomeration of stupid Hinterland Hicks; nothing more than a herd of dumb beasts; or a pack of feral dogs; or a brood of undisciplined, wayward children whom, as in time past, were expected to be seen and not heard.Biden’s detestable behavior was on full display when, during the Michigan Primary on March 10, 2020, a Detroit auto worker respectfully but pointedly challenged Biden on the claim repeatedly made that he supports gun rights. As reported by the website Mediaite:  “Former Vice President Joe Biden got into a heated exchange with a Detroit autoworker over gun rights Tuesday, with votes coming in during the Michigan primary.‘You are actively trying to diminish our second amendment right and take away our guns,’ one autoworker yelled at Biden while appearing to be looking at his phone.‘You’re full of shit,’ Biden fired back, adding, “I support the second amendment.”‘From the very beginning, I have a shotgun, I have a 20 gauge, a 12 gauge, my son’s hunt,’ Biden said, adding, ‘I’m not taking your gun away at all.’‘If you need 100 rounds,’ Biden said, before being interrupted while trying to find common ground with the union member.Biden then dismissed viral videos the autoworker was citing as not accurate and mentioned ‘AR-14’s’ [?]‘Look, here’s the deal, here’s the deal,’ Biden said. ‘Are you able to own a machine gun? Under the law?’Biden’s campaign has said previously that if elected, he would ban assault weapons.‘Machine guns are illegal,’ the autoworker responded.‘That’s right,’ Biden responded, adding, ‘So are AR-15’s illegal. . . .’‘There are more deaths in America from handguns then what you call assault rifles,’ the autoworker said, ‘why are you advocating for assault rifles. . . .’The autoworker then continued to argue with the former Vice President before being pulled away by a union leader.”Breitbart reports more of this exchange:“‘This is not okay,’ the man said, creating a buffer between the finger and his face.‘Don’t tell me anything, pal,’ Biden demanded.The worker continued to defend the Second Amendment and disputed Biden’s interpretation of ‘assault rifles.’‘Don’t be such a horse’s ass,’ Biden said before he walked away.” “Horse’s ass?” And Who is it that is really the talking Horse, here? Is it the autoworker or Biden? Is it Mr. Ed or Mr. Joe? And, what’s the deal Joe? What’s the deal? This, of course, isn’t the first time Biden lost his temper in front of the Nation; and there will be other times he will lose his temper as well. Yet, when confronted by average Americans who simply expect Biden to support his positions when queried about them, Biden should be willing and able to do so. He isn’t.As the purported remaining “moderate” Democrat Party Candidate for U.S. President, Biden wants, indeed expects, the public to take on faith he supports the Second Amendment when he doesn’t.This is deception and a poor attempt at deception, at that. Unfortunately, we have seen this deception at work many times before and we will continue to see it in the run-up to the General election in November 2020, as the ruthless, secretive, wealthy powerful, amoral, Centrist Neoliberal Transnationalist Anti-Constitutionalist, Anti-Second Amendment Collectivist Plutocrats and Oligarchs push their lackey, Joe Biden, on all of us.With Joe Biden in the Oval Office, the Globalists will then be able to move ahead once again with their agenda, and agenda that President Trump had cast aside, as he would not do their bidding. They will not abide further interruption of their goals: dismantling a free Republic, overriding the Nation’s Bill of Rights, overthrowing the sovereignty of the American people, subjugating the masses; subordinating the citizenry to their new dictates; and bending the citizenry to their will, that the U.S. might eventually be integrated into a one world political, social, cultural, and economic governmental scheme._________________________________________

TO COMPROMISE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS TO ENDANGER THE EXERCISE OF IT

PART TWO

Worse than thieves, murderers, or cannibals, those who offer compromise slow you and sap your vitality while pretending to be your friends. They are not your friends. Compromisers are the enemies of all humanity, the enemies of life itself. Compromisers are the enemies of everything important, sacred, and true. ~ L. Neil Smith, Libertarian, novelist, and non-fiction writer; from his political essay “Lever Action”Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles. ~Ayn Rand, writer and philosopher; from “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”Biden, like all scheming Anti-Constitutionalist Anti-Second Amendment Neoliberal Transnationalist Globalist Collectivist Establishment politicians, is an obsequious, compliant stooge of the secretive Billionaire Globalist Corporatists. He duplicitously and hypocritically claims to support the Second Amendment, when he does not. He suggests that compelling Americans to compromise the exercise of their fundamental, primordial, immutable, unalienable right—such as forcing Americans to surrender their semiautomatic firearms, and confining ammunition magazine capacity—is fully consistent with his claim to support preservation of the elemental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Does he really expect the American public to believe him? To accept Biden’s incoherent nonsense is the height of absurdity. Does Biden hold the American citizenry in such low regard that he expects the citizenry to accept his deceitful lies as self-evident truths. Who is Biden really fooling, here?The word, ‘compromise,’ has two alternate, incompatible meanings. It can connote: a ‘settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions; namely ‘something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things;’ ‘an agreement between two sides who have different opinions, in which each side gives up something it had wanted.’ But, the word, can also connote, ‘a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial a compromise of one’s principles;’ namely, ‘to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize: e.g., a military oversight that compromised the nation's defenses.’ Here is Barack Obama’s view of the word, ‘compromise’: “A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, ‘huh. It works. It makes sense.’” From the New Yorker, May 31, 2004. Huh. It works. Makes sense? Asserting one’s support for the Second Amendment by simultaneously demanding concessions from those who wish to exercise the right is an odd way of asserting one’s devotion to a fundamental, unalienable, immutable and natural right.It is clear how Biden and, by extension, how all Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats use the word, ‘compromise,’ apropos of the Second Amendment. They suggest, deceitfully to the public, that they mean ‘negotiate’ “commonsense” restrictions on the exercise of the natural right. But, what they really mean, if only tacitly, is to eventually ‘prohibit’ exercise of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms.As reported by the Washington Examiner, on August 10, 2020:“Joe Biden is calling for a cultural shift around how the country thinks about gun ownership.‘The Second Amendment — no amendment is in fact absolute,’ Biden told the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund's Presidential Gun Sense Forum Saturday in Des Moines, Iowa. ‘Folks, don't apologize at all about the Second Amendment,’ Biden advised, explaining how the amendment allows for limitations on who can own a weapon and what type. ‘These guys will tell you, the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots. Give me a break.’‘Can you go out and buy a flamethrower? Can you go out and buy an F-15?’ he added. “If you want to protect yourself against the federal government, you’re going to need at least an F-15.’”It defies belief that anyone, let alone a U.S. Presidential candidate, can, through his remarks, fall prey to such an abundance of fallacies—“red herrings,” “false analogies,” and “overgeneralizations,” to name but a few—or that a Presidential candidate could be so excruciatingly incoherent.Biden’s remarks amount to a mouthful of bland, flat, bald-faced lies and gross exaggerations, assuming one can decipher his remarks at all, as so many incoherent declarations emanate from him. Mostly, his remarks devolve into a series of rambling incoherent musings, inconsistencies, and mind-numbing disconcerting schizophasia—meaningless blather—all but impossible to unscramble, and apt to cause a migraine headache for anyone who tries.Listening to Biden yap, brings to mind the comedian Irwin Corey, the master of double-talk. The two would have made a fabulously successful comedy team in the fashion of Abbott and Costello, and the Smothers Brothers. Biden has missed his true calling.The sad and tragic thing is that Biden expects to be taken seriously. If he were a stand-up comic, it would be amusing to listen to him, all the more so since he tends to come across as patronizing—a nice touch were that a part of his comic skit. Biden must think that the failure of the public to understand him is due to the inability of most people to fully appreciate the intricacies of his genius; his mind a steel-trap; impossible for those of lesser intellect to fathom.The Washington Examiner had this to say about Biden, back in 2019:“Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic front-runner crowd, left some in the crowd at the Iowa State Fair mystified when he told them: ‘We choose truth over facts.'"Does Biden know what he is talking about? I don’t, and I would assume you don’t. And my guess is that Biden doesn’t know what he is talking about either.The words, ‘true’ and ‘false’ are referred to in logic as “Truth-bearers.” Truth-bearers aren’t facts, and facts aren't truth-bearers, but it is both wrong and incongruous to say a person chooses one over the other. And, Biden is correct, although unwittingly, when he implies that truth-bearers are not facts. But, that has nothing to do with the notion of choice. One doesn't choose truth over facts or facts over truth. That assertion is discordant. Logicians, mathematicians, and epistemologists do not conceive of facts and truth-bearers as incompatible things; as antinomies. Facts and Truth-Bearers,  are two distinct kinds of things, but the two do work in tandem. Logicians, mathematicians, and epistemologists know that the concepts, ‘truth’ and ‘falsity,’ are properties of propositional forms—not of  events, i.e., “facts.” Anyone who has taken an elementary course in symbolic logic learns that.And there are many different theories of truth. Under a typical theory, say, the correspondence theory, ‘truth’ does make use of ‘facts;’ better referred to as ‘events;’ or better yet, ‘states of affairs.’ A proposition is said to be ‘true’ if it corresponds with or mirrors a ‘fact,’ and a proposition is said to be ‘false’ if it doesn’t correspond to a fact. Thus, the proposition, ‘Joe Biden will become the 46th President of the United States,’ is said to be true, if the event, state of affairs, or “fact,” does comes to pass, i.e., corresponds with or mirrors the fact that Joe Biden does become President of the United States. And, the proposition is said to be false if the event, state of affairs or fact, does not come to pass. Whatever event happens to transpire, the event, (or state of affairs, or fact) is not itself, ‘true’ or ‘false;’ it simply is or is not the case. But the proposition or statement about the matter is the thing to which one properly utilizes the concept of truth, under the typical correspondence theory of truth. These critical points.Now, when Biden says that, “We choose truth over facts,” it may be Biden is enunciating or, at least, intimating a new, dramatic theory of truth. If there is anything to it, the impact on our understanding of logic, mathematics, epistemology and of any of the hard sciences—indeed, on the very notion of reality and ‘real things,’ impacting ontology, metaphysics, and information science—must be drastically revised; and Biden ought to be lecturing at M.I.T. or Cal Tech, and not wasting his talents on the campaign trail, yapping it up in front of we, the mere Hoi Polloi.The question of Biden’s mental acumen, for Americans, were he to become U.S. President, is no small matter. It is material and profound: Is Joe Biden a genius in disguise or an idiot? If the former, we should take notice. He may be a Godsend; or the Devil incarnate, heralding the End of Days, not only for Americans but for all of humanity. And, if he is a dolt, then the prospects for our Nation, our Constitution, and our people is no less horrifying, if he were to become U.S. President. In either event, evil genius or dullard, it says something, not particularly pleasant, about the Democrat Party that they would thrust Biden on all of us; that this is the Party’s best prospect for our Country; that he is the Great Hope they are banking on to defeat their nemesis, Donald Trump. But be not mistaken: Such horrors await us beyond imagining if Biden ekes out a win in 2020 and takes possession of the Oval Office. We will all be catapulted head over heels, into a Hellish realm. The Hellraiser Horror film franchise comes to mind.

LIKELY, BIDEN IS MORE BUFFOON AND HALF WIT THAN INTELLECTUAL MASTERMIND; BIDEN  DARES LECTURE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The problem for Americans is that Biden, the presumptive U.S. Presidential nominee of the Democrat Party, can feasibly become U.S. President. That fact makes Biden less amusing, and more frightening. Among those who are markedly incompetent to serve as U.S. President, we find Joe Biden. But, if he were at least affable, we could laugh at this clown, rather than frown. Americans know when politicians come across as crass, insulting, and derisive. A person cannot effectively serve as the leader of the Nation if that person treats the general public as contemptible lowborn plebeians. That was a major failing of Hillary Clinton, among a litany of others. Something she could not hide. And, Biden’s low regard for the average American has also become clear. We saw Biden’s churlish behavior recently, during his exchange with a Detroit auto plant worker. “Fox News later interviewed the Detroit auto plant worker, Jerry Wayne, regarding what became “an apparent contentious argument with former Vice President Joe Biden about Biden’s position on gun rights.”Jerry Wayne chatted with Fox & Friends on Tuesday and said Biden ‘could have easily said “I’m not taking questions” and I would have very respectfully walked away. But he wanted to listen to my question and I don’t think that he was ready for it.’ Wayne also noted that he tried to ask Biden questions about how he was going to improve the situations of union workers like himself in the future.‘We bare arms and we like to do that. If he wants to give us work and take us [sic] guns, I don’t know how he will get the same vote,’ Wayne said. He also called it ‘disturbing’ when Fox & Friends asked for his reactions to a clip of Biden expressing his view that assault weapons should be confiscated.‘Were you surprised that you asked a simple question and Joe Biden just went off the deep end on you?’ Steve Doocy [host of Fox & Friends] asked.‘Yeah. I thought I was pretty articulate and respectful,’ said Wayne. ‘I didn’t try to raise any feathers. And he kind of went off the deep end. I saw he was digging a hole. I just kind of let him talk for a while to dig a hole.’”Politicians love to equivocate, and Biden is no exception. But equivocation is hardly a talent of these people. And they love to talk about the Constitution, even when it appears they lack an understanding of Constitutional law and especially lack an understanding of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. That should prevent them from proselytizing to the American public about a matter they know very little if anything about. But, then, they lack humility as well—another disturbing and all too common failing among many politicians.You would think a politician would be perspicacious enough to refrain from lecturing the public about matters that a politician knows little if anything about; let alone legislate over it; but a politician doesn’t refrain from lecturing the public or from legislating in ways catastrophic to the well-being of the Nation.Politicians, especially those on the Radical Left and new Progressive Left of the political spectrum, proceed along their merry way, seemingly having not a care in the world, either oblivious to the fact, or, perhaps, all too mindful of it, that the actions they take as legislators, compromising the citizenry's most sacred rights and liberties, diminishes them as Americans, undermines the Constitution, and creates a hell for the rest of us to live in.Yet, there is no compromise (in the sense of negotiation), on a fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural right; nor can there be compromise. The word ‘compromise,’ here, denotes outright capitulation. That, of course, is what the Democrats want, and the Detroit autoworker, Jerry Wayne, was doing the public a favor in bringing to light the irrationality of Biden’s remarks on the Second Amendment. Biden obviously wasn’t able to respond effectively to the irrationality of his own position. How could he? His position is self-contradictory.One cannot claim rationally to support the Second Amendment, when one wishes to take steps to erase it. Biden may have realized the inconsistency inherent in his position on the Second Amendment when Jerry Wayne, the Detroit autoworker, had pointedly and demonstrably presented the inconsistency out to him. But, instead of admitting this, or otherwise doing what politicians are generally good at—disengaging and talking about something else when they do not wish to answer a question directly or cannot answer a pointed question directed to them—Biden lashed out, like a petulant child. This is a common failing of the Radical Left and Progressive Left elements of our society. They do not wish to debate; they would rather shout a person down. That is much easier for them.Sincerity was never Biden’s long suit; nor is controlling his anger. Biden’s obvious disinclination to engage the public, despite his efforts to demonstrate the contrary, comes across plainly and painfully. His rancor and deceit, irascibility and dissembling, along with an inability or lack of desire to even try to control his temper should not be lost on anyone.______________________________________________

HOW IS IT THAT BIDEN HAS  EMERGED, OVERNIGHT, AS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S FRONT RUNNER FOR U.S. PRESIDENT?

PART THREE

Joe Biden, the most mediocre candidate in a bloated field of mediocre Democrat Party candidates for U.S. President had, just a few short weeks ago, looked like his campaign was dead; that he would pass, like the rest of the field, into obscurity, leaving the “Democratic Socialist,” Bernie Sanders—who is a much better orator—as the de facto Party nominee for President, going into the Democrat Party Convention in July 2020. Such, apparently, is not meant to be.Instead, Joe Biden has mysteriously and miraculously become the frontrunner. James Clyburn (D-SC), “speaking to NPR on Tuesday night, Clyburn said, ‘I think when the night is over, Joe Biden will be the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination,’ adding, ‘If the night ends the way it has begun,’ then it's time to ‘shut this primary down,’ apparently meaning that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) should choose to cancel future debates.”This is most curious. The DNC, has, of course, manipulated the 2016 Primary to ensure Hillary Clinton would get the Party’s nomination to take on Trump, explaining then, as now, that Sanders is unelectable. It is obvious the DNC is doing the same thing now. The How and why is it that Biden has become the front runner?The seditious Press has weaved a fairy tale around this man. Consider the inescapable facts. Biden is politically inept. He is boring and stale. He is ordinary in demeanor. He is bereft of charm and charisma. He is devoid of character. He is an inveterate liar and clearly corrupt. He is spiteful and quick to anger. And, he lacks even rudimentary oratorical skills.One cannot choose but wonder how Biden has become the Democrats’ likely choice to represent our Country. But, on reflection, the reason manifests.Joe Biden can be and would be controlled by the Globalist Establishment. Biden knows this, accepts this, probably even relishes this, as it saves him from actually doing the duties of a U.S. President: namely, setting the foreign and domestic policy objectives for the Nation. The other candidate, Bernie Sanders—still in the race but losing momentum with each passing day—would not accept control by the Globalist Establishment. And, of course, U.S. President Donald Trump isn’t subject to control by the Globalist Establishment either, which is one solid reason why Americans elected him to Office in the first place. This rankles the Globalist Establishment to no end and explains the intensity and virulence of the attack on Trump, never before seen in our Nation’s history.It is odd to see the Establishment Press at once lauding foreign European EU leaders and excoriating Trump. If the Press doesn’t like Trump, you would think that it would at least respect the Office. But, then, the seditious Establishment Press doesn’t respect the Office either. It, too, owes its allegiance not to this Nation and its Constitution, but to foreign masters that have an agenda that calls for something else entirely: the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic and the shredding of our Constitution.The mainstream Establishment Press and the Global Neoliberal Establishment Collectivist elites’ have no desire to preserve a free Constitutional Republic, but, rather, seek to establish a new framework for our Nation, where the institutions, our culture, the rights and liberties of the Nation exist merely in form; hollowed out. Our Nation is to be inextricably linked to and entwined securely with the EU, losing its sovereignty and independence. The majority of Americans intuit this. They don’t want it. Trump doesn’t either. Americans elected Trump for a very specific purpose: to move our Nation back to its roots: as an independent sovereign Nation, unbeholden to and taking orders from no other transnational oligarchic power center. Our laws are to remain supreme; our rights and liberties strengthened; our history left intact. Biden would be a false leader, delegating policy and decision-making functions to the “Establishment” bosses: the secretive, powerful insider Globalists and their Bureaucratic underlings that demand to pull the strings. Our Nation would backslide into the path Bill Clinton, the Bushes, and Barack Obama had obediently set for us: destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, and the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic. If one can forgive Biden’s multiple personal failings, still, one cannot and must not forgive Biden’s policy prescriptions for our Country.It is on this score Biden and every other Democrat nominee for U.S. President fails, and fails miserably, since none of them would truly defend the U.S. Constitution. Not one of them accepts the fact that the sovereignty of the Nation rests—must rest—on the American people, not Government. None of these candidates can or should seriously be considered a political moderate since not one of them accepts our Bill of Rights for what it truly is: a codification of fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural rights. And, since any one of these candidates, if elected President, would place more and more restrictions on the sacred, inviolate right of the people to keep and bear arms—a necessary condition upon which both a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people over Government rests—none of them merits serious consideration as President of the United States. The expression, political ‘Radical,’ more accurately describes each of them; not the word, ‘moderate,’ nor even the word, ‘liberal.’If Biden stands by this record, attacking the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and if, as is clear from his boastful remarks, he is truly proud of his record, you would think he would at least have the courtesy and common human decency to address the concerns of those Americans who might disagree with him and that he would do so in a calm, respectful, non-caustic, non-sanctimonious manner. After all, the right of the American citizen to own and possess firearms is a natural, God-given right that exists intrinsically in man. It isn’t a right bestowed on man by Government.What Government cannot bestow on man Government cannot lawfully deny to or rend from man. If Biden wishes to trample on a God-given right, one would hope, indeed expect, that Biden would spend a little time, at least, setting out his arguments in support of curtailing a right the framers of the Constitution felt important enough to include in the Constitution; and which has stood the test of time for well over 200 years. Yet, Biden cannot, apparently, be troubled with Americans who disagree with him. Of course, it may just be that Biden becomes visibly upset because he doesn’t have an answer for anyone who disagrees with him. He becomes flustered and attempts to cover up his discomposure and agitation with anger and resentment.

BIDEN’S CHARACTER FLAWS ARE SEEN IN ALL RADICAL LEFTISTS

Biden exhibits a disturbing character flaw common to all Anti-Constitutional Radical Left Collectivists. He is so smugly confident of the truth of his political, social, and ethical position that he feels it beneath his dignity to have to support his beliefs with cogent argument. If one persists in demanding a cogent, coherent, response, he becomes angry. Sometimes he rages. Recall his bizarre antics in Iowa, as reported in the Daily News.

Joe Biden angrily confronted a voter at an Iowa town hall who asked about the Ukraine scandal involving his son — and whether he is too old to take on President Trump.

When the voter questioned if Biden was “selling access” by letting Hunter Biden take a position on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma, Biden appeared to lose his cool.

“You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true,” Biden said, walking up towards the man at the town hall in New Hampton.

The tense face-off came as Biden continues his “No Malarkey” bus tour of rural Iowa. Although Biden remains the Democratic front-runner in national polls, he is struggling mightily in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Biden forcefully told the man he was physically and mentally ready to face off against Trump.“Let’s do push-ups together, man. Let’s do whatever you want to do,” Biden said. “Let’s take an IQ (test).”Biden is of a kind with these peculiar people on the Radical Left of politics. He cannot be and will not be bothered with anyone who happens to disagree with him. He loses patience. He becomes spiteful, testy, indignant, even belligerent.Biden, as U.S. President, would only be required to maintain composure. But, from what we have seen of him to date, even that would be a difficult task for Biden.There is a takeaway from Biden’s apparent inability to effectively and successfully cope with criticism. From an emotional standpoint Biden obviously isn’t adept at responding honestly to or otherwise parrying tough questions, or abrasive comments. Instead Biden lashes out, like a petulant child. This suggests Biden lacks the will power to handle his emotions. This also suggests that Biden lacks the sharp mental acuity, capacity, and quick wit to proffer effective responses that one expects from a nation’s leader.If Joe Biden does become the presumptive 2020 Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, each American should honestly consider and ask him or herself this question:Is this truly a man whom you would wish to elect President of the United States, to place your faith in to effectively lead this powerful Nation and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic? If your answer is “yes, then, are you willing to surrender your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms along with your other natural God-given rights?___________________________________________________________

A CONSTITUTIONAL FREE REPUBLIC CANNOT LONG EXIST IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY TO DEFEND IT AND BIDEN HAS NO WISH TO PRESERVE THE NATION'S ARMED CITIZENRY

PART FOUR

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” ~Matthew 6, King James VersionJoe Biden is the Establishment Democrats’ choice for U.S. President. The American people should have no illusion about that or about what that means and whom it would be that Biden would serve were he to become U.S. President. Biden pays homage to the inordinately wealthy, highly secretive, abjectly ruthless, extremely powerful and well-organized Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment “Elite-Elect.” That was true when Biden served as Barack Obama’s Vice President. Neither Biden nor Obama has truly defended the U.S. Constitution; and neither has served the interests of this Nation and its people. Both Biden and Obama have served foreign masters and a foreign Globalist agenda. And Biden would continue to do so were he to become U.S. President. Biden would never truly defend the U.S. Constitution; nor would he serve the best interests of this Nation; nor would he serve the best interests of the American people. He cannot serve two masters: Either the Nation and its Constitution or the Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment Elite-Elect: one or the other but not both.Consider Biden’s quick rise to front runner status among the Democrat Party contenders for U.S. President. Biden’s campaign was essentially dead. He had little funds and his campaign organization was in disarray. Yet, in the span of a few weeks, everyone but Bernie Sanders has dropped out of the race. What might explain this odd and extraordinarily rapid turnabout? How has Biden won so many States with a campaign in shambles? Who is behind Biden’s meteoric rise? We can reasonably infer the Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment “Elite-Elect” is supporting Biden from the shadows. He knows that. So, whatever he tells the American public, the fact remains Biden owes allegiance to Americans' adversary: those that seek to undermine the Republic and to destroy the Constitution.Biden would be a false leader, delegating policy and decision-making functions to the “Establishment” bosses: the secretive, powerful insider Globalists, the Establishment Collectivist Elite-Elect Globalists, along with their Bureaucratic underlings that demand to pull the strings and that would pull the strings.Our Nation would backslide into the path Bill Clinton, the Bushes, and Barack Obama had obediently set for us:destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, and the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic. Biden would not make policy. Rather, he would dutifully carry out policy as dictated to him by the Oligarchic Elite-Elect, the Shadow Government that pulls the strings behind the scenes, taking his orders dutifully from them, kowtowing to their dictates, allowing the bloated to the  federal Bureaucracy, that, itself takes its orders from the Elite-Elect, to set and implement domestic and foreign policy: the secretive wielders of financial and corporate power. Biden would exist as a mere puppet, a figurehead, a standard-bearer for the Elite-Elect.And, can we forget that Biden even mentioned that he would only serve one term? What Candidate would make such a statement. If he had a policy agenda for the public would he not seek eight years to fulfill it? No President has ever made such a statement or intimated as much. Even the Left-Wing Politico has admitted that Biden claims to step down even before he has been elected to one term in Office. If so, why campaign at all for even one term? What would motivate a man to merely run for one term in Office? If he his not prepared to serve two terms because he might think himself incapable of doing so, why should the public feel Biden is physically or, for that matter, mentally equipped to serve even one term? This must have befuddled the Leftist website Politico that reported it:“Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term.While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.”Sanders would be an octogenarian, too, but he, certainly, hasn’t signaled a desire to step down after a first term in Office. It seems that Biden’s heart isn’t in this job. So, why run at all?And, then, we must consider Biden’s policy prescriptions.If one can forgive Biden’s multiple personal failings, still, one cannot and must not forgive Biden’s his policy prescriptions for our Country.It is on his policy prescriptions that Biden, and every other Democrat nominee for U.S. President, fails this Country and its people, and fails miserably, since neither Biden nor any of these also-ran nominees would truly defend the U.S. Constitution. Not one of them accepts the fact that the sovereignty of the Nation rests—must rest—on the American people, not Government. None of these candidates, then, can or should seriously be considered a political moderate.A couple of synonyms for ‘moderate’ are, one, ‘conservative’ and, two, ‘reasonable.’ There is nothing about these Democrats that is either conservative qua reasonable in their political outlook. Each of them desires, indeed demands, radical change to our free Constitutional Republic.Not one of these candidates, it is abundantly clear, accepts our Bill of Rights as a codification of fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural rights. Rather, each of them holds an extreme view of the very meaning of our basis rights, suggesting they are man-made constructs and therefore can be modified, ignored, or abrogated.Each, if given the chance, would work toward containing and constraining the Right of Free Speech radically, and erasing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, entirely. And they have shown a penchant for rewriting the Articles of the Constitution.The first order of business for any of them, were any one of them to be elected to the Office of Chief Executive of the Nation, would be to place more and more restrictions on the sacred, inviolate right of the people to keep and bear arms. How harmful that action would be to the preservation of a free Republic is apparent when one recognizes that the Second Amendment is a necessary condition upon which both a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people over Government rests. But these Democrats would make the exercise of this sacred Right extremely difficult, and eventually impossible. None of these people ever merited consideration as President of the United States. The expression, political ‘Radical,’ more accurately describes each of them; not the word, ‘moderate,’ nor even the word, ‘liberal.’As reported by the National Review: “Here’s Joe’s combination of fantasy, braggadocio, and rodomontade on guns:‘We increased that background check when — when — during the Obama-Biden administration. I’m also the only guy that got assault weapons banned, banned, and the number of clips in a gun banned. And so, folks, look, and I would buy back those weapons. We already started talking about that. We tried to get it done. I think it can be done. And it should be demanded that we do it, and that’s a good expenditure of money. And lastly, we should have smart guns. No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure could pull that trigger.’” Really? The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about smart guns. Back in 2016, we explained in detail why smart guns are not a smart idea.As with Barack Obama and the Clintons and, yes, the Bushes, Joe Biden doesn’t want to take away everyone’s firearms. He merely wants to take away the firearms of some Americans’ firearms. He wants to take away YOUR firearms; those of the Hoi Polloi, those whom these Globalist Neoliberal Establishment Collectivists consider the Preterite of American society; those firearms belonging to tens of millions of average  rational, responsible, law-abiding Americans. Biden doesn’t want or expect the especial, wealthy, powerful, Elite-Elect of society to surrender their firearms or surrender those firearms of their personal bodyguards.If Biden—the presumptive Democrat Party nominee—stands by his pronouncements and his record, attacking the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and if, as is clear from his boastful remarks, he is truly proud of his record, you would think he would at least have the courtesy and common human decency to address the concerns of those Americans who might disagree with him and that he would do so in a calm, respectful, non-caustic, non-sanctimonious manner. After all, the right of the American citizen to own and possess firearms is a natural, God-given right that exists intrinsically in man. It isn’t a right bestowed on man by Government.What Government cannot bestow on man Government cannot lawfully deny to or sever from man. If Biden wishes to trample on a God-given right, one would hope, indeed expect, that Biden would spend a little time, at least, setting out his arguments in support of curtailing a right that the framers of the Constitution felt important enough to include in the Constitution; and which has stood the test of time for well over 200 years. Yet, Biden cannot, apparently, be troubled with Americans who disagree with him.__________________________________

JOE BIDEN, THE POLITICAL “MODERATE,”  THROWS TEMPER TANTRUM WHEN QUESTIONED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART FIVE

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION, ‘POLITICAL MODERATE?’

The seditious mainstream media refers to the former Obama Vice President, Joe Biden—the increasingly likely Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, to take on President Trump—as a political “moderate.” But, is he? Is Biden really a political moderate?  The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the noun form of the word, ‘moderate,’ as ‘not violent, severe, or intense.’ As applied to politics, the Dictionary defines, ‘moderate,’ as ‘professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme.’ As an adjective, the word, ‘moderate’ means, ‘avoiding extremes of behavior or expression: observing reasonable limits.’ When used either as an adjective or noun, the word, ‘moderate,’ as applied to Biden, is a misnomer because one thing Joe Biden is not is “moderate.” Intemperate both in his public discourse and in his policy statements, Biden is anything but moderate.If Biden isn’t able to control his anger when an American citizen politely, if firmly, questions him on policy, how will Biden control that anger when goaded by professional journalists if he were to become President? Granted, he would never be disrespectfully, unceasingly hounded by the Press as the Press hounds Trump, as Biden and the seditious Press kowtow to the same Globalist elites. Biden is their man; their shill; their toady, and they would go easy on him. But he would still be subject to criticism, now and then, and he should expect that, and he should be able to respond effectively to criticism, when it occurs, without losing control of his emotions.If subject to a hot temper, a politician must learn to control that temper. Biden obviously cannot. Imagine, as a thought experiment, the Press hounding a “President” Joe Biden as that same Press has viciously, vilely, unceasingly hounded President Donald Trump. That would never happen of course; but Biden would still have to deal with day-to-day pressures unlike that of any other person.Would Biden be able to handle pressure? Trump has shown he can. In fact, Trump thrives under constant pressure. He has to. He has never crumpled, and that rankles the Establishment Press even more. But would Biden be able to control pressure? Based on his campaign performances to date, the answer is a definitive, “no, he would not; could not.” Biden would rapidly fall apart. But, then, the Bureaucratic Deep State would cover for him. They would be developing policy and implementing policy. Biden would merely be signing off on that policy. During the impeachment trial of Trump, this fact came out. Democrats argue that the Federal Bureaucracy develops the Nation's policy, and that the U.S. President must be mindful of that and treat the Federal Bureaucracy, the Deep State, with deference. Of course, that idea turns Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution on its head, for the Constitution says something much differently. There is only one policy maker, and it isn't the Federal Bureaucracy. It's the U.S. President. Biden, as U.S. President would delegate that policy making responsibility to the Federal Bureaucracy. But, there's the rub. The Policy Making duties of the U.S. President cannot be lawfully delegated. It is a core function of the U.S. President.To delegate a core function of the U.S. Presidency would be not only to discredit the Office of the U.S. President but it would amount to the emasculation of the Executive Branch of Government. In the Biden Presidency, Biden would be a mere figurehead. That wouldn't bother Biden. It should bother him, but it wouldn't. That would be his job as the lackey of  the Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment “Elite-Elect”  and of the Elite-Elect's servants, the Federal Deep State Bureaucracy. But, even as a mere figurehead, Biden would still be the face of the Nation. Imagine that, if you will.Apart from Biden’s abjectly poor emotional demeanor, the use of ‘moderate’ as a political descriptor for Biden is patently absurd, as exemplified by his position on a fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural right.Granted, expressions such as ‘moderate,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘radical,’ ‘centrist’ ‘conservative,’ and the like, as applied, inter alia, to political belief systems and policy positions are inherently vague if considered in a vacuum, nonetheless these terms do have explanatory value when comparisons are made between two or more political belief systems or policy.For example, one might conceivably infer Joe Biden to be a political moderate if one compares Biden’s political beliefs and policies to someone like Vladimir Lenin or Joseph Stalin, notwithstanding that application of Biden’s political policy prescriptions, if actualized in the U.S., would move our Nation toward a totalitarian political and social system and, so, must be rejected out-of-hand if Americans truly wish to preserve the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic.Words such as ‘moderate,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘radical,’ ‘centrist’ ‘conservative,’ when used in a political context, must, then, be construed relative to a particular system of governance and relative to specific policy prescriptions if they are to have any real meaning.One must look to the political and social and economic belief systems of a person and to one’s policy prescriptions as applied to our present system of governance and, more to the point, as applied to our system of governance relative to the citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties, if any sense is to be made for calling a person a political moderate, or a political liberal, or a political radical, or a political conservative or, any political whatever.In the context of our own system of governance and when compared to Biden’s policy prescriptions pertaining to the Bill of Rights, Joe Biden is definitely not a political moderate.The use of the expression, ‘political moderate,’ for Joe Biden by the mainstream media, tells the American public more about the desire of that media to intentionally confound the public than to accurately inform the public about where a politician’s belief system and policy prescriptions accurately stand, on the political spectrum.Americans should not be duped by short descriptors the mainstream media uses to typecast politicians. Those are often merely a blind. Rather, Americans should look to a politician’s policy prescriptions. Most importantly, Americans should pay particular attention to a politician’s stance on the Bill of Rights, especially the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is a simple a foolproof test of a politician’s loyalty and fealty to Nation, Constitution, and People.If a politician does not accept as an absolute, the idea of an armed citizenry, upon which the sovereignty of the American people necessarily depends, through which a free Constitutional Republic is preserved, then that politician does not and cannot serve the best interests of this Nation; nor does that politician serve the best interests of the Constitution; nor does that politician serve the best interests of the American people. Such a person is Joe Biden. He does not and cannot serve the best interests of Americans. Bereft of ability, intelligence, candor, integrity, moral courage, and antithetical to the very concept of an armed citizenry though which, and only through which our Nation can continue to exist as a free Constitutional Republic, this man, Joe Biden, owes loyalty only to his wealthy benefactors, the Oligarchic, Globalist, Elite-Elect. And, this wealthy, powerful, ruthless, and secretive Shadow Government has no regard for the American citizenry, whose power it envies, and in whom it sees only as a pathogen, dangerous to the world-wide schema they seek to implement.One of the first orders of business, if not THE first order of business for Biden, at the behest of his masters, will be to constrain the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Look to see a number of executive orders emanating from his Office were he to become the 46^th U.S. President. Indeed, it would not be surprising to see Biden, at the behest of his masters, declaring a National Emergency, warranting imposition of Martial Law, banning civilian ownership and possession of weapons. When the Shadow Government can emerge from the Shadows, no longer afraid to admit to the American public that the public was right all along in having inferred such a creature was lurking behind the curtain of open Government, and that Shadow Government now becomes the Open Government, as it would have no reason, any longer, to lurk in the shadows. The public would witness a new Order, a new Reality, taking shape before its very eyes, and it would have absolutely no say in the matter.____________________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

PART ONE

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

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

LISTEN UP CHUCK!———

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

THE ENTIRE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS “UNHINGED.”

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

GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO'S SAFE ACT: A WORK IN PROGRESS TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT*

NY SAFE: THE HYDRA BEAST WITH SEVERAL HEADS

PART ONE

Andrew Cuomo, the rabid anti-Constitutionalist Governor of New York, currently serving his third term in Office, signed the New York Safe Act more than seven years ago.Coming on the heels of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident, occurring in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012—and ostensibly because of it—Cuomo demonstrated to New York’s residents that he would be the first Governor out of the gate to dramatically increase his State’s already highly restrictive gun laws, and it became so.On his website, Cuomo describes the Hydra monster he unleashed on New York, thus: “The SAFE Act stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun . . . and imposes the toughest assault weapons ban in the country. . . [but that] For hunters, sportsman, and law-abiding gun owners, this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns.”  This is pure claptrap.The Arbalest Quarrel exposed the truth about Cuomo’s Safe Act and wrote extensively about it when first enacted and signed into law. We pointed out that Cuomo’s ambitions for disarming the public extend well beyond the confines of New York. He intends to make the Safe Act the model for restrictive gun laws throughout the Nation.We also pointed out that Cuomo has always intended for the Safe Act to be construed as a work in progress, not an end in itself. We concluded that, as with all anti-Second Amendment rights’ zealots, Cuomo would not rest until the Nation’s armed citizenry ceases to exist. The true scope of the anti-Second Amendment zealots’ agenda, as directed against the very idea of a “citizen army,” isn’t mere hyperbole. It is fact, and it is a critical step in the Collectivists’ goal to destroy the fabric of a free Constitutional Republic, along with the sacred, fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people that come with it.The sheer tenacity of Collectivists’ efforts to eliminate exercise of the Second Amendment, and the feral ferocity they have unleashed in our Nation, has been on public display for at least the last three decades and continues—a constant reminder that Anti-Second Amendment Collectivist fanatics, such as Andrew Cuomo, thoroughly detest the Second Amendment and will machinate and orchestrate behind the scenes, fanatically, frantically, tirelessly with like-kind—in the mainstream Press and in social media, in academia and in the technology, business, and financial sectors, in State Legislatures and in Congress, and in various Grassroots anti-Second Amendment groups and in segments of the medical community—to destroy it.Consider the glee with which The New York Times reported—on January 29, 2019, scarcely two months after Cuomo’s election to a third term as New York’s Governor, in an article titled “New York Passes First Major Gun Control Bills Since Sandy Hook”—the Governor’s extraordinarily wide-ranging assault against the Second Amendment:“New York lawmakers on Tuesday approved the most comprehensive set of gun bills in the state in six years, including measures that would ban bump stocks, prohibit teachers from carrying guns in schools and extend the waiting period for gun buyers who do not pass an instant background check.In total, six gun bills passed easily through the State Senate and Assembly, a remarkable sight in a Capitol that for years had resisted almost all new legislation on the subject.Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, last ushered a major gun safety package into law in 2013, after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. 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.Mr. Cuomo has described the Safe Act as one of his signature achievements. ‘Sometimes history irrefutably bears out your actions,’ the governor said on Tuesday, at a news conference lined with gun safety advocates. ‘Today is the next evolution in this ongoing crusade.’The relative ease of the laws’ passage highlighted, for the second time in just two days, the upheaval that November’s election brought to Albany. Democrats captured the Senate for the first time in a decade, delivering one-party control of state government. Since the legislative session began this month, both chambers have sent long-stymied bills in rapid-fire procession to the governor’s desk.”Collectivists, anti-Second Amendment advocates and anti-Constitutionalists, all, not only abhor the import and purport of the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, they detest the precious idea embedded in it and embedded in the entirety of the Bill of Rights of which the Second Amendment is an essential component. They refute the idea, the founders of our Republic took as axiomatic, that a body of rights and liberties exist in man, bestowed by the Divine Creator in man—salient rights and liberties intrinsic to man’s very nature—that are independent of any man-made laws and other ostensible rights (really privileges) bestowed on man by other men through man-made artificial, mutable and malleable political structures, namely governments.The notion that a body of rights exists, independent of and beyond the government’s lawful power and authority to modify, ignore, or abrogate, is anathema to the Collectivists’ ideology. Collectivists do not accept and, in fact, find, abhorrent the notion of and reality of natural law that falls beyond the power of government to lawfully regulate and manipulate.Proponents of Collectivism take as axiomatic that all law is a creation of man and therefore is subject to amendment or repeal by man, as time, circumstance, and even whim, dictates. The import and impact of the Collectivist ideology are evident in the Collectivists' constant, belligerent, bellicose attacks on the Nation’s fundamental, immutable, unalienable, primordial, and absolute rights and liberties. No clearer illustration is there than in their disregard and contempt for the elemental right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The very existence of an armed citizenry is, on a physical level, a bane to a government’s power over the citizenry. But, on a philosophical plane, the notion of an armed citizenry, one absolutely “necessary to the security of a free state”—grounded on the Divine right of a people to own and possess firearms, predicated on Divine law, independent of artificial social and political constructs designed by man, and arising from a teleological, God-based ethical and moral system—is a notion logically incompatible with the tenets of the Collectivist ideology and repugnant to those who adhere to those tenets.Specious rationales for enacting more draconian firearms’ laws are, then, unsurprisingly, no longer deemed necessary, thanks to well-funded, sophisticated media propaganda that has been successful in deluding many citizens; convincing the citizenry they no longer need their Second Amendment; that Government will surely provide for them and will assuredly secure their physical safety and well-being.What is behind the blatant falsehood? We know the reason, although it is never mentioned by the seditious Press. It is to destroy the armed citizenry.It’s the imposition of Government tyranny—clothed in innocuous terminology, suggestive of the “Nanny State”—that the Anti-Constitutionalist forces want. Yet, it was specifically tyranny against which the founders of our Nation revolted; it was tyranny the framers of our Constitution loathed and sought ever to prevent in the Constitutional Republic they created. But it is tyranny the American citizenry of the present day will certainly get if the Collectivists—Anti-Constitutionalist Democrats—do gain complete control over the reins of Government. If that should occur, the new wave Progressive and Radical Left Democrats will then have the necessary power to impose their will on the American public and do with the citizenry whatever the hell they want.We see this playing out in recent days in several States: a dangerous precursor to what Americans may expect to see played out on the National stage if either the New wave Progressive and Radical Leftists that the seditious mainstream media refers to, euphemistically and erroneously, as liberal Democrats, or if the establishment, statist Democrats, that the seditious mainstream media likens to political “moderates,” gain control of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government and, inevitably, the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government, as well. Both factions of the Democrat Party adhere to the philosophical tenets of Collectivism. But, the philosophy of Collectivism is anathema to adherents of the philosophical tenets of Individualism, upon which our Nation was founded, the blueprint of which is manifest in the Constitution. The proof of the Collectivists’ goal to undercut the fabric of our free Constitutional Republic—predicated on the tenets of Individualism—is demonstrable and undeniable. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “The Modern Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”The transnational world order that Collectivists envision and wish to implement is inconsistent with the very notion of a free Constitutional Republic, the blueprint of which exists in the Nation's Constitution.But, to destroy a free Constitutional Republic, it is essential for the Collectivists to first destroy the one impenetrable barrier to the realization of their vision of a transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance that transcends all nation-states. Collectivists must destroy the one guarantor of our free Constitutional Republic. They must eliminate the citizens’ exercise of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. That means they must destroy the armed citizenry.___________________________________________

BILLIONAIRE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, GLOBALIST ELITE, WLL SPEND WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN THE U.S. PRESIDENCY AND, IF SUCCESSFUL, WOULD THEN PROCEED WITH HIS GOAL TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART TWO

WERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG TO WIN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S NOMINATION FOR U.S. PRESIDENT AND TO PREVAIL IN THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTION, HE WOULD, AS HIS FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, UNDERMINE THE SECOND AMENDMENT, PAVING THE WAY FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE NATION’S FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

There are two strains of Collectivism in evidence in the modern Democrat Party: one, the Universal Socialist stateless world union governed by labor, as envisioned by Karl Marx, and, two, the Universal stateless Corporatist world, governed by an elite ruling Class: a central banking oligarchy. Either governmental construct is anathema to those nation-states that function as Constitutional Republics. And, only one true and free Constitutional Republic presently exists: The United States. The Blueprint of this free Constitutional Republic is the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is grounded on, one, a federal government of specific, limited powers provided to and spread out among three co-equal Branches, and, two, a recognized body of elemental, primordial, fundamental, unalienable, unfettered, immutable and boundless natural rights and liberties that reside only in the American people, beyond the lawful power of the federal government’s to delimit, abrogate, modify, or ignore. Political and Social Conservatives recognize the importance of the Nation’s Bill of Rights to a true functioning Constitutional Republic, where the citizens are sovereign. Radical Leftist and Progressive Marxist Globalists, along with Centrist Corporatist Globalist elites (the world banking community), do not. The latter two groups are presently battling for control over the Democrat Party. But, on two matters, the respective Transnational Collectivist ideologies converge. Both groups would implement extraordinarily expansive and highly restrictive gun measures, with the aim to contain, constrain, and eventually curtail, an armed citizenry; for neither group accepts as a presumptive absolute: the fundamental, immutable, unalienable right of the American people to own and possess firearms, and, in fact, are adamantly opposed to the very existence of an armed citizenry because the presence of an armed citizenry poses an inherent and existential threat to governmental authority, and to the implicit idea of a centralized government—the idea that government is presumptively sovereign, not the people. But that idea turns the U.S. Constitution on its head. Collectivists also operate under the presumption of a "borderless nation-state." This is an oxymoron since, as a necessary condition, nation-states are defined by specific geographic borders, recognized by and respected by other nation-states. But, the Marxist-Socialist Democrats, on the one hand, represented prominently by Bernie Sanders and his adherents, and, on the other hand, the establishment neoliberal Globalist financiers, represented prominently by Michael Bloomberg and his adherents in the wealthy Global community of multinational corporatists and central bank financiers, both blatantly ignore the import of Congressional immigration laws that specifically prohibit, as a matter of law, illegal trespassing by aliens onto our sovereign territory. Failure to recognize the force of, and failure to support President Trump’s enforcement of, Congressional law apropos of our Nation’s immigration laws—which the President has a Constitutional duty to enforce, pursuant to his Article 2, Section 1 Oath of Office—is demonstrable evidence of Democrat Party disavowal of the Rule of Law that Democrats hypocritically claim to adhere to; peculiarly believing that the public is blind to the Democrats' obvious hypocrisy. That surly, disdainful attitude, dismissive of the import of our immigration laws is bad enough. But the impertinent, imperious and cavalier dismissal of our natural rights and liberties, and utter contempt for the Constitutional imperative demanding that these rights and liberties be treated as sacrosanct and inviolate, is of another order of magnitude. Both factions of the current Democrat Party may accurately be described as anti-Second Amendment—and, broadly, anti-Constitutionalist—Collectivist zealots and fanatics.But what is the explanation for the flurry of recent anti-Second Amendment bills coming out of State Legislatures? We certainly do not see Anti-Second Amendment Collectivist zealots, of late, falling back on their usual pretext for further firearms’ restrictions, namely, “mass shootings,” when pushing for more restrictive firearms legislation targeting the average, rational, responsible, law-abiding firearms' owner, as they have previously done. But, then, there has been a paucity of “mass shootings” of late. And, given the paucity of “mass shootings,” the anti-Second Amendment zealot Collectivists have been unable to rely on their usual pretext for a new wave of expansive firearms restrictions; and they simply do not wish to wait for the next pretextual exigency to occur. Perhaps this explains the recent push by anti-Second Amendment zealots and Collectivists for a new round of restrictive firearms measures.Or perhaps these anti-Second Amendment zealot Collectivists believe they now have sufficient backing from the polity and feel that they longer require a pretext to attack the Second Amendment with renewed vigor.Or, perhaps given the fact, in 2019, of Democrat Party majorities in some State Governments, such as—and most prominently—Virginia and New York, there no longer exists reliance on the heretofore necessary pretext for enactment of more restrictive anti-Second Amendment measures, which we now see rolling out in record numbers.Previously, when Republicans were in the ascendant, it would not have been possible or propitious for these Collectivists to ram through such restrictive anti-Second Amendment measures. They seem to be making up for lost time, for we see, today, a deluge of extraordinarily harsh, overbearing, and outlandish measures being tossed about with careless abandon.Whatever the reason for dispensing with the usual pretext, the recent spate of anti-Second Amendment bills coming out of State Legislatures, principally New York and Virginia, cannot be attributed to the occurrence of a specific tragedy—a knee-jerk reaction to the latest “mass shooting” which had previously been relied on as the obligatory rationale for instituting further restrictive firearms' measures, directed, as they generally were and still are, to the average, rational, law-abiding, responsible American firearms' owner, rather than to such societal luminaries, as your garden-variety career criminal, psychopathic gang member, religious “Allahu Akbar” fanatic, and occasional lunatic.And, so, the anti-Second Amendment zealots, advocates, and adherents of the tenets of Collectivism— heavily financed by Globalist billionaires, intent on creating a one-world political, social, economic, legal, and cultural construct, that they alone control—proceed on their merry way, drafting ever more restrictive firearms measures, targeting the average civilian citizen as they were ever wont to do.The American public is witnessing, today, an exceptionally well-funded, well-organized, precisely engineered, highly coordinated, intensely focused attack against the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms; unleashed with fury and unrestrained irrational ferocity, attributable to anxiety and impatience, no doubt to frustration that, after decades of effort, the Second Amendment still, obstinately exists.Most prominent and visible among the Globalist billionaires involved in heavily financing, orchestrating, and implementing expansive, precision attacks on the Second Amendment, in States across the Country, is Michael Bloomberg. He is the recent addition to the group of Democrat Party U.S. Presidential hopefuls. He has already plowed hundreds of millions of dollars of his own extraordinary wealth into his campaign, and he is prepared to invest hundreds of millions of dollars more.Was it Bloomberg’s personal wish to enter the Democrat Party contest, or did the “Globalist elites” encourage Bloomberg, as one of their own, the Apotheosis of the neoliberal Globalist elite, to enter the fray? Whatever the truth about Bloomberg’s sudden entry into the Democrat Party race, he intends to see it through, and the DNC is bending over backward to push his candidacy forward.Said one source, as reported by  Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire: “Mike will spend whatever it takes to defeat Donald Trump. The nation is about to see a very different campaign than we’ve ever seen before.” But, what is a promise to the establishment Democrat Party Globalist elites, is a threat to Americans who wish to preserve a free Constitutional Republic and their fundamental rights and liberties.Bloomberg is a darling child, the public face and great hope, of the centrist, establishment Globalist Corporatist power elites. These power “elites” are banking on Bloomberg—their proxy—to wrest control from Donald Trump, over the reins of Government, in 2020.The centrist establishment Corporatist neoliberal Globalists are adamant that the U.S. must return to the path that they had set for the Country, decades ago—moving inexorably, ever more quickly, since the early 1990s, toward its transformation—one bespeaking the demise of our Country as an independent sovereign nation, and its inclusion into a one-world system of governance.The Globalist elites’ agenda was rudely interrupted with the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency. But, with implosion of Biden’s campaign, and fear over the ascendancy of the avowed Marxist Socialist, Bernie Sanders, and with dawning awareness of deficiencies inherent in the so-called “moderates,” it is now clear the Globalist elites are impatient, frustrated, and furious over the probability that Trump will indeed be elected to a second term in Office. Such a happenstance is abhorrent to them and absolutely intolerable.So, despite his lack of oratorical polish and obvious dearth of charisma, Michael Bloomberg’s insertion into the race for the Democrat Party nomination, at this late stage, and Bloomberg’s extraordinarily fast rise among those remaining in the race, is a testament to the expansiveness of Bloomberg’s personal monetary resources that has artificially bought for him an enviable position among the present pack of disconcerted front runners who have, themselves, been in the race for months. But it is a testament also of the Neoliberal Globalist elites’ tenacity, temerity, and managerial ability to exert power behind the scenes to insert Bloomberg into the race at a late stage. And it speaks also to the ability of these ruthless, secretive forces to artificially boost Bloomberg's standing in the national polls, through dint of extensive advertisements that no other Democrat Candidate can ever hope of matching. And, Bloomberg has at his command a legion of behind-the-scenes image-makers, campaign pollsters, a bevy of personal advisors and strategists, and spokespeople; ubiquitous stand-ins for Bloomberg himself, effectively making up for Bloomberg's lack of charisma and oratorical ability.The mainstream media, including major cable news networks, radio, and major newspapers, such as the Washington Post and The New York Times have thrown their support to the establishment Globalist, Bloomberg. And we see them, at once, denigrating not only Donald Trump but also Bernie Sanders. And what are they doing? They are making the same tired, imbecilic claims they have made for years: that the Russians are interfering in our elections.But, is it Russian interference in our elections that the American public should be concerned about or is it the Transnational Neoliberal Globalist “elites” whom the public should be concerned about? Since the Neoliberal Globalist elites can “control” neither the President nor Sanders, they evidently hope that by manipulating public thought and behavior—directing attention to the bogeyman, Russia and its leader, Putin—they can induce the electorate to vote in another establishment candidate. If successful, the Neoliberal Globalists will once again move ahead with their agenda to finally cement for the 21^st Century, their goal of a transnational government that they had been on track to realize up until the time their rapid movement toward that goal was rudely interrupted by the election of Trump as U.S. President.The Globalist elites' operational plan requires a Chief Executive, who is either “one of them” such as the Bushes and the Clintons, or is one whom they were able to control, namely Barack Obama. The fact the DNC has, of a sudden rewritten its rules to permit Michael Bloomberg’s inclusion in the race, and to debate on the national stage is demonstrable and irrefutable evidence of the extraordinary power of these ruthless and amoral Corporatist Globalist puppet masters, and evidence also of their reach, across Nations.Will the Transnational Corporatist Globalist Bloomberg become the Democrat Party’s Nominee for U.S. President to take on Trump? Or, will it be the Internationalist Marxist Socialist, Sanders?Whomever it is, the Nation will face complete ruin. For, in either event, the existence of a free Constitutional Republic is incompatible with the ideology of either faction of Collectivism. The framework of the Nation the founders created and fought so hard to foster cannot exist under any world governmental scheme. The Nation will falter and fall.________________________________________________

VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK AT THE FOREFRONT IN ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICA’S SACRED SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT

PART THREE

A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC CAN ONLY PREVAIL WHERE THE CITIZENS ARE ARMED; TAKE AWAY THE CITIZENS FIREARMS, AND A FREE REPUBLIC MUST AND WILL FALL

The State Government of Virginia has wasted no time in waging war against the Second Amendment. Virginia’s Government, long a bastion of support for the Second Amendment, has reversed course with alacrity and speed.With the reelection of the Radical Leftist Anti-Constitutionalist fanatic Ralph Northam, and with Virginia’s Democrats in firm control of the Virginia State Legislature, thanks to Michael Bloomberg’s infusion of millions of dollars into the State elections, the Second Amendment is under concerted attack in Virginia. This turn of events would heretofore have been thought unbelievable. But, with a new wave of people moving into Virginia—those who hate the Second Amendment or who simply see it as irrelevant—and with Bloomberg’s able and substantial financial assistance, a new disturbing reality faces those Virginians who trace their ancestry back to the origins of the Nation.Indeed, it is mystifying and ironic that this old “Commonwealth”—a term which denotes that Virginia truly belongs to the people—no longer does belong to the people. And, that is, evidently, perfectly acceptable to many recent residents of Virginia, who obviously have no appreciation of, or even comprehension, of the Nation's Bill of Rights, and of the critical importance the Bill of Rights has to the very existence of and preservation of a free Constitutional Republic, a Republic where the citizens are truly Sovereign—a fact that no other Nation on Earth can honestly claim for itself.Virginia’s proposed expansive “assault weapon” ban bill—receiving massive pushback, to the surprise and consternation of Northam and other anti-Second Amendment zealots—has been tabled for a year, pending debate. This speaks to the determination, will, and fortitude of Old Virginia.And this brings us now to a discussion of New York. With Andrew Cuomo safely, securely ensconced as New York’s Governor, for yet a third term, and with Democrats now in firm control of the State Legislature in Albany, the Second Amendment is under renewed aggressive, vigorous assault.Cuomo is plowing relentlessly ahead with his anti-Second Amendment agenda. He is not one to accept delay, and he is using the Safe Act, as the framework upon which to launch a further offensive against the Second Amendment.Recall, although the Safe Act is often perceived principally as an Act placing a ban on a substantial number of semiautomatic weapons, the Act is much broader in scope, attacking the right of the people to keep and bear arms on multiple fronts. The Safe Act is New York’s many-headed Hydra beast.Significantly, Cuomo aims, one, to expand both the domain of banned firearms and the domain of Americans who cannot lawfully own and possess them; two, to attack companies and organizations that support the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and, three, to make the ownership and possession of firearms for those few New Yorkers, who can still lawfully own and possess firearms, so oppressive and repressive that they will eventually capitulate and voluntarily forsake the exercise of their sacred right.With Anti-Second Amendment, Anti-Constitutionalist Democrats holding majorities in both the State Senate and Assembly, a full-frontal assault on the Second Amendment is once again rearing its ugly head and is well underway. But, then, Andrew Cuomo promised those who elected him to Office that he would not ease up on his assault on the Second Amendment and would launch an aggressive new offensive against it. He is hell-bent on seeing that effort through, as New York’s “red-flag law” and other insufferable and restrictive  anti-Second Amendment bills sadly but clearly illustrate.

DO YOU WANT A GUN? CUOMO DEMANDS MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION!**

THE NY SAFE ACT INFRINGES EVER FURTHER ON THE CITIZENRY’S UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

New York State Senator, James Sanders, Jr. Democrat, introduced New York Senate Bill 7065, on January 8, 2019.A few days later, on January 15, 2019, New York Assemblyman, Thomas J. Abinanti, introduced a mirror image of the Senate bill, in the New York Assembly: Assembly Bill 1589.These bills are directed to expanding the domain of Americans residing in New York who cannot lawfully own and possess firearms.While this Act does not have a short title descriptor, a synopsis of does set forth its purpose:“AN ACT to amend the general business law, the mental hygiene law and the penal law, in relation to requiring a mental health evaluation prior to the purchase of any firearm, rifle or shotgun.”Further, although this new Act makes no reference to the Safe Act, the allusion to the Safe Act is clear enough, as both bills amend sections of New York’s Consolidated Laws that were first amended in the Safe Act, and they operate to constrict the rights of New York gun owners further. Thus, logically, it is appropriate to consider New York’s Safe Act, and any subsequent restrictive firearms’ measure, as part and parcel of one expansive and unified anti-Second Amendment program, implemented incrementally and systematically to undermine the rights of New York’s gun owners. The aim of the New York anti-Second Amendment agenda is to whittle away at the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to the point that the exercise of it in New York essentially ceases to exist.In that effort to undermine the Second Amendment we see New York doing the following: one, further constricting the types and number of firearms the average American civilian citizen who happens to reside in New York may own and possess; two, further contracting and constraining the domain of individuals in New York who may lawfully own and possess firearms; three, making gun ownership and possession so costly, and the regulations and licensing requirements so confusing and oppressive, among those few remaining civilians who may still lawfully own and possess firearms, that the psychological stressors become overwhelming and gun owners capitulate, voluntarily forfeiting their firearms, foregoing their exercise of the sacred right to keep and bear arms; and four, going after firearms’ manufacturers.Many New York gun owners may simply go “underground” but that opens them up to serious retribution if found out. Thus, they become felons and are no longer lawfully permitted to own and possess firearms in New York: an outcome that Cuomo and the other Anti-Second Amendment Zealot Collectivists find as no less an undesirable outcome. For this will mean the number of New York residents lawfully owning and possessing firearms is effectively, massively reduced.But what is happening in New York and Virginia is a foretaste of what Americans can expect if either the Marxist, Socialist Radical Left and Progressive Democrat Globalists of which Sanders is emblematic, or the Centrist transnational Corporatist Globalists of which Bloomberg is emblematic, take control of our Nation. We will rapidly see the decline and fall of our great Republic. Those of us who wish to preserve our Free Constitutional Republic know that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is absolutely essential to maintenance of that free Constitutional Republic and to the sovereignty of the American people; and to the autonomy of the individual; to the integrity of Self, and to a non-relativistic ethical system grounded in the eternal existence and vigilance of the Divine Creator. We know how President Trump feels. He has been under incessant, vile, relentless attack from the day he entered the Republican Party race for the Party’s nomination for U.S. President, through the point in time he took the Oath of Office, and up to this very moment. There has been no let-up, and there won’t be as long as Trump remains in Office. Similarly, the constant, obdurate attack by those elements both here and abroad who seek to tear down our Nation, and to tear down the very concept of the independent, sovereign nation-state, as evidenced through the artificial, bizarre, oddly cobbled-together EU, know full well that the U.S. can never become a cog of a transformative stateless new world order as long as an armed citizenry exists. The armed citizenry is an impossibility in the EU and in other Governmental constructs, such as exist and persist in the Commonwealth Nations, whose citizens—essentially subjects of the realm—are not permitted to own and possess firearms unless the Government deigns to bestow that privilege onto them, a privilege rarely provided the Hoi Polloi of society; and so, by that fact alone, the populace is perceived to be and is, in fact, dependent on, submissive to, and degraded and subjugated by the Government and will always remain so.______________________________________

WHAT DOES THE PROPOSED NEW YORK ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION BILL SAY?

PART FOUR

The merger of the New York Senate and Assembly bill, if enacted, would amend several sections of the Consolidated Laws of New York.Preeminent among the amendments is proposed Section 898 of the General Business Law of New York.A new proposed subsection of the General Business Law, subsection “1-A” of Section 898 reads: “Before any sale, exchange, or disposal pursuant to this article, a purchaser of any firearm, rifle, or shotgun shall submit to a mental health evaluation and provide the seller with proof of his or her approval to purchase such firearm, rifle or shotgun pursuant to subdivision (M) of Section 7.09 of the Mental Hygiene Law.”Proposed Section “2-A” would apply the same standard to anyone who wishes to sell, exchange, or dispose of a firearm, rifle, or shotgun.Proposed Section 7.09 (M) of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law sets forth the framework for a mental health evaluation:“The Commissioner shall establish within the Office of Mental Health and administrative process for the mental health evaluation of any individual prior to such individual’s purchase of any firearm, rifle or shotgun. The Commissioner shall promulgate regulations to establish the mental health evaluation process which shall include but not limited to provision relation to: (1) the mental health professionals approved to perform such evaluation, (2) the process for evaluation by such mental health professionals and (3) the development of a standardized form to be used by the Mental Health Professional performing such evaluation to approve or deny an individual for purchase of a firearm, rifle or shotgun. The denial of an individual for purchase of any firearm, rifle or shotgun may be reviewed de novo pursuant to the proceedings under Article Seventy-Eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.”For context, keep in mind that Federal law already addresses the mental health issue relevant to firearms ownership and possession. Federal Penal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), says:“It shall be unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”Since federal law has long since established mental health criteria apropos of firearms' ownership and possession, Cuomo's present New York law mental health reporting requirement is not only unnecessary, it is in conflict with Federal statute. Moreover, under Article 6, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, referred to as the “Supremacy Clause,” the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” This means that the federal Government, when exercising any of powers enumerated in the Constitution, prevails over and preempts any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.Federal law places clear and very strict parameters around the use of mental health criteria, related to gun ownership and possession, and does so for very important and obvious reasons. First, the diagnosis of mental health conditions is often highly subjective, as much an art as a science, and deciphering the line between serious and non-serious mental health conditions is not and never has been clear-cut. There is a large, amorphous gray area. Second, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed, as expressly codified the Second Amendment, is a fundamental, immutable, unalienable, and natural right, intrinsic to man’s very being. This means that Government shall respect the right as sacred and inviolate. The infringement of the Second Amendment’s core is forbidden.Careful circumspection of Governmental action against it is essential and must be maintained if Governmental intrusion on the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to pass rigorous, strict Constitutional scrutiny. The NY Safe mental health reporting requirement and the proposed mental health evaluation bill impermissibly infringe upon the rights and liberties of the American people and also violates the Supremacy Clause of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution.To understand how pernicious both the NY Safe mental health reporting requirement and the proposed mental health evaluation bill are, we will drill down into the critical mental health area of both the reporting requirement of the NY Safe Act that has been enacted into law—Section 9.46, Subsection (b) of Article 9 of the Mental Health Law of the Consolidated Laws of New York—and the proposed mental health evaluation requirement, Proposed Section 7.09 (M) of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law. You will come to understand why it is and how it is that the mental health reporting requirement of the NY Safe Act is bad enough, and how it is that, as bad as that reporting requirement is, the proposed addition to the Mental Hygiene Law is substantially worse. You will see how the proposed bill builds upon the present mental health law affecting New Yorkers who simply wish to exercise their Second Amendment right, tightening the noose on those New Yorkers; for it is in New York’s Mental Hygiene Law that things become both interesting and dire.______________________________________________

THE SAFE ACT’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS REPORTING SECTION IS BAD BUT THE PROPOSED MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION BILL, DIRECTED TO WOULD-BE GUN OWNERS, IS MUCH WORSE

PART FIVE

We will now drill down into the critical mental health area of the new restrictive New York gun bill so you can see and truly appreciate the extent to which the proposed bill builds upon the present mental health law affecting New Yorkers who simply wish to exercise their Second Amendment right, tightening the noose on those New Yorkers who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; for it is in New York’s Mental Hygiene Law that things become interesting and dire.

THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT'S MENTAL HEALTH REPORTING REQUIREMENT

When Cuomo signed the New York Safe Act into law in 2013, Section 20 of the Safe Act was codified into law.A new State governmental reporting system was added to the Mental Health Law that did not previously exist. Section 20 of NY Safe, codified in Section 9.46, Subsection (b) of Article 9 of the Mental Health Law of the Consolidated Laws of New York, sets forth:“Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, when a mental health professional currently providing treatment services to a person determines, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, that such person is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others, he or she shall be required to report, as soon as practicable, to the director of community services, or the director’s designee, who shall report to the division of criminal justice services whenever he or she agrees that the person is likely to engage in such conduct. Information transmitted to the division of criminal justice services shall be limited to names and other non-clinical identifying information, which may only be used for determining whether a license issued pursuant to section 400.00 of the penal law should be suspended or revoked, or for determining whether a person is ineligible for a license issued pursuant to section 400.00 of the penal law, or is no longer permitted under state or federal law to possess a firearm.”Section 9.46 (b) of the Mental Health law of New York insinuates itself not only into the Second Amendment but also insinuates itself into the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well. No less Proposed Section 7.09 (M) of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law unconstitutionally infringe upon fundamental rights, but, its impact of those American citizens and residents of New York who wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms is even more intrusive and egregious.

WHAT DOES NEW YORK’S ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION DO?

There is an obvious presumption in favor of maintaining sensitive medical information among medical providers. New Yorkers expect this as does every American. If that were not the case Americans would, quite understandably, be reluctant to divulge such information, especially if doing so might negatively impact the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.But, New York State Government officials have their own agenda—and that agenda is unrelated to the needs and best interests of the individual. And the danger is very real since Government bureaucrats, operating with the “Hive Mentality” of all Collectivists, likely don’t give a damn about the privacy concerns of individual Americans, anyway. And, even if they did care about individual Americans' privacy concerns, they would be obliged to relinquish such concerns consistent with the requirement of their jobs and their wish to hold onto their jobs.Proposed Section 7.09 (M) of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, were it to become law, would permit the State Government to entwine itself extraordinarily deep into medical matters, where it should never go, and it does so, even more so—much more so—than the mental health reporting requirement as set forth in the present New York law.No other State has anything like this or has, to our knowledge, proposed anything, as yet, quite like it. Andrew Cuomo wants New York to be in the vanguard of the most extreme and outrageous anti-Second Amendment measures existent in the Nation and he is succeeding in that endeavor. That was the purpose for Cuomo’s having pushed, quickly through the State legislature, in the dead of night, by emergency decree, sans debate, his New York Safe Act. And that is what informs Cuomo’s actions to this very day. But, you might wish to ask the New York Governor and the other anti-Second Amendment zealots who drafted the mental health evaluation bill why they feel that enactment of this bill is necessary since the Safe Act already requires mental health providers to divulge confidential mental health matters to State Government officials if those providers believe that a patient poses a danger to self or others.Keep in mind Section 9.46, Subsection (b) of Article 9 of the Mental Health Law of the Consolidated Laws of New York, itself, impermissibly infringes upon fundamental rights and liberties and impermissibly infringes on the Supremacy Clause of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution as well. The application of Section 9.46, Subsection (b) of Article 9 of the Mental Health Law of the Consolidated Laws of New York, isn’t clear-cut either. For, drawing a medical conclusion as to whom poses a clear and present danger to others is often highly subjective; and reporting confidential information to New York State Government officials would likely create a chilling effect as New York residents could reasonably think twice before visiting a mental health provider since they must know that sensitive medical matters could wend their way into State Government records. And that fact could have potentially devastating impact on their lives, and in myriad ways that go well beyond the ownership and possession of firearms.Even so, one may well ask why Governor Cuomo and anti-Second Amendment New York State Legislators felt it necessary to interfere further in a citizen’s personal medical matters anyway, since federal law already forbids the seriously mentally ill from owning and possessing firearms, and does so, unlike the New York bill, by striking a very delicate balance between the fundamental right of individuals to own and possess firearms and the obvious right of everyone else to remain safe from dangers posed by the criminally insane. But we know the answer to that question, don’t we?Cuomo and New York’s anti-Second Amendment zealots so abhor the Second Amendment, that they have shown no reticence from treading willy-nilly on the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans, and on the centuries-old doctor-patient relationship, and upon common ethical standards of human behavior that recognizes the sanctity and inviolability of the individual and the inherent right to privacy. Cuomo’s Government recognizes no such inherent right of privacy, and recognizes no inherent right of the citizen to own and possess firearms, and cares not one whit about the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship where that relationship happens to touch upon or can conceivably touch upon exercise of the one's fundamental right to own and possess firearms. Cuomo’s Government is a prime example of the manner in which the ideology of Collectivism operates. Proponents of Collectivism will always run roughshod over individual rights and liberties. They deny outright the autonomy of the individual. They subordinate the individual completely to the dictates of the State, and they will invariably subjugate the polity to the perceived needs of the Greater Society, the Collective, the Hive.The New York Safe Act and New York's new mental health evaluation bill opens the floodgates to impermissible Constitutional infringement of a fundamental right from the get-go, unconstitutionally infringing exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms of every New York firearm's owner: tens of thousands of New Yorkers.

THERE IS ANOTHER REASON CUOMO AND THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT LEGISLATORS WISH TO ENACT THE MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION PROPOSAL INTO LAW AND THAT REASON ALLUDES TO THE TRUE HORROR OF THE  MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION PROPOSAL WERE IT TO BECOME LAW.

As horrible as the New York Safe Act reporting requirement is, the mental health evaluation bill is many times worse. The NY Safe Act requirement depends upon mental health provider acquiescence to the reporting law.Under the provision of the New York Safe Act, the mental health provider must weigh the centuries-old sacred doctor-patient privacy right against a modern-day assault by Collectivist ideologues, who, abhorring the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, care not that the centuries-old sacred trust between a patient and his physician—and by extension, as between a mental health provider who may not have an M.D. degree but who is nonetheless a confidante of sensitive, personal medical information—has gone by the wayside.Cuomo and other Anti-Second Amendment zealots must have realized that mental health providers might very well be reluctant to violate a sacred trust between physician and patient--as doing so would be detrimental to the health and well-being of the patient, and contrary to the faith the patient has placed in his medical provider that the patient's sensitive medical information will remain confidential, and contrary to the rights and liberties codified in the U.S. Constitution. After all, there is an obvious presumption in favor of maintaining sensitive medical information. In fact, New Yorkers may, quite understandably, avoid conveying embarrassing and sensitive personal information to their physician or mental health provider if they believe such information can and will be divulged to New York State Government officials who have their own agenda—unrelated to the needs and best interests of the individual. That concern is very real, since Government bureaucrats, consistent with the “Hive Mentality” of Collectivists, likely don’t give a damn about the needs and concerns of individual Americans. And, even if they did care about the individual Americans' privacy, they would be obliged to relinquish such concerns consistent with the requirement of their jobs and their wish to hold onto their jobs.So, realizing that the mental health reporting requirements would not, or could not, and, perhaps, have not, yielded the results they wanted, the Anti-Second Amendment Collectivist zealots went back to the drawing board and devised a new scheme to avoid the problems inherent in the mental health reporting requirement as it presently exists. The scheme cunningly devised, as illustrated in the new mental health evaluation bill, essentially dispenses with the need for the New York Safe Act's mental health reporting requirement since New York State administrators, or those mental health practitioners working directly for the State Government, insinuate themselves directly into the firearms acquisition process in the first instance, obviating the need for mental health providers to get involved in the second instance.If the mental health evaluation bill were enacted into law, a person who wishes to acquire, sell, exchange or dispose of a firearm must undergo a mental health evaluation, irrespective of any ongoing relationship a person may have with a personal mental health provider.Behind this bizarre and sinister proposal--truly an enterprise--is an obvious desire of anti-Second Amendment zealots, such as Cuomo, to strongly discourage anyone from possessing a firearm. For, if an individual realizes that he or she must undergo a mental health evaluation that will forever be part of the State records, that person may have second thoughts about obtaining a firearm in the first place. Cuomo, along with the Legislative team that drafted the mental health evaluation measure, must have known this, and anticipating the results, are hopeful that many would-be firearms' owners would voluntarily forsake exercise of their fundamental right. After all, it would be far easier for Cuomo's Government if law-abiding New York residents were simply discouraged from being compelled to jump through the labyrinthine hurdles of obtaining a firearm at the get-go than it would be and, in fact has been, to attempt to divest New Yorkers of their firearms after the fact, when they would be more averse to do so. Cuomo, along with the Legislative team that drafted the mental health evaluation measure, would have known this—in fact, must have known this—hence the reason for proposing such a bill at all.If the mental health evaluation bill were enacted into law, a person wishing to acquire, sell, exchange or dispose of a firearm, must, at the inception, undergo a mental health evaluation, irrespective of any ongoing relationship that some individuals may have with a personal mental health provider. Such a scheme is extremely pernicious, even diabolical.Sure, the present NY Safe Act's mental health reporting requirement is, itself unconstitutional. But, if Cuomo and the other anti-Second Amendment zealots feel secure in the knowledge that the law will withstand legal action in New York’s State and federal Courts, they would certainly feel convinced of their invulnerability and invincibility and will be brazen enough to propose and enact increasingly more outrageous firearms’ measures. That may well explain how New York's mental health evaluation bill happened to be crafted in the first place._______________________________________________

NEW YORK’S MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION BILL FOR WOULD-BE GUN OWNERS RAISES A “RED FLAG” OF ITS OWN

PART SIX

The proposed New York mental health evaluation bill, like the Safe Act of 2013, before it, is facially unconstitutional. It likely would be contested on Constitutional grounds were it to become law, and it likely would survive attack when brought before New York’s anti-Second Amendment federal and State Court jurists, who generally hold a jaundiced view of the Second Amendment.So, with a plethora of anti-Second Amendment jurists presently sitting on State and Federal Benches, we would expect to see this unconstitutional firearms' measure passing Constitutional scrutiny in the State and Federal trial and appellate courts, as have so many other measures, were New York's mental health evaluation bill to come before New York courts, once challenged, after enactment. And, there is no guarantee the U.S. Supreme Court would even take up the case on a Writ of Certiorari. And, even if the high Court did take the case up on appeal, resolution of high Court cases takes time and considerable sums of money to battle. Cuomo knows this.Still, we can only hope that enough New York Legislators will seriously consider the dire ramifications of the New York mental health evaluation bill before voting to enact it sans debate. They may take their cue from Legislators in Virginia who, fortunately, have, voted to table the ludicrous, “assault weapons” bill, at least for a time, to give Legislators an opportunity to debate it before voting to enact it.But, as for New York's mental health evaluation bill, the Arbalest Quarrel would like to give New York's Legislators a heads-up on this score.To fully appreciate the full extent of New York’s latest horror that anti-Second Amendment zealots, proponents, and fanatics would love to see enacted, we delineate below some of the specific problems with it; pertinent questions that can be legitimately raised about it; legal and ethical concerns that operate against it; and matters that ought to be addressed before the New York Senate and Assembly vote on it.First, Cuomo has said the NY Safe Act is designed to prohibit “dangerously mentally ill” persons from purchasing a gun. Is not the intent behind this bill nothing less than a presumptuous, arrogant attempt to unconstitutionally expand the domain of people who are to be denied possession of firearms? Keep in mind that Federal law already prohibits gun ownership and possession by individuals who have been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental health hospital, i.e., the dangerously mentally ill, that Cuomo refers to. Yet New York’s proposed amendment attempts to skirt Federal law by potentially prohibiting anyone who has even a scintilla of “mental health issues” from possessing a firearm. This is an implicit presumption of the bill and indicative of Cuomo's intention and that of the like-minded anti-Second Amendment Collectivist New York Legislators' to use the NY Safe Act as a building block upon which they seek to enlarge New York's massive, tottering Anti-Second Amendment structure.Second, would retired police officers come within the purview of the bill? If not, why not?Third, who would design the battery of mental health tests?Fourth, how extensive would the mental health evaluation process be?Fifth, would the person who desires to obtain a firearm be responsible for remitting payment for the mental health evaluation process, or would taxes be raised on, and the costs borne by, the entire New York population to cover the cost of these new administrative procedures?Sixth, what is the proposed cost for designing the evaluation process and implementing it? Wouldn’t it be advisable to do a feasibility study to ascertain the costs of designing, implementing, and administering this program before enacting the bill into law?Seventh, who would administer the tests: A psychologist? A psychiatrist? A team of mental health practitioners? An Administrator who has no mental health training, for example, a police officer?Eighth, how would a mental health practitioner determine the relationship between the mere desire to possess a firearm and the mental health acuity of the individual who desires to possess a firearm? In that regard, might not the mere desire to possess a firearm be construed as suggestive of mental deficiency? In fact, is this not the rationale behind the bill, evidencing its ulterior motive?Ninth, would mental health tests extend to and be permitted to probe a person’s present life situation in minute detail; and, if so, would not that infringe on the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?Tenth, suppose a person is presently seeing a mental health practitioner or had, at one time, seen a mental health practitioner; or, perhaps, a person is taking antidepressant medications or had, at one time, taken such medications associated with mental or emotional conditions. Would questions be directed to probe and elicit that information? If so, would that not illegally invade a person’s privacy and unlawfully impinge upon the sacred doctor-patient relationship? And, would not such an evaluation impermissibly intrude upon and undermine the treatment of the patient by his or her own physician or mental health practitioner if the patient is undergoing treatment?Eleventh, how extensive would the mental health evaluation be? What would the test components comprise? Twelfth, would Government officials assess the statistical validity and reliability of those mental health evaluation tests that are devised, before their implementation, assuming new tests are constructed? If not, why not? And, who would assess the statistical validity and reliability of such mental health evaluation tests employed? Further, if Government officials make use of presently existing mental health tests of purposes of the proposed bill, wouldn’t those tests still need required scrutiny to ascertain their applicability to firearms ownership and possession?Thirteenth, who would be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of these new mental evaluative test records and, would the individual’s personal physician or mental health practitioner have access to them? Would the person being evaluated be able to obtain a copy of or at least be able to view his or her mental health evaluation records? If not, why not?Fourteenth, what recourse would examinees have whose confidentiality is violated? Would examinees even know whether the records of their mental health evaluation had been misused, misplaced, hacked into, lost, stolen, or wrongly distributed or disseminated to individuals, Government agencies, private entities, academia, or the CDC, contrary to law or procedure? Would the New York State Government have a legal duty to inform the examinee of such loss or misallocation of sensitive, confidential, personal records? Would the examinee have legal recourse to obtain damages?Fifteenth, on what grounds might one appeal an adverse result, and what would be the costs of de novo review? And who would be required to bear those costs?Sixteenth, what is the time frame between setting up an evaluation process and obtaining the results of an evaluation?Seventeenth, can the mental health evaluation be reviewed and overturned by one’s own physician or mental health practitioner? If not, why not?Eighteenth, why should a person who has received an adverse decision be required to go to Court to obtain a reversal of an adverse decision? Why isn’t there a mechanism for a less costly and time-consuming intermediate administrative appeal process as there exists, for example, in present New York City handgun licensing rules and regulations?Nineteenth, after the mental evaluation process has concluded, and a person has passed the mental health evaluation process, what are the post-administrative steps?Twentieth, why must it be necessary for a person who has passed a mental health examination to be repeatedly required to take another mental health evaluation for every instance in which a firearm is purchased, exchanged, or disposed of? Would not this requirement be deliberately oppressive and also unnecessarily expensive, and unnecessarily administratively burdensome? Moreover, undergoing a mental health evaluation at all may work in ways that have negative unintended or intended consequences after the fact. Have such possible consequences been explored? If not, why not?Consider, for example, a person who has undertaken a mental health evaluation, and, then, whether passing the examination or not, happens to move to another jurisdiction. That jurisdiction may inquire of a person whether that person has ever had a mental health evaluation. The New York mental health evaluation may follow that person wherever he or she goes. And there is nothing in the bill, as presently drafted, that would prevent the New York State Government from divulging to another State Government, or to the Federal Government, the results of such mental health evaluations—especially, those suggesting negative outcomes—when, perhaps, a person seeks to obtain a firearm in another jurisdiction.All sorts of negative results ensue from this New York mental health evaluation bill were it to become law.Above, delineated, are just some of the legitimate concerns and questions that can be raised. There are certainly dozens more. But, as with the original Safe Act, and with other restrictive gun laws, we see Cuomo—and other anti-Second Amendment fanatics, who express a fervent desire to enact ever more restrictive, outrageous, or duplicative anti-Second Amendment laws in their own jurisdictions—again perfunctorily side-stepping the critical legal, ethical, Constitutional, and administrative ramifications of, and issues attendant to the measures he wishes to impose on American citizens who reside in New York.This callous disregard for the principle of fundamental fairness and for the sanctity of Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties isn’t alone peculiar to anti-Second Amendment proposals of Radical Leftists like Cuomo. It is characteristic of all those who espouse the Collectivist vision of governance.Cuomo and other self-righteous Radical Leftists are so convinced of their own moral superiority, and invincibility to criticism, and so invested in their smug self-assurance that it is little wonder they would tread on the rights and liberties of Americans with impunity—all to effectuate their new Collectivist vision on the Nation and to thrust their beliefs on everyone else. Radical Leftists don’t concern themselves with the Constitutional framework of a free Republic. Why should they? After all, they intend to dismantle it!Anti-Constitutionalist, Anti-American legislators, bureaucrats, jurists, and academicians treat the Constitution as if it were a compilation of mere rules of antiquated etiquette rather than an inviolate framework of governance; and they believe that the fundamental, immutable rights and liberties incorporated into the Constitution can be modified, set aside, or even dispensed with altogether in furtherance of their grand vision. And, what is their vision? It is a Socialist nightmare they intend to impose on the entire Nation. To make their Dystopian vision for the Nation a reality, these Anti-Constitutionalist Collectivists intend to systematically deny all average, law-abiding, rational, responsible Americans their unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Governor Cuomo and the rest of these Radical Leftist Collectivists are working feverishly to see that their vision for the Nation becomes a reality; and in short order.Implementation of New York’s recent Anti-Second Amendment mental health evaluation bill is representative of New York's Cuomo most recent attempt to unconstitutionally and unconscionably constrain the exercise of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. This recent bill is unseemly, unwarranted, and demonstrably inconsistent with our Constitution and our heritage as Americans. The bill is extraordinarily bizarre, predicated on a phobic fear of anti-Second Amendment zealots that every American is potentially a psychopathic criminal or psychotic maniac, or that an American will be magically transformed into an irrational, raving lunatic--a maniac on the prowl, looking for people to shoot--merely given that a person happens to own and possess a firearm. Upon perusal of New York’s mental health evaluation bill, one cannot but conclude it has been devised by fevered, paranoid minds that, may, themselves, do well to obtain a mental health evaluation from a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, to get to the root of the problem concerning their own singular abhorrence of the Nation's Second Amendment and of their own peculiar, pathological fear of firearms and of those law-abiding Americans who happen to own and possess them._____________________________________________*Regular readers of the Arbalest Quarrel know that we review previous articles posted, making changes and corrections with some frequency. However, on very rare occasions, when amendments are extensive and where we rethink the content presented, we will delete the original article from our site and substitute that article with the reworked article. We have done so here. We apologize to our readers and hope that it does not cause undue consternation._____________________________________________**The Arbalest Quarrel wishes to acknowledge David LaPell’s timely reporting of this matter which he brought to the attention of Ammoland Readers on January 29, 2020. AQ takes an especial interest in New York’s restrictive gun laws, having written several articles on Cuomo’s NY Safe Act of 2013. Our present article on New York's new troubling, extraordinarily restrictive firearms' proposal, negatively impacting any law-abiding citizen, who simply wishes to exercise his or her fundamental, immutable, unalienable right to own and possess firearms, is not a rehash of David’s excellent exposition, but a supplement to it.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

MITT ROMNEY, THE NATION’S JUDAS, NOW CROWNED HARLEQUIN KING BY DEMOCRATS

A MESSAGE FOR MITT ROMNEY

With your vote to remove U.S. President Donald Trump, you have betrayed your oath; you have betrayed your Nation; you have betrayed the Constitution; and you have betrayed the American people.You must know the President is a staunch defender of our fundamental rights and liberties. Most importantly President Trump is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and is committed to preserving the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. As our founders knew, a free Republic without an armed citizenry is undone.If you had any integrity and common sense you would realize your duty to vote for acquittal. You should have done so. You did not.You might think that voting to acquit the President on one false charge but voting to convict the President on a second false charge absolves you of your treachery. It does not.You cannot “split the difference” here, much as you wish. You do not have the wisdom of King Solomon who, in order to determine a baby’s true mother, among two women each of whom claimed the baby for herself, suggested splitting a baby in two. Of course, the true mother would plead, and did plead, for the baby’s life to be spared. The false mother agreed to have the baby killed. King Solomon then gave the baby to the true mother.Your attempted gambit to appease both Republicans and Democrats has not worked. It never could. You have appeased no one, and you have fooled no one, except, perhaps, yourself.You thought you would appear reasonable, honorable, even righteous to the Senate and to the public. Instead, you come across as you really are, smarmy, shifty, vindictive, self-righteous, hiding behind a false cloak of piety, morality, and religion.On the floor of the U.S. Senate, you talked about the oath you took as a U.S. Senator. This is what you said:“As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise ‘impartial justice.’ I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.”You were “not wrong?” Really?When you say you are “not wrong” to vote to convict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors, you are also saying that your fellow Republican Senators, to a person, are wrong, in having voted to acquit the President; and that tens of millions of Americans who elected Donald Trump to serve as the President were wrong in placing their faith in him.Did you not see the President’s Defense team successfully tear the arguments of Schiff and Nadler to shreds? Is it not clear to you that the impeachment and attempted removal of the President from Office was a sham from the start?Can you not see that Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and the other Radical Left members of the deformed, mutated Democrat Party, desire to destroy our Constitutional Republic and to destroy the sacred rights and liberties of the American people.Can you not grasp that the Radical Left cannot destroy a Constitutional Republic until they first destroy President Trump who is a bulwark of our Nation’s freedoms and liberties?Do you not see what is plain to every other American? Can you not see that Democrats’ desire to impeach and remove Trump from Office was not based on any action he had taken while in Office but was a part of the Democrats’ design to undermine the Constitution before Trump even took the Oath of Office?Can you not see that these Democrats are once again hatching more schemes to prevent the President from performing his duties? Can you not see the dangers these Democrats pose to the security of our Nation, where the American people are sovereign, not Government?You have allowed your own passions to override your reason and have joined forces with the enemy from within.If you could not stomach the thought of acquitting the U.S. President because of your own personal animosity toward him, why didn’t you at least think about what your actions might do to the entirety of the Nation; to its people, and to the U.S. Constitution before casting a vote to convict the President of the United States on a bogus charge of “Obstruction of Congress.”Is it any wonder the Demo-wrecking crew Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and the other swarm of oily Democrats, along with their friends in the seditious media, would seemingly welcome you with open arms into their ranks, to be employed as their useful tool. Your hypocrisy and duplicity are on full display before the Nation, as are the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Radical Left Democrats. You belong with each other.Better it would have been if you had never entered politics. But, having done so, your best recourse is to resign from the U.S. Senate. We suggest you go back to your work in private equity, serving your own needs, and not pretend like the hypocritical and duplicitous Democrats, to serve the needs of the Country and its people.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

RADICAL ELEMENTS HAVE HIJACKED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND WILL ABOLISH GUN RIGHTS AND OUR OTHER NATURAL, RIGHTS IF THEY REGAIN THE WHITE HOUSE AND U.S. SENATE

PART ONE

The Radical Left has hijacked the Democrat Party. That fact is clear and irrefutable. The Democrats have misused the impeachment clause of Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution in a calculated attempt to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. They sought to undo it. To further show their contempt for the U.S. Constitution and for the Second Branch of the Federal Government, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in a presumptuous attempt to control the Senate trial, has withheld submission of the impeachment charges for weeks. That has now changed as Pelosi’s gambit has not paid off. The Republican-controlled Senate refused to play her game and has made clear it will dismiss the charges against Trump outright if Pelosi were to hold onto the impeachment charges indefinitely.Pelosi knows that impeachment is and was a sham from the get-go and that the Republican-controlled Senate will not convict Trump. It is nothing more than a naked attempt to delegitimize the 2016 election and to scuttle Trump’s election to a second term in Office in 2020. That was the true reason for and purpose behind Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump. Pelosi obviously doesn’t want to dilute the impact of the unconstitutional actions of the Democrat Party stooges, Schiff and Nadler, by deigning to pass an impeachment trial to the Senate, over which she has no control.A Senate trial will do nothing positive for Democrats except to expose, glaringly, the specious nature of the charges against the President. As the New York Post recently reported, Pelosi probably regrets capitulating to the Party’s Radical Left base and wishes the Democrat Party contrived impeachment nonsense would just go away.Trying desperately to save face, she is left spewing a vapid, childish “so there” comment, damning the President and thumbing her nose at the Senate: “This president is impeached for life regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of Mitch McConnell. . . . There is nothing the Senate can do to ever erase that.”The raison d’être of the Democrat Party and its bullhorn, the mainstream media, is quite simple really: drive a wedge between the American people and Donald Trump, to foreclose his reelection to a second four-year term in 2020. And it has always been thus; since the very day of Trump’s inauguration, which saw intimations of a takeover of the Democrat Party by Radical Left, Marxist, Socialist, and Communist elements.So, Americans do need to worry. No question. They have need to worry about a Democrat Party victory in 2020, were Democrats to control both the Executive Branch and both Houses of Congress.It isn’t enough that Radical Left elements have hijacked the Party and control the House. If Democrats succeed in winning the Presidency in 2020, and if they take control of the Senate, as well, they will hijack the Nation, too.How will they do this? The answer is clear. They intend to dismember the U.S. Constitution, stone by stone—a goal that had been quietly underway in Barack Obama’s administration and was to continue under a Hillary Clinton administration.Democrats, of course, deny this. Indeed, they claim they support the Constitution and to operate within the confines of it, but their agenda tells a much different story even as Democrats claim disingenuously to adhere to the dictates of the Constitution and to the Rule of Law. It is all pretense to suggest they do. They don’t.

DEMOCRATS’ AGENDA TO RESHAPE OUR NATION IN ACCORD WITH THE SOCIALIST TENETS OF COLLECTIVISM IS REFLECTED IN A PATHOLOGICAL DESIRE TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Democrats’ incessant assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, never truly in abeyance, has gathered steam since the early 1990s. The public has evidence aplenty of Democrats’ strong aversion to the Second Amendment.What is taking place, recently, in Virginia is a microcosm of what Americans can expect if the Democrats take control of the entire Nation.The first order of business for the Northam administration and the Democrat-controlled Virginia Legislature is to emasculate the Second Amendment right of Virginians--as citizens of the United States, not simply as residents of the State of Virginia--to keep and bear arms. Democrats, who now hold majority control of the Virginia State Government, are attacking the Second Amendment through the enactment of a flurry of antigun laws. Their reprehensible actions would appall the framers of the U.S. Constitution.Nothing speaks more plainly of the faith the framers placed upon it than the inclusion of the Second Amendment within it. And through the words of it, the framers made clear the sovereignty of the American people over Government; and the sanctity of each American soul. But these ideas are anathema to the proponents of Collectivism which the Democratic Party leadership and Radical Left elements within the Party in Congress and in the States, ascribe to. They intend to destroy the Second Amendment even as the natural right embodied in it—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—rests wholly beyond the lawful power of Government to regulate out of existence and eradicate outright.

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS IN OUR NATION PRETEND, HYPOCRITICALLY AND DUPLICITOUSLY TO VALUE OUR CONSTITUTION

Contemplate how the Radical Left claims, cunningly, craftily, to adulate Democracy, to uphold Democratic principles, yet eschews all reference to our Nation as the Constitutional Republic, which it is. The Daily Signal makes the point, too, that our Nation is a Republic, not a Direct Democracy. There are specific, meaningful differences. Emphasizing its zest for and extolling the virtues for democratic principles but, at once, avoiding reference to the expression ‘Republic’ isn’t an accident. Through its stranglehold on the Democrat Party, the Radical Left intends to upend our Republic. It intends to subvert our Constitution and to convert our Nation into one controlled by Leftist power brokers, a Socialist autocratic oligarchy. A ponderous Socialist Government would pretend to take its cue from the majoritarian mob, but that is subterfuge as the Radical Left controls and manipulates the masses through control of the media and through Government largess: all of it a sham.As for those Americans not so easily seduced through propaganda, a Leftist Government oligarchy intends to disarm the citizenry, leaving it defenseless, preyed upon by an unshackled criminal class and wholly dependent on Government to provide the populace with a modicum of protection, altogether inadequate and inept.

THE THREAT TO PRESERVATION OF OUR FREE REPUBLIC IS BOTH PLAIN AND PERVASIVE

Do you think Democrats’ threat to the preservation of our free Republic is farfetched? It isn’t. Not at all. Consider how Democrats through a seditious media have designed, since the inception of Trump’s Presidency, to attack and to warp our view of Government, of our history, of our culture, of our Judeo-Christian ethic—indeed of our very Selves, as a unique, proud, independent-minded and resourceful people. But, the Radical Left Democrat Party leadership and proponents of the tenets of Collectivism—will have none of that. They want none of it.The new wave of Democrats—comprising Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Leftist anarchist, and so-called New Progressive Left ideologues—working with their fellow travelers in the EU, intend to introduce and induce massive societal upheaval in our Nation. They seek to implement a transnational social, political, economic, and cultural construct—one wholly compatible with their wild and bizarre schemes and policies. But to succeed with a transformation of society, consistent with the Collectivist vision of reality, they must first rid themselves of the template the Founders utilized in constructing our Nation: the U.S. Constitution.Our Constitution, though, is no small thing. But for it, our Nation would cease to exist, as our Nation is nothing without it. This isn’t hyperbole. It is an ice-cold fact. The U.S. Supreme Court made this very point:“The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270 (1990).The Democrat Party leadership and Radical Left elements in the Democrat Party, in media, in academia, in the Government Bureaucracy, in State and Federal and in the various sectors of commerce know this to be true. This explains why they desire to upend the Constitution, for the structure of our Government and the natural rights of the American people underlying that structure are inconsistent with the tenets of Collectivism.Thus, they demonstrate both fear and contempt for the Constitution. Preservation and strengthening of it are inconsistent with the Collectivist view of a world—a world devoid of independent, sovereign nation-states and a world devoid of a nation-state especially like our own: one consisting as the true Constitutional Republic.__________________________________________

PART TWO

THE RADICAL LEFT’S AGENDA FOR OUR NATION IS SMUG AND AMBITIOUS: NOT SIMPLY CONTENT TO ATTACK PORTIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, THEY WISH TO RETIRE AND REPLACE IT, BEGINNING WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Recall, it wasn’t long ago that retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, remarked that the Second Amendment should be redrafted to make clear and unequivocal that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not an individual, unalienable, immutable right. Stevens authored a book audaciously titled, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” In it, he proclaimed the need for a massive redraft of the Bill of Rights. Disagreeing with the idea of a set of fundamental, immutable, natural rights implicit in it, he wished to replace it, to reflect his vision of the world, one at odds with the vision of the framers.In his book, Stevens devotes attention to the Second Amendment to reflect his philosophy, his vision of America. His remarks constitute a vehement denunciation of the Heller rulings—as penned by the late eminent high Court Justice, Antonin Scalia—a strong denunciation Stevens dared not articulate in his dissent to the Heller decision.But, on further reflection, Stevens evidently felt that a substantial redraft of the Second Amendment would be insufficient to set the Country on the course he sought: one cohering with the tenets of Collectivism. So, he went further. He argued for the outright abolition of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. The left-wing Magazine Time, citing John Paul Stevens’ Op-Ed appearing in The New York Times, wrote:“Retired Associate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has an idea for addressing gun violence in America: repeal the Second Amendment.”Unfortunately, John Paul Stevens isn’t the only Supreme Court Justice who has condemned and has exhibited contempt for the Constitution the framers gave to us. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who presently sits on the Supreme Court, has also espoused little regard for our Constitution. The Daily Signal took Ginsburg to task:“Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution.Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s ‘respect’ for the Constitution. . . for example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as the model for Egypt’s new government. The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is ‘a rather old constitution.’ Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are ‘much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.’ Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining influence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to ‘Windows 3.1’—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant. Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although first articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature. The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that creates a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times.”Slightly over a year ago, the National Review pointed out that, with the various changes Democrats would like to make to the U.S. Constitution, they dared not mention, at that time, what they really are after. They realize that to make their Collectivist nightmare of America a reality, it is necessary to do away with the Constitution as it is the framework for our Constitutional Republic, which they seek to undo.But even as Congressional Democrats do not, at least at the moment, talk expressly of rewriting the U.S. Constitution in its entirety, the Democrats’ bullhorn, the mainstream media, has shown no such reluctance in doing so: proclaiming what the Collectivist world view requires.The Leftist magazine, Harper’s, emblazoned its October 2019 cover with an incredibly audacious question, as the lead-in to the magazine’s featured article, “Do We Need the Constitution?”Perusing the article, the reader comes to understand that the question is not only audacious; it is rhetorical. A subtitle within the magazine makes that clear, as Harpers presumptuously asks: “Has America’s founding document become the nation’s undoing?” Several Radical Left academic luminaries, namely Donna Edwards, Mary Anne Franks, David Law, Lawrence Lessig, and Louis Michael Seidman, address the presumed and misplaced—as they see it—subservience of the Nation to the U.S. Constitution. Harpers’ readers are obviously supposed to take on faith that the arguments evinced are logically sound, reasonable, and profound. But even a perfunctory analysis makes clear enough that the remarks amount to nothing more than sophistry, a collective superficial polemic, scarcely hiding the academicians’ contempt for the very framework of our Nation. Consider: how is it that Harpers and the Radical Left academicians would reconcile abandonment of a Constitution, one that has stood the test of time, with the idea implicit in the concept of "Rule of Law" that they apparently subscribe to and to the notion that they would ostensibly also ascribe to, namely that, in our Constitutional Republic, we, as Americans are ruled by law, not by men? Without a Constitution, as the backbone of our body of law built up over time, how might the American citizenry fare, under a new transnational system of governance--one predicated on Collectivist tenets that, at their core, eschew the dignity, sanctity, and inviolability of the individual?The slippery slope of incessant, incendiary, insufferable Leftist attacks on various parts of the Constitution in the Harpers’ feature article, ends with a proclamation in response to the rhetorical question, do we need the U.S. Constitution? “No we don’t need this U.S. Constitution at all”—which is to say, the concept of our Sovereign Independent Nation-State, as a Constitutional free, Democratic Republic, as laid out in our “rather old Constitution,” as Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserts, is too old-hat, to continue to exist and should be replaced: but replaced with what exactly? Through the words and actions of the Democrat Party leadership, along with the words and actions of Radical Left elements within the Party and within the greater society at large, and with the policy prescriptions of the Democrat Party Candidates for U.S. President, as mentioned in the Party debates, the American people should have a pretty good clue what these people they have in mind for the Nation if they gain the reins of power.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CAN WE, AS INDIVIDUALS, RELY ON THE POLICE TO PROTECT US? A REPRISE OF OUR EARLIER ARTICLE

MULTI SERIES ARTICLE: CAN AMERICANS TRULY RELY ON THE POLICE TO PROTECT THEM?

A FURTHER LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF POLICE DUTY IN THIS PRESENT ERA OF SENSELESS, INCESSANT, REPREHENSIBLE ATTACKS ON THE POLICE AND UPON THOSE AMERICANS WHO, UNHINDERED, WISH TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN PHYSICAL SAFETY AND WELL-BEING THROUGH EXERCISE OF THEIR NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

PART ONE

WHAT IS THE DUTY OF A COMMUNITY’S POLICE FORCE TOWARD A CITIZEN WHOSE LIFE IS IN IMMINENT THREAT OF ATTACK?

Do the police have a legal duty to come to the immediate assistance of an innocent American whose life is in imminent danger if the police are notified of that imminent danger? We had asked this question in a previous article, and ask it once again in light of present Leftist attacks on both the police and upon those American civilian citizens who wish to exercise their natural and fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Although the responses to the aforesaid question will be varied, as we noted, we expect that many people—perhaps most—would respond with the following: “that’s a silly question; of course, the police have a duty, and that is their job, to come to the immediate assistance of an innocent American whose life is in imminent danger.” For many people, the answer to the question may seem so obvious as to make the question itself rhetorical. But is it? For those people who are unarmed, and who choose not to possess firearms, the police, who are armed, are in the best position to secure the physical safety of unarmed civilian citizens, and such people fully expect the police to come to their assistance if they notify the police of an imminent threat to their life and safety.But take a closer look at the question. Focus on the word, ‘legal duty.’ The question posed is distinct from another question we might have asked: Would you expect the police to come to the immediate assistance of an innocent American whose life is in imminent danger if the police are notified of that imminent danger? Many Americans, certainly those who abhor firearms and who would never think of possessing a firearm, conflate the two questions. And, that is understandable, if presumptuous, as many Americans, even those who do exercise the natural right of self-defense through possession of a firearm would invariably expect the police to respond immediately to a “911” emergency.But, even if that expectation seems reasonable, is that expectation misplaced? Suppose the police don’t timely respond to an emergency, or, for one reason or another, the police do not respond at all. And, suppose the failure to protect results in injury or death to that person.Does the injured party have a cause of action in negligence against the police? And if death results, does the deceased’s estate have a cause of action for wrongful death, against the police? To answer these questions, we must pose another, but a more basic question that we had begun to deal with in our previous article. So——

WE AGAIN ASK: HAS SOCIETY PLACED THE BURDEN OF PROTECTING THE LIFE AND WELL-BEING OF EACH AMERICAN, ON THE POLICE?

The answer is “unequivocally, and demonstrably no.” The police do not have a legal duty to come to the assistance of any American even if notified of an imminent threat to the life and well-being of that individual. And that legal position is true today, as it was true decades—even centuries—ago, at the birth of our Nation. Yet the mainstream media and Leftist politicians routinely keep the public in the dark about this. That is bad. But worse, they lie to the public about this. That is despicable. Here and there, however, the truth does come out but only if the American people pay close attention. Unfortunately, most Americans do not pay attention to the import and purport of our laws, and the public must dig deep to learn the truth. So——Thirty years ago, Stephen L. D’Andrilli, co-founder of the Arbalest Quarrel, and David B. Kopel, writer, attorney, and Constitutional law expert provided an answer to this question. They laid out the unblemished truth. They co-authored an article, titled, “Personal Safety: Individual Responsibility.” The article appeared in the May 1989 issue of “Women and Guns.” In the article the authors made clear both the state of the law and the dire consequences of the law, notably where the lives of women are endangered and the police do nothing to protect them. What Messrs. Kopel and D'Andrilli said in 1989 is as true today, as it was then. The law pertaining to the matter of police duty remains the same. Nothing at all has changed.Two seminal Court cases on the matter of police duty stand out as mentioned in the Kopel and D’Andrilli article. Both cases, curiously enough, come out of jurisdictions that frown on civilian possession of firearms for self-defense and both cases establish the essence of the issue of “duty” as it relates to the police in communities around the Country. One is a New York case; the other comes out of California. The state of the law, today, as set forth in those two cases, remains unchanged; and the law in jurisdictions around the Country mirrors the law of California and New York.The 1989 Kopel and D’Andrilli magazine article discusses both cases, and the Arbalest Quarrel provides additional commentary in our follow-up article.From the two Court cases that the Kopel and D'Andrilli magazine article mention, we learn that the onus of protection of one's life and well-being rests upon one's self. That duty does not and cannot reasonably, rationally be relegated to the Government, even as Radical Left Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, and those so-called New Progressive Leftists proclaim vociferously, hypocritically, disingenuously, and erroneously that the health, safety, and continued well-being of Americans do rest safely, securely, and firmly in the hands of Government. They don't and never did.   ______________________________

PART TWO

TWO DECADES OLD COURT CASES LAY BARE THE SAD TRUTH: POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO SECURE THE LIFE OF AMERICANS FROM THREAT OF PHYSICAL HARM EVEN UPON NOTICE OF IMMINENT HARM

In the New York case, the police responded to the imminent threat posed to a young woman, but did so too late. In the California case, the police did not respond to the call for immediate protection at all; blatantly shrugging it off.Consider, first, the facts of the 1968 case, as laid out in detail by the dissenting judge, in Riss vs. New York: “Linda Riss, an attractive young woman, was for more than six months terrorized by a rejected suitor well known to the courts of this State, one Burton Pugach. This miscreant, masquerading as a respectable attorney, repeatedly threatened to have Linda killed or maimed if she did not yield to him: ‘If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you’. In fear for her life, she went to those charged by law with the duty of preserving and safeguarding the lives of the citizens and residents of this State. Linda's repeated and almost pathetic pleas for aid were received with little more than indifference. Whatever help she was given was not commensurate with the identifiable danger. On June 14, 1959 Linda became engaged to another man. At a party held to celebrate the event, she received a phone call warning her that it was her ‘last chance’. Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused. The next day Pugach carried out his dire threats in the very manner he had foretold by having a hired thug throw lye in Linda's face. Linda was blinded in one eye, lost a good portion of her vision in the other, and her face was permanently scarred. After the assault the authorities concluded that there was some basis for Linda's fears, and for the next three and one-half years, she was given around-the-clock protection.”A little late in the day for police protection, no? Linda’s life was forever ruined.Two members of the Court of Appeals, the Majority, sided with the police, affirming the decision of the trial court, against Riss even though the Court acknowledged that New York had removed application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity through which the government is immune from liability to individual members of a community. No matter. The Court inferred the State was still immune from liability under straightforward tort principles because, as the Court majority opined, the duty to protect the New York public does not extend to protection of individual members of the public, in the absence of an exception, carved out by the Legislature. And the Court’s Majority found none.The Dissenting Judge took strong exception to the Court Majority’s ruling, saying the ruling was nothing more than a “question-begging conclusion,” grounded on mere policy matters. “It is not a distortion to summarize the essence of the city's case here in the following language: ‘Because we owe a duty to everybody, we owe it to nobody’ [emphasis my own]. Were it not for the fact that this position has been hallowed by much ancient and revered precedent, we would surely dismiss it as preposterous. To say that there is no duty is, of course, to start with the conclusion. The question is whether or not there should be liability for the negligent failure to provide adequate police protection.”The Dissenting Judge said the case should have been remanded to the trial Court. He opined that, since the police had “actual notice of danger and ample opportunity to confirm and take reasonable remedial steps, a jury could find that the persons involved acted unreasonably and negligently. . . . Linda Riss is entitled to have a jury determine the issue of the city's liability.” But Riss never received that opportunity.The second seminal case, a 1975 California case, Hartzler vs. City of San Jose, involved a wrongful death action. These are the facts of the case, as set forth verbatim by the Court:“In a wrongful death action against a city, it was alleged that decedent telephoned the main office of the city police department and reported that her estranged husband had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. Decedent requested immediate police aid, but the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when her husband had arrived. Approximately 45 minutes later, the husband arrived at decedent's home and stabbed her to death. Some time later, the police arrived in response to the call of a neighbor. The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal, following the sustaining of the city's demurrer without leave to amend. The police told the decedent to call the police when her husband arrived? What good would that have done? The blasé attitude of the San Jose police borders on reckless disregard for the life and well-being of an innocent American  the police could have secured, but didn't. Nonetheless, the Court ruled in favor of the City against the decedent’s estate. Why did the Court of Appeals find against the decedent’s estate?In the California Official Reports Summary, we learn that “the claim was barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, particularly Gov. Code, § 845, providing that neither a public entity nor public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or for failure to provide sufficient police protection service, and concluded that the police department enjoyed absolute, not merely discretionary, immunity.”The California Court of Appeals held that, in the absence of a “special relationship” owing between the police, as a governmental entity, and an individual, the State enjoys “absolute immunity” from liability. The Court, having found no special relationship existing between the deceased woman and the police, affirmed the dismissal of the suit for wrongful death. So, where does that leave us, average, law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans?

IF THE POLICE DON’T HAVE THE LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS, IT IS IRRATIONAL TO ARGUE AMERICANS OUGHT NOT HAVE FIREARMS FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE.

It is mind-boggling that jurisdictions like New York and California would frown on civilian ownership of firearms for self-defense and yet find, as a matter of law, that the police have essentially no duty to provide that protection to innocent members of a community even when the police are on notice of a real and imminent threat to human life and well-being and fail to provide that protection.Leftist Antigun governments and antigun proponents hide from the public that police have essentially no legal duty to protect individual members of a community even when placed on notice of imminent threat to human life.Instead Leftists perpetrate a myth that police do provide a community with all the safety the members of a community need and, so, the individual members of a community don’t need guns for self-defense.When Leftists argue they wish to rid the Nation of civilian ownership and possession of firearms, they claim they only wish to do so for the sake of public safety and public order. And the compliant, seditious Press consistently, incessantly, repetitively, and nauseatingly drums this nonsense into the ears of the public.That, then, is what Leftists and their friendly travelers in the Press say, but what do they really mean? Simply this: they are referring to the public as a Collective, a Hive. Leftists don’t give a damn about the life, safety, and well-being of individuals who comprise the public.If Leftists did give a damn, they would either encourage civilian ownership of firearms for self-defense, as the police have no duty to safeguard the life of individual Americans, or these Leftists would amend the laws of their jurisdiction, concerning police duty, making clear that police do owe a duty of care to the individual members of a community, to protect the life, safety, and well-being of those members of a community. Leftists, if they truly gave a damn about the life and welfare of the American citizenry, would make clear that police and other Government officials are wholly accountable to the individuals of a community—that is to say, they will be held legally liable—for such injury or death resulting from the breach of that duty. But we see no such thing happening on either account.* So, who are these Leftist scoundrels kidding?________________________________________*Recent Bail reform measures in Leftist jurisdictions, like New York and California, together with the election or appointment of Soros financed activist Leftist prosecutors who refuse to prosecute crime, further complicate efforts by police to provide even a modicum of protection for the welfare of the public, the Collective. And, since the police do not have, and never did have, a legal duty to protect any individual member of a community, even when on notice of imminent threat to the life and well-being of that individual, means that the onus of personal protection, now more than in the previous century, rests upon each American. Yet, Leftists still bizarrely argue for constraining average, law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans from possessing firearms for their own defense and for the defense of their families.So where does this leave Americans since police have absolutely no duty, except in extraordinarily few, extremely rare instances, to provide personal protection to individual Americans—apart from the personal protection they routinely provide to certain Government officials, like Mayors and Governors—and where average, law-abiding, innocent American citizens who cannot afford the services of a licensed and armed personal bodyguard are discouraged by Radical Left Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, and by the New Progressive Left, from providing for their own armed defense?________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CAN WE, AS INDIVIDUALS, RELY ON THE POLICE TO PROTECT US?

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPAL DUTY OF A COMMUNITY'S POLICE FORCE?

PART ONE

Do the police have a duty to protect American citizens if their life is in danger? If you were to ask the average American this question, you would likely obtain one of four basic responses: one, “of course they do;” or, two, “no they don’t;” or, three, “it depends on the circumstance;” or, four, “I don’t know.”The disparity in responses is disconcerting as one would think the answer to this question would be straightforward and beyond dispute, given the enormity of it.After all, when it comes to one’s life and safety from threats posed by a psychopathic criminal, or from a psychotic killer, or, when the threat to one’s life and safety arises from a domestic spat or from some other dispute among two or more people, that escalates to the level of a life and death situation, one should know whether a community’s police department does have a duty to protect the life, safety, and well-being of each American citizen whose life is threatened. The idea implicit in the statement is that an armed police officer, or, in the alternative, an armed and licensed personal bodyguard, serves as the most effective deterrent to a dangerous threat posed to an innocent person’s life, safety, and well-being, precisely because the defender of life is armed. No one can seriously doubt that.And if, assuming a community’s police department does have a duty to come to the assistance of an innocent member of a community whose life is threatened by a would-be assailant, the question then becomes whether the police can and do provide a prompt response to that threat. Obviously, response time is a critical factor when an imminent threat to loss of life exists.Now, public officials, such as mayors of cities and governors of States, do not have to concern themselves with police response time because they have armed police officers assigned to them. And, for the very wealthy, who can afford private armed security, police response time to a dangerous threat posed by a would-be assailant is not an issue either.But, what about the average, law-abiding citizen—in other words, everyone else—who does not have access to a police security detail and who cannot afford the protection of an armed bodyguard? For common folk the issue of police response time is not an insignificant matter.Of course, a police department’s response time is, understandably, subject to many factors. Still, where a few minutes or seconds may mean the difference between life and death, police response time should be immediate and not subject to doubt. Police response time, where an innocent person’s life is in the balance, must be quick and immediate. Americans should not have misgivings or any false belief about this. Reliance on prompt police response time is critical if the average American is to place his or her faith, alone, in the presence of armed police, to deter the threat to one’s life or to one’s family.For those average, innocent, law-abiding persons who do place an abundance of faith in the ability and wherewithal of police to respond immediately to a 911 life and death emergency, there is the presumption—referring to the salient question posed at the beginning of this article—that “of course” a community’s police department has a legal duty, not merely an ethical or moral duty, to protect the life and safety of each innocent American whose life is threatened by a dangerous aggressor. But, is that true? If it isn’t, then those Americans who choose to place their faith alone in armed police to secure their life and safety and that of their family when faced with a life and death situation posed by an aggressor are sorely mistaken in their belief.Placing misguided faith in a community’s police department to protect one’s life and that of one’s family when faced with a direct threat posed by an assailant can have catastrophic results when the need arises to rely on the police, and the police do not timely respond to that threat. In whom does blame, then, truly reside? And, apart from a moral or ethical imperative, if no legal duty exists, on the part of the police to come to the aid of any American when that American is confronted by an imminent threat to life, then where did a presumption of legal duty arise in the first place? Likely, the presumption derives from a common shibboleth, true enough, that the primary purpose of a police department is to preserve and protect the well-being of a community. But, does that purpose to preserve and protect the well-being of a community extend, legally and logically, to protection of the life, safety, and well-being of each individual resident of a community? The shibboleth undoubtedly was reinforced through a slogan that once appeared—but apparently no longer—on the side of many community police cruisers around the Country: “to preserve and protect.” But, preserve and protect who? The meaning of the slogan is vague and ambiguous. Yet, many Americans still accept as self-evident true, even if the notion is only wishful thinking, the idea that a community’s police force does have a legal duty to come to the aid of each individual American resident whose life is endangered by a common criminal or crazed assailant. Well, let’s suppose, for purpose of argument, this to be true. What does that really mean? It means that an innocent, law-abiding resident of a community has good reason to expect that the police will do their level best to come to the immediate assistance of an innocent law-abiding resident of a community whose life, safety, and well-being is imminently threatened, say, by an aggressive intruder; and, further, that a community’s police must come to the immediate assistance of an innocent law-abiding resident of a community whose life, safety, and well-being is in imminent threat.Now, suppose the police do not respond in time to a threat to one’s life. Suppose that, through reckless indifference to a threat posed to a resident’s life and safety, or through simple or gross negligence, or even through an intentional, willful failure to respond to an immediate threat to a resident’s life and safety, a resident suffers serious injury or even death as a result of that imminent threat to a person’s life.Does that resident have a legal cause of action against the police department for injury suffered, or, in the event of death, does the deceased person’s estate have a cause of action against the police department for wrongful death? Well, if the police in fact owe a duty to protect the life and safety of the individual residents of a community and fail for one reason or another to do so, then the issue before a Court of competent jurisdiction goes not to the issue of a legal duty of care which is presumed to exist, but goes at once to the issue of damages to be assessed to the Governmental entity through a police department’s negligence toward or willful disregard for the life, safety, and well-being of the affected resident. It is certainly problematic if the police do owe a duty to individual members of a community but fail to do so. But that doesn’t seem to be problematic to people who abhor guns and who do not countenance law-abiding civilians owning and possessing them.It is disconcerting to those of us who choose to exercise our God-given, natural, fundamental, unalienable, and immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and as a check against tyranny, to truly comprehend the position of those Americans who are vehemently, even virulently, opposed to an armed citizenry. For, while we can agree that antigun fanatics, who, being true to their convictions would choose, for themselves, not to possess a firearm, it is wholly unacceptable, legally and ethically, for those people to thrust their belief system onto everyone else who does wish to exercise the sacred right to possess firearms. Yet, time and time again, we see antigun zealots audaciously attempting to compel those of us who do not agree with them to forsake our firearms as well. Americans should keep this fact in mind when they go to the polls in November 2020.____________________________

ANTIGUN PROPONENTS PROMOTE “SOCIETAL” WELL-BEING AT THE COST OF THE WELL-BEING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO COMPRISE THAT SOCIETY

PART TWO

These antigun zealots exhibit a cavalier attitude when asked how they propose to deal with predators who, at any given point in time, might pose a direct and very serious threat to their own life and safety. They may claim, as many in fact do, that the police will protect them. And, in making the claim, these antigun zealots attempt to avoid the issue of whether the police have a legal duty to do so at all, or these antigun zealots may simply perfunctorily and presumptively assume the police do in fact have such legal duty to come to the aid of Americans who face imminent threat to life and well-being, when the police really do not have such a duty to act.Even so, what might one gain from the presumption of a legal duty on the part of police to deter a threat to the life of innocent Americans, if the police are unable to thwart an imminent threat to one’s life and well-being, in time, anyway? For one to dismiss concern on the ground, before the fact, that such attacks on an innocent person are rare would, in retrospect, provide a person little solace, indeed, when, in that rare instance, after the fact, one does come face-to-face with just such a threat to his or her life.Curiously, these same people who oppose civilian possession of firearms argue for mass confiscation of semiautomatic weapons from law-abiding citizens—tens of millions of us who possess them—on the ground that a few lunatics might go off on a killing spree, when such instances of “mass killings” are few and far between, even as mainstream media accounts create the illusion that such events happen with great frequency, when, in fact, they do not.Yet, for adherents of the tenets of Individualism, upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded, the question of police responsibility for failure to respond to an imminent threat to one’s life, safety, and well-being may well be irrelevant, whether a legal duty exists or does not.Americans who ascribe to the tenets of Individualism do not rely on the police, in the first instance, to protect them and their families against imminent threats posed by dangerous individuals. Proponents of the tenets of Individualism recognize their sacred, fundamental, natural, immutable, and unalienable right of self-defense—a primordial right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and as reiterated in the U.S. Supreme Court 2008 Heller decision. Yet, the idea that a firearm offers the best means to protect one’s life and safety, should not come as a surprise to any rational person, even among those who adamantly oppose civilian ownership and possession of firearms.For, among those people who are antithetical to civilian ownership and possession of firearms and do not and would not think of possessing a firearm for self-defense for themselves—who choose to place their life, safety, and well-being in the hands of the police exclusively—have chosen to place their life, safety, and well-being in the hands of the police precisely because the police carry firearms; suggesting, then, that because the police have firearms, no one else needs them. So, even those people who abhor guns and fervently, even virulently, oppose civilian ownership and possession of firearms, and would never think of wielding a firearm themselves—leaving that responsibility to the police—know full well that armed protection against aggressive, dangerous assailants provides extremely effective protection against such threats. But, is it sensical or is it foolhardy to believe that the police will be at one’s disposal when one is in serious need of the police? The answer should be obvious. Such belief is foolhardy, and in the extreme whether the police have a legal duty to protect the life of an innocent American from a direct threat posed by an assailant, or not. That being so, the attempt of antigun zealots to constrain all of us who wish to exercise our right to keep and bear arms is indefensible, and that should and does rightly anger us.If antigun zealots eschew possession of a firearm for self-defense themselves, that is certainly their prerogative. But, what is deeply disturbing and mystifying is that many of these same people presumptuously and audaciously dare to thrust their personal feelings about guns and gun ownership on everyone else—namely those Americans—tens of millions—who do wish to exercise their fundamental, natural, unalienable, immutable, and sacred right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.It is strange, indeed, that in a free Republic, grounded on a Constitution that incorporates certain sacred, fundamental, natural, unalienable, and immutable rights codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights, there would be many Americans who, abhorring guns and the exercise of the right to possess them, would seek to thrust their own value judgments and morality on the rest of us; those—the vast majority of us—who have chosen to exercise the right of the people to keep and bear arms.For those members of society who abhor the very notion of firearms in the hands of the average, law-abiding civilian citizen, they take as self-evident true the idea that a community’s police department will in fact secure the life and safety of the average citizen. Such is the belief of Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and others who ascribe to the tenets of Collectivism: the idea that one need only place, and should be content to place, one’s faith in Government, rather than in one’s self, to provide for one’s basic needs, including defense of life; eschewing the very notion of an indisputable, fundamental, immutable, unalienable, absolute right of self-defense at all; and eschewing, especially, a sacred right to wield a firearm for self-defense.________________________________

NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR CUOMO AND MAYOR DE BLASIO FORCE AVERAGE CITIZENS TO RELY ON THE POLICE FOR ARMED PROTECTION, RATHER THAN UPON THEMSELVES

PART THREE

Among antigun proponents and zealots, apart from the hoi polloi of antigun zealots, there are the wealthy and powerful “elite” of American society. These people can ably afford to retain, and many of them do retain, private, licensed, armed bodyguards to provide for their protection and for that of their families.The “elite” in American society don’t have any illusion about the inability of a community’s police department to provide adequate protection to an imminent threat to life, whether the police have a duty to provide such protection to individual members of a community, or not. Among those "elite" are Government officials, mayors and Governors who do have police security details assigned to them. Yet, these same “elite” of society disdain the idea that average Americans who do not have access to a personal police security detail and who can ill afford a private armed and licensed bodyguard should nonetheless be denied the right to purchase a firearm for their own protection.Worse yet are those upper social strata antigun proponents, who, with their powerful political connections, carry a handgun for their personal protection and may have personal bodyguard protection as well, but are dismissive of average, law-abiding, responsible individuals possessing a firearm for their own protection.Consider the position of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose infamous New York Safe Act does nothing to protect the safety of innocent New York residents but, instead, places innocent life in jeopardy by making it extremely difficult for the average law-abiding New York resident to exercise his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. And, consider the remarks of the Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio—the failed candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for U.S. President—who, with a smirk, refused, when repeatedly asked, to answer the critical question of Fox News host, Sean Hannity, not long ago, whether residents of New York City have the right to possess firearms for self-defense. Instead Bill de Blasio proffered that the police provide safety to New York residents, implying, then, that the average, law-abiding New York resident does not need a firearm.Well, the police certainly do provide protection for de Blasio and for Governor Cuomo. No doubt about that! But, do New York’s police provide—can they in fact provide—protection for millions of law-abiding New York residents—who, at any given moment in time can, and often do, face serious threat to life and safety. De Blasio perfunctorily, matter-of-factly claims police do provide all the safety that New York residents need. The remark isn’t even remotely plausible in a City comprising millions of souls, and small finite number of police officers.And, as the proponent of one of the Nation’s most restrictive gun laws, it’s clear that Governor Cuomo, for his part, isn’t at all concerned for the safety of innocent New York residents from very real and very dire threats posed by hardened criminals and by more than a few lunatics roaming the streets.As with all proponents of the tenets of Collectivism, the concern isn’t for the health, safety, and well-being of individuals who comprise society, but for the Collective, for the Hive. Collectivists, such as Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, individuals are dispensable, like ants in an ant colony or bees in a beehive. So, it is all in vein that these people would eschew an armed citizenry and promote a well-armed Government.We see this view on constant display in the spurious, simplistic, disingenuous, and condescending remarks of antigun politicians, like Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and in the remarks of the sordid group of Democratic Party Candidates for U.S. President. They know full well that armed police cannot possibly come to the aid of every individual, in every instance, who happens to face imminent threat to life and well-being from dangerous predators.Yet, it is a common and tiresome refrain of antigun politicians, and of their friends in the mainstream media, and of the pretentious, sanctimonious, and ill-informed, members and hangers-on of antigun groups, that would dare deny to average, law-abiding, responsible American citizens the natural, fundamental, unalienable, and immutable right to defend themselves with a firearm, claiming that the police are, after all, around to protect the life, safety, and well-being of all Americans. Such is the naïve belief, engendered in equal parts self-delusion and deception.But, is such faith that antigun proponents place in the notion that a community’s police department does in fact owe a duty of care not merely to the community as a whole, but to each member of it, legally sound, whether or not one might at least expect the police to have a moral duty to secure the life, safety and well-being of each member of a community? For, if, legal liability of a police department does not accrue for failure to secure the life, safety, and well-being of each member of a community, then the idea that the average, law-abiding American citizen should nonetheless be denied the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense loses any rational efficacy and is reduced to a bankrupt, empty policy position of the antigun movement on that ground alone. But we need not guess. There is an answer.To answer the question of whether the police have a duty to protect each member of a community, we must consider the ramifications of the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the application of the legal concepts of ‘sovereign immunity,’ ‘qualified immunity,’ and of the ‘public and special duty doctrines.’ If a community’s police department does have a duty to secure the life, safety, and well-being of each member of a community, then it is necessary to explore the legal aspects of such duty if such duty exists at all. This issue cannot be reduced to simplistic and dismissive political, rhetorical soundbites and antigun messaging, asserted by arrogant, deceitful, condescending blowhards like Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Bill de Blasio, and many other politicians who adamantly oppose guns in the hands of the average law-abiding, responsible American citizen. But no American should fall for those ploys. Andrew Cuomo, Bill de Blasio and other politicians like him, weave wild fables. They oversimplify, obfuscate and deceive.Unfortunately, it is a common and tiresome refrain of antigun politicians, and of the mainstream media, and of pretentious, sanctimonious antigun groups, that would deny to average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizens the absolute right to defend themselves with a firearm, as these politicians claim that the police are, after all, there to protect the life, safety, and well-being of each American; so, then, a person doesn’t need a firearm for self-defense. Really? Are we to take that bald assertion on faith?What, really, is the truth behind the presumption espoused by many politicians and the media and which many Americans have come to believe, namely that the police have a duty to protect and preserve a community? What does that even mean?Does the duty of the police to protect a community from imminent threat to life, safety, and well-being actually extend to all of the individuals in it, or is that a deliberately deceptive conflation of police function that antigun proponents of all stripes have have sought to convey to the American public to obscure the fact that the police really don’t have such a duty of care at all; and that they have created a myth and have promoted it to make confiscation of firearms among civilians more palatable, suggesting, then, that civilian ownership and possession of firearms for self-defense is unnecessary and therefore, seemingly, unreasonable.Is this, then, the reason behind the idea of a police duty that is owed, not only to the community, but to the individuals in it? Is this grounded in fact or is this mere myth: myth that has been deliberately promulgated, propagated, and perpetuated? And, if this idea is myth, what is the real reason for it? Can it be that powerful, ruthless forces both inside this Nation and outside it consciously wish to deceive Americans? Do these powerful, ruthless forces seek to hide the fact that the police have no duty to ensure the life and safety of each member of a community so that Americans will be amenable to forsaking firearms’ ownership and possession, notwithstanding our heritage?Do these powerful, ruthless forces know that the average, rational, law-abiding, responsible, American can truly protect his or her life, and that of one’s family from dangerous assailants only by wielding a firearm but that, because these ruthless forces fear an armed citizenry and because they seek to undermine the sovereignty of the American people, and because they seek to dismantle our Constitution and to disassemble our free Republic, that they would prefer to leave the average law-abiding American citizen defenseless, open to predators? Is it, then, for these reasons that extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, highly resourceful, abjectly ruthless, and innately secretive forces both in this Country and outside it, have concocted and disseminated a fairy tale of police protection for the American citizenry?We will explore the truth and do our best to answer all these questions in forthcoming articles.________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TYRANNY IS AT HAND WHEN A NATION’S CITIZENRY IS DISARMED

THREATENED BY A SEDITIOUS PRESS, A DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED HOUSE, AND AN INSOLENT BUREAUCRACY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS HIS HANDS FULL, TRYING TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE OF OUR NATION; THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATION'S BORDERS; THE SUPREMACY OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND LAWS; AND THE AUTONOMY AND SANCTITY OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY

When considering the myriad threats to the preservation of our Nation’s Constitution and to the underpinnings of a Free Republic, generally, and when considering the myriad threats to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and, especially, when considering the ever-present threat to the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, and absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms, upon which a free Republic—a truly free Republic—rests and exists, attention is invariably directed to vicious, virulent, constant, and noxious attacks by anti-American, anti-Second Amendment members of Congress and by those anti-American, anti-Second Amendment politicians in the State Governments hell-bent on weakening, through enactment of crass, unconstitutional legislation, the American citizen’s sacred Second Amendment right to people to keep and bear arms. But how is it that the public becomes aware of the sordid work of these public servants who betray their masters, the American people?The presence of oppressive Federal and State antigun legislation and attempts by anti-American legislators to enact ever new anti-Second Amendment legislation is invariably on the public’s radar, and it is on the public’s radar for two reasons. First, Congress and State Legislatures generally conduct their business in the open—albeit not invariably—as we unfortunately see most recently, in Congressional Democrats’ ongoing, outrageous operation to destroy the Trump Presidency through a ludicrous impeachment inquiry that has essentially shut out Republican oversight of and participation in the proceedings.Anti-American legislators openly, even brazenly, carry on their efforts to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They apparently believe that, by actively and vociferously communicating their efforts to rein in and ultimately to destroy the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they are in fact doing a great service for and on behalf of the American people. And they apparently believe that by vocalizing their efforts raucously and vehemently, and by turns chiding, scolding, and condemning all Americans who might happen to disagree with them, they can prevail, winning most Americans over to their side. And, many uninformed Americans are drawn over to their side, readily seduced by empty political rhetoric. Not only do such Americans come to accept constraints on the Second Amendment, they come to appreciate, even laud the efforts of those politicians who, far from preserving and strengthening the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, dare to cheat Americans out of their most precious gift—a gift that the founders fought and died for to provide for us; a gift that many Americans, down through the ages fought and died for to secure for us. No matter. The betrayers of America intend to destroy all of it.The betrayers of America intend to undercut the Constitution; the very soul of our Nation. But, legislation to destroy fundamental rights and liberties must take place primarily in the open even if political wrangling and plotting, machinating and scheming all aimed at deluding and deceiving the American people must take place in the shadows; behind closed doors; out of sight and earshot.Second, the anti-Second Amendment legislators’ friend, the ubiquitous, seditious Press, avidly and vociferously hawks the ostensible benefits of reining in the citizenry’s gun rights. The Press has devolved into an effective propaganda tool of those elements operating in concert both here and abroad who seek to undercut our Constitution, thereby paving the way for our Nation’s inclusion in a new, transnational, supranational political, social, economic, and legal system of governance. A new world governmental order in which the very concept of  ‘citizen,’ and the concept of 'sovereign, independent nation states' and of national borders are viewed as archaic constructs, useful, perhaps, once upon a time, as in a fairy tale, but no longer. To make a go of it, the notion of fundamental rights and liberties that inhere in man must be swept aside, as something that once was seen, perhaps, as noble, but is now perceived as simply quaint and archaic; for that notion is not at all consistent with the onset of a new trans-global system of governance, marked by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent ruling class, jealous of its power, and suspicious of the subject populations, falling now within a massive world Government enterprise.And, what of the idea of an armed citizenry—the only true and tenable check against tyranny of Government? That idea must be categorically denounced as not only anachronistic but dangerous—a visible threat to State power and authority. So, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution must go. And there is no pretense anymore by those who abhor and who have always loathed the very idea of an armed citizenry. No longer do we hear any antigun politician, prefacing his or her remarks against guns and gun ownership by asserting, “. . . but of course I respect and support the Second Amendment.” That dissembling is now a thing of the past.So, a seditious Press tries to sell the citizenry on the notion that the Second Amendment has no rational purpose in a modern society. The public is told that, for the good of society as whole—that is to say, for the good of the Collective, for the good of the Hive—for the maintenance of public safety and public order, it is necessary to ban all guns from the civilian populace, commencing with those whom the antigun politicians categorize as 'assault weapons' (a political fiction, to be sure, created for no purpose other than as a vehicle through which more and more firearms are to be banned, until all firearms are banned).The seditious Press falling in lockstep with the destroyers of our free Republic, takes the position that gun rights are best when exercised least. So it is that the Press, operating on behalf of anti-Second Amendment advocates in both State Legislatures and in Congress safety argues that public order and public safety is best served by extending the scope of gun background checks; and that public order and public safety is best served through enactment of laws making gun ownership and possession increasingly onerous; and that public order and public safety is best served through enactment of laws that restrict the number of and kinds of firearms, and the amount of and kinds of ammunition, the average, law-abiding, responsible American citizen is permitted to hold; and so forth and so on, until lawful civilian ownership and possession of firearms is effectively eliminated, making the Second Amendment essentially nugatory.But is public safety and public order secured by denying the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Of course not! That is merely a makeweight. The real goal is civilian population control; to prevent the very thing the framers of our Constitution intended to assure the American people of: that they would be able to deal effectively and harshly with those people in Government, who decide they would rather be the masters of the American people than the servants of the American people.Beyond calls for more and more restrictive State and federal gun legislation and for more and more restrictive local governmental gun codes, gun regulations, and gun ordinances, we hear Leftist politicians that are running for the Democratic Party nomination chiming in how Commonwealth Countries like Australia and New Zealand implement antigun laws easily, and that only in the United States is it difficult to do so and shouldn’t be. Never mind that neither Australia or New Zealand even recognizes a fundamental right of their people to keep and bear arms.In fact, such rights that do exist in New Zealand’s bill of rights aren’t meaningful rights and liberties at all. New Zealand’s bill of rights is nothing more than a collection of ordinary statutes--not a true bill of rights at all--subject to Government censure, or interpretation, or abrogation, essentially at will. And, Australia, for its part, doesn’t even have a bill of rights. And neither Nation recognizes a right to own and possess firearms for self-defense. Fancy that!Yet Democrat Party candidates for U.S. President believe our Nation should follow suit with these Commonwealth Nations. They perfunctorily deny, even betray, our own sacred right to keep and bear arms, rather than reverently lauding it.  And these Democrats, were any one of them to be elected President, have gone so far as to assert a willingness to create antigun law through Executive Branch fiat if need be if Congress doesn’t act in accordance with their personal beliefs concerning, and animus toward, guns and toward civilian gun ownership and possession. These Democrats denounce our Nation’s Constitution; our Nation’s culture; our Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethic; our Nation’s history. And, yet they consider themselves good and proper prospects for U.S. President. The idea is both shameful and absurd.These same politicians, with a sympathetic Press, also ignore or slam the seminal U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald making clear that the right codified in the Second Amendment is not to be denied or circumvented, as the right set forth in the Second Amendment is an individual right, accruing to each American citizen. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a “collective” right accruing to the State; and it is not to be construed as such.The American public should keep well in mind that, in the final analysis, no better guard against tyranny exists than through the presence of a well-armed citizenry; and no better evidence is there of some politicians’ desire to pave the way for the very inception of tyranny than in legislation to rein in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ASSAULT ON SECOND AMENDMENT CAN ONLY BRING DESTRUCTION TO OUR NATION AS A FREE REPUBLIC.

PART SIXTEEN

AMERICANS MAY FORESTALL ALL ATTACKS ON THEIR FREEDOM BUT FOR ONE: LOSS OF THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

There is ample evidence of sinister work afoot to tear down the fabric of this Nation that the founders of our Republic fought so hard to create and preserve. The creation of both the Federal Reserve System and the IRS that have sucked the lifeblood of Americans’ toil are two clear instances of attempts by rapacious forces from both within the U.S. and outside the U.S. to undermine the integrity of the U.S. as an independent and sovereign Nation State; to weaken our Nation’s institutions; and to enfeeble our Nation’s citizenry so that it might be more easily disciplined and controlled.Understand there is nothing in the Constitution that either requires or mandates the creation of an independent privately owned Federal Reserve System or that requires or mandates the creation of a governmental structure, the IRS, within the U.S. They are both artificial constructs. The framers of our Constitution did not place them in that sacred Document. Yet, they exist, and both have done much to harm both this Nation and this Nation’s citizenry, up to the present moment in time. Just as insidiously, we have seen, for decades, attempts to destroy the independence and sovereignty of our Nation by thrusting the U.S. into economic unions with other Nations. These economic pacts and treaties serve as a diabolical backdoor through which the internationalist Rothschild clan and its minions dare insinuate themselves into the political, social, cultural, and legal fabric of our Nation, quite apart from the economic fabric, benefiting multinational cartels to the detriment of our Nation’s workers and small business owners.Recall the creation of NAFTA and CAFTA. Have these economic pacts served well our Nation and its workers and our small business entrepreneurs? Hardly! Just ask them! And, through further, subterfuge, past Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former U.S. President Barack Obama, along with the transnationalist cartels, sought to undermine the sovereignty and independence of our Nation; subordinating our Constitution, system of laws and jurisprudence, to the will of multinational corporations, one-world Government transnationalists, neoliberal economic Globalists, and transnationalist multiculturalists.Consider the infamous, rapacious, diabolical Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreements that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama helped to formulate, through secret machinations and connivance with other Governments and with multinational corporations, and through which they sought to bind our Nation. The TPP and TTIP, as envisioned, would have been horrific mechanisms of control through which this Nation’s economic, political, and legal independence and sovereignty would have been jeopardized, vanquished, had they been implemented, as Barack Obama intended, and as Hillary Clinton would certainly have followed through with, had she become U.S. President, notwithstanding her statements to the contrary, during the 2016 Democratic Party debates.President Trump made clear his opposition to these monstrous plans to undermine our Nation, and, true to his word, he successfully derailed them through Executive Order, one of his first acts as U.S. President.

BUT THE MOST DIABOLICAL ASSAULT ON OUR NATION AND ON A FREE PEOPLE IS THIS: DESTRUCTION OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

More recently, within the last few years especially—and never far from the Collectivists’ desire to eradicate our free Republic—we see the destroyers of our Nation attempting, now and again, to undermine, indeed erase, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. With the U.S. Presidential election drawing ever nearer, we are seeing renewed attacks on the Second Amendment. In fits and starts, the Democratic Party—now a refuge for Radical Leftists of all stripes: Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists—inevitably and invariably returns to its signature platform and policy goal: the weakening and eventual eradication of the Second Amendment. But why is that? Why would the Democratic Party Leadership and its Radical Left contingent want this? For this reason: An armed citizenry is absolutely anathema to their plans for a massive increase in the size of Government, and, concomitantly, for a powerful centralized Government exercising control over the Nation’s citizenry’s every thought and action. And so, understandably, albeit, unconscionably, we see the American citizenry’s exercise of its Second Amendment fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms under insistent, incessant, omni-present, strenuous attack.The Progressive and Radical Left toadies and hangers-on in our State and Federal Governments will never be content with simply weakening the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They must attack firearms and firearms’ ownership and possession at the root level, doing so fervently, unashamedly, unabashedly. They seek to make the very idea of gun ownership and possession passé, a notion that has outlived its usefulness, if, in their mind, ever had any. They intend to make the American citizen's the very idea of exercising one's right to keep and bear arms an aberration of nature. There is even a name for it now: hoplophobia. Will this new phobia eventually be included in a new “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM), even as such clear deviancy as Gender Dysphoria is removed, due to the operation of the imbecilic notion of “Political Correctness,” hawked by supercilious “Thought Police” of the Radical Left?And Progressive and Radical Left Legislators and Government Bureaucrats have friends to assist them in their endeavor to wreak havoc on the Second Amendment: friends and cohorts found in finance and in the technology sectors; in academia; entertainment, the Press; and even in our Courts. All have a strong, irrepressible, obsessive desire to weaken the Second Amendment irreversibly; many calling for outright repeal of it. Along the way they orchestrate schemes to neutralize the efficacy of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.But, what is the rationale for the incessant, virulent attack on the Second Amendment? Is it really predicated on a desire, ever expressed, to curb “gun violence” as the Public is told? No! That is mere pretext. Were it otherwise, then those who truly claim a desire to curb violence with guns, would direct their attention to those elements in society—namely gang members, common criminals, and terrorists—who misuse firearms. But, they don’t direct their attention to these elements of society. Instead, these Radical Left elements direct their attention to the firearm itself, and they direct their attention on the tens of millions of average Americans: rational, law-abiding citizens who wish only to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, uninhibited, unrestrained, and unconstrained by Government.Consider the media’s incendiary attacks on guns and gun ownership whenever a lunatic goes off half-cocked: most recently, as we see in newspaper accounts of two recent mass shooting incidents. The New York Times proclaims on a banner headline, on August 5, 2019, in its digital format paper that: “Shootings Renew Debate Over How to Combat Domestic Terrorism.” And in the Newspaper’s home edition, the banner headline reads: “One Shooting Massacre Follows Another, Shaking a Bewildered Nation to its Core.” In the fourth paragraph of the article, the Times reports, “Democrats urged Congress to take action and pass stricter gun laws.”In other words, the Democratic Party Leadership and the Radical Left deem it perfectly acceptable to utilize the lowest common denominator in society to destroy the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, even on that score the antigun zealots in the Press cannot claim even a modicum of consistency. Where was The New York Times’ outrage when the lunatic and Antifa fanatic, Willem Van Spronsen, attacked an immigration detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, on July 13, 2019, with an aim toward murdering federal police officers? That outrage was nowhere to be seen. The Times reported dryly, matter-of-factly, indeed deceptively, that:"the man [Willem Van Spronsen], who was armed with a rifle, was throwing unspecified 'incendiary devices' at the Northwest Detention Center, according to a police statement. . . . Police have not established a motive for the attack, but The Seattle Times reported that a longtime friend of Mr. Van Spronsen’s, Deb Bartley, believed he had intended to provoke a fatal conflict.”No motive for the attack on ICE Officials and on the Northwest Detention Center that can be deduced? Really? New York Times reporters couldn't undertake an investigation? Conducting independent investigations--isn't that what Newspaper Reporters do; what it is they are supposed to do, expected to do, to get to the bottom of a story? And, couldn't the story's news reporters hazard an educated guess, at the very least, as to a possible motive, given that Spronsen did, after all, leave a "manifesto" which he obviously intended for the public to read?The conservative Washington Times, having investigated the would-be killer, Spronsen, unlike the Left-wing New York Times--that, it seems, decided to forego investigating the motives of Spronsen--found no difficulty at all in ascribing a motive to Willem Spronsen's actions, and the Washington Times found reason aplenty for so informing the public of its findings, writing:Willem Van Spronsen, 69, declares early on in his manifesto that ‘evil says concentration camps for folks deemed lesser are necessary. the handmaid of evil says the concentration camps should be more humane,’ using a term usually reserved for Nazi Germany’s death camps, but introduced in the border-security debate last month by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.He also mocked people criticizing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for intellectual sloppiness, referring to ‘these days of highly profitable detention/concentration camps and a battle over the semantics.’Van Spronsen, armed with an AR-15 assault weapon that his manifesto encouraged others to acquire to bring about a revolution, attacked the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma around 4 a.m. Saturday. He threw ‘incendiary devices’ and set vehicles before officers shot him to death as he was trying to ignite a propane tank. In his manifesto, he called the detention facility ‘an abomination’ and that he was ‘not standing by’ as it operated.‘i really shouldn’t have to say any more than this. i set aside my broken heart and i heal the only way i know how- by being useful. i efficiently compartmentalize my pain. . . and i joyfully go about this work,’ he wrote.He indicated that he intended the attack as a suicide mission, writing that ‘i regret that i will miss the rest of the revolution. thank you for the honor of having me in your midst. giving me space to be useful.’Antifa activists declared him useful, too.Seattle Antifascist Action called him ‘our good friend and comrade Willem Van Spronsen’ and said he ‘became a martyr who gave his life to the struggle against fascism.’The group went on to call for more such attacks in memory of Van Spronsen.‘We cannot let his death go unanswered . . . May his death serve as a call to protest and direct action,’ the group wrote on its Facebook page.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was asked Monday by the Daily Wire whether she would denounce antifa and whether she was to any degree responsible for the attack, since Van Spronsen repeatedly used her “concentration camp” language.She ignored the reporter.BREAKING: Ocasio-Cortez refuses to condemn the far-left terrorist attack on the ICE facility in Tacoma, WashingtonThe terrorist used Ocasio-Cortez’s rhetoric in his manifesto pic.twitter.com/t1priIPAiW.Apparently The New York Times missed these little details about Spronsen that the Washington Times felt pertinent enough to inform the public about. Or, perhaps New York Times Editors, unlike the Washington Times Editors, felt that Spronsen’s motives, clearly amounting to domestic terrorism were either inscrutable or irrelevant; therefore falling outside the parameters of what the Times concludes is "All the News That’s Fit to Print." One is left to suspect that there is, in fact, contrary to adherence to its motto, much "News That IS Fit to print," but that The New York Times would rather not print even though such news is really and truly fit to print; preferring to leave the public in the dark in those instances where the news doesn't happen to fit the paper's personal ends: one directed to indoctrinating the public to accept a certain line of thought, rather than merely and essentially informing the public, so that the public might draw its own conclusion. And, there you have it!

PART SEVENTEEN

ENDING GUN VIOLENCE ISN’T AN AIM OF ANTIGUN RADICAL LEFTISTS; IT IS A MERE TALKING POINT TO DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE CITIZEN'S FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, AND UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMSDUPLICITY AND HYPOCRISY ABOUNDS AMONG THE RADICAL LEFTIf it were the case that those who claim a desire to curb gun violence truly meant what they say, they would be compelled, at one and the same time, to draw a clear and categorical distinction between proper, appropriate use of firearms and improper, inappropriate, criminal use of firearms, acknowledging the fact that millions of law-abiding, sane American citizens, do exercise their right to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes, millions of time every year, namely, and most notably, for self-defense; thereby proclaiming the legitimacy of firearms’ use for self-defense. But, antigun zealots don’t wish to recognize self-defense as a legitimate reason for owning and possessing firearms, and, so, won't acknowledge self-defense as a legitimate basis for owning and possessing firearms, even if they were to do so only grudgingly.Further, a rational person would expect these same antigun zealots to condemn vociferously any and all acts of criminal violence even if they are reluctant to admit lawful purposes and uses for firearms. But, while it has always been the case that antigun zealots seek, first and foremost, to disarm the citizenry, albeit under the guise of protecting the public from gun violence, even that platitude has lost efficacy, for, as we have seen, Radical Left antigun zealots do, indeed, support use of firearms and bombs for use in some acts of domestic terrorism, namely those acts—such as attacking and murdering police and Federal ICE officials and destroying Government facilities—that happen to cohere with the Collectivist, Anarchist Marxist/Socialist/Communist agenda, as evidenced by the Spronsen incident, pointed out in this article, supra, citing the Washington Times news story, titled, “Antifa lauds ‘martyr’ who attacked ICE detention center as manifesto circulates.”We see mainstream Left-wing newspapers, such as The New York Times, deliberately refraining from calling out some acts of domestic terrorism, illustrating clearly enough, then, that many media organizations are clearly in lockstep with the sympathies of the Radical Left who operate both in this Country and abroad.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?

Of course exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, is a perfectly legitimate purpose, as made plain in the 2008 Heller decision. But, for antigun zealots who, at once, invariably sympathize with the goals and agenda of the Radical Left, such an admission weakens their argument, false as it is, that guns are the salient cause of violence in society.Moreover, as some acts of domestic terrorism are tolerated or condoned, and even applauded and encouraged, as we see with the Willem Van Spronsen incident, it is now becoming impossible to deny—as the fact of the matter is becoming ever clearer, day-by-day—that the Radical Left intends to destroy the very fabric of American society as conceived by the founders of our free Republic. The Radical Left seeks to jettison our culture, our system of laws, our Constitution, our Judeo-Christian ethos—all of it—in the name of multicultural pluralism, utilizing the newly concocted political devices of identity politics, intersectionalism, and virtue signaling; and promoting as a morally superior idea, a culture of victimhood--all in an attempt to prepare the citizens of this Nation for a life of subjugation, as the Nation is subsumed into a new one-world Government, where the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ and ‘Citizen of the United States’ both cease to exist; where a once proud Nation is reduced to obscurity, insignificance--a mere cog in the machinery of a new one-world system of governance--where a once free, proud, and unique People is reduced to abject servitude and penury.Can the U.S. Supreme Court, as the guardian of the U.S. Constitution, prevent this, even if Congress and the Executive Branch of the Federal Government cannot? Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court can, which is why the Radical Left seeks to pack the Court with individuals who have no love for our Constitution--who have little to no compunction about subordinating our Constitution to that of the laws of other Nations and to so-called international norms, thereby paving the way for insinuation of the U.S. into the EU, as precursor to a one-world system of governance, which necessitates loss of our National sovereignty and independence, and subordination of our laws, Constitution, and jurisprudence to an artificial transnational world construct. Not surprisingly, then, antigun zealots ignore the reasoning of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that contradict their goals and agenda. Hence, they ignore or condemn outright, the reasoning of the Heller Majority along with the high Court’s rulings in that case—viewing Heller as an aberration, if they are asked about Heller at all.

IN WHAT DOES THE THREAT TO THE COLLECTIVIST GOAL FOR EFFECTIVE REPEAL OF THE SACRED, FUNDAMENTAL, INVIOLATE, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REALLY AND TRULY REST?

It cannot be overstated that, while the Second Amendment entails the natural right of self-defense—as dealt with at length in Heller—the import of the Second Amendment is directed, first and foremost, to prevent tyranny from arising in this Country—a point also made in Heller. That being so, it is therefore a curious thing that antigun politicians, along with the usual media types, continually scoff at the notion that the American people need to be armed to ward off tyranny—even though it is self-evident, true, that no better check against tyranny exists than the presence of a well-armed citizenry. The founders of our Nation certainly knew this to be so, but few Legislators today bother to acknowledge that fact. Not surprisingly, the Radical Left in this Country, now attack the founders of our Nation even as these same Leftist elements dare claim, disingenuously, inconsistently, and oddly, that they respect our Nation’s laws and Constitution. Perhaps they should take a close look at Heller. And, they would do well to take a close look, as well, at Constitutional Law expert, David Kopel’s article, “Why the anti-tyranny case for the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly,” that appeared, three years ago—and curiously enough—in the progressive weblog, Vox. Disemboweling the Bill of Rights—particularly the Second Amendment—is the principal aim of Progressive and Radical Leftists. Those that hew to the tenets of Collectivism—disreputable elements, both inside this Country as well as outside it—seek to destroy a proud and free people, and a free Republic.To accomplish their loathsome end, it is indicative of the unsavory proponents of Collectivism—those who seek to create a new system of governance, eschewing the continued existence of the concept of the Nation State—to work toward denying to the citizens of our Nation their natural, unalienable, immutable, and inviolate right to keep and bear arms. For, a one-world Government that subjugates entire populations is impossible to accomplish in any Nation where that Nation’s citizenry has, readily available to it, access to firearms.At ground, the salient and critical purpose of the Second Amendment, as the founders of our Constitutional Republic in their wisdom, did foresee and ever maintained, is to secure the authority and sovereignty of the American people from those who would dare usurp the ultimate, premier authority from wherein it alone belongs: in the American people themselves. Prevention of tyranny is the true, undeniable, and salient, essential purpose of the Second Amendment. And that core purpose is inconsistent with and anathema to the tenets of Collectivism.Collectivist tenets of Marxism, Socialism, Communism, upon which the Leftist agenda absolutely depends, requires, for its success, the subjugation of the American citizenry. This is a matter impossible for the Internationalist Collectivists to accomplish as long as the Second Amendment of our Nation's Bill of Rights remains, in all its glory: preserved, robust, strong, absolute, as the founders of our Nation, the creators of our free Republic, a Constitutional Republic—one comprising an autonomous, powerful, armed citizenry—had unequivocally intended.__________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

UNLEASHED AND UNCHECKED, FAKE NEWS MEDIA PROPAGANDA WILL DESTROY AMERICA

PART FOURTEEN

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP STANDS AS A LONE BUT POWERFUL VOICE AND BULWARK AGAINST A SOCIALIST TAKE-OVER OF OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC AND OUR FREEDOMS!

What we, Americans, are witnessing today is the incestuous union of technology, the Federal Bureaucracy and of radical, hateful elements in Congress, in the social media and in the Press, working in concert, at the behest of Billionaire Neoliberal transnationalists, in a naked, reprehensible bid to destroy our Great Nation and a free people, and all in an attempt to usher into existence a new system of governance—one devoid of once powerful Nation States—a neo-feudalistic New Monstrous Collectivist World Order, one comprising a few ruling “Elect Elites” on the one hand, and a multitude of serfs, hundreds of millions of citizens, including those of our own Country, citizens stripped of their citizenship and of their fundamental rights and liberties; reduced to abject servitude and misery, namely, the new Preterite (the Damned), the new denizens of the New World Order.This is the vision of Radical Left Marxists and Antifa Anarchists—their notion of a paradise on Earth; but really a hell-world they wish to bring to fruition, into actuality. This is their vision of a new transformative America that they would bequeath to us in lieu of that bequeathed to us by the Founders of our Great Nation.And insidiously, outrageously these Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists use the very power inherent in our Constitution and the very power of a free market economy upon which our Constitutional Republic exists, against that very Republic, and against the citizenry of this Nation. In so doing, these Radical elements would dare rob the American people of their birthright; all the while proclaiming that this a good thing; that this should happen; that this must occur to bring about equality and equanimity and justice; that this the way things ought to be—reducing us all to squalor, unrelenting malaise and poverty. It is happening before our very eyes, gathering increasing momentum. And the words and actions and methods of these Radical Left elements and Anarchists in Government, in the Press, in social media, in the entertainment business, in the information technology sector, and among the citizenry itself are becoming more and more outrageous, more and more bizarre, more and more acute.Every day we see the worst excesses engaged in by those malevolent forces bent on destroying all that most Americans, the silent majority, hold most dear and sacred. And, only, we, the American people, can prevent it from playing out to its disastrous end, an end which means the destruction of our Nation’s Constitution; the loss of our people’s personal identity, history, culture and personal autonomy; the end of the independence and sovereignty of our Nation State, the end of our centuries old system of laws, and justice, and jurisprudence: all of it gone; and that this supposed to be a good thing! The end of the exercise of our own Free Will!

HERE, BELOW, ARE DELINEATED, A FEW OF THE SCHEMES RADICAL LEFT MARXISTS AND ANARCHISTS HAVE DEVISED AND UTILIZED TO UNDERCUT THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, AS AN INDEPENDENT, FREE REPUBLIC.

ENCOURAGE AMERICAN CITIZENS TO ABORT THEIR BABIES, REDUCING THE POPULATION OF EDUCATED AMERICANS, INCULCATED WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR CONSTITUTION AND OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIESENCOURAGE UNSKILLED, ILLITERATE ITINERANTS TO EMIGRATE ILLEGALLY TO THE U.S., THEREBY FOSTERING A NEW POPULATION OF DRONES, CONDITIONED TO SERVITUDE AND IGNORANT OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND OBLIVIOUS TO AND UNCONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPORT AND PURPOSE OF OUR NATION’S FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE AND IMMUTABLE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIESENCOURAGE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO FORSAKE AND FORGET ITS UNIQUE HISTORY, HERITAGE, AND CORE CHRISTIAN VALUES, THROUGH MEDIA USE OF PROPAGANDA; AND THROUGH CENSORSHIP OF ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINTS TO SUPPRESS ALL DISSENT; AND THROUGH NOXIOUS, INCESSANT, REPETITIOUS CONDEMNATION OF AND EVEN ASSERTIONS OF HATRED, ABHORRENCE DIRECTED TOWARD OUR NATIONAL EMBLEMS, AND THROUGH ASSERTIONS OF LOATHING DIRECTED TOWARD OUR NATION’S INSTITUTIONS, AND THROUGH ATTACKS AGAINST OUR NATION’S WELL-DEVELOPED AND HONORED SYSTEM OF LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE THAT HAS WELL STOOD THE TEST OF TIME; AND--AS IF ALL THAT WERE NOT HORRENDOUS ENOUGH--THROUGH INCESSANT ASSAULTS DIRECTED AGAINST OUR NATION’S ILLUSTRIOUS, LOVING FOUNDING FATHERS—AS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTRAGEOUSLY QUESTIONS WHETHER THE FOUNDING FATHERS, THE FRAMERS OF OUR SACRED CONSTITUTION, EVEN DESERVE OUR CONTINUED REVERENCE AND DEVOTIONSUBVERT AND SUBORDINATE THE SUPREMACY OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES THROUGH ATTEMPTS TO BIND OUR NATION TO SECRETIVE INTERNATIONAL PACTS AND TREATIES, IN ORDER TO UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE AND TO UNDERCUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF OUR NATION, GROUNDED ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL: OF INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY AND INTEGRITY AND SANCTITY OF SELFDIVIDE THE NATION AGAINST ITSELF THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF IDENTITY POLITICSRAISE THIS IDEA OF VICTIM-HOOD TO THE LEVEL OF A VIRTUE AND HOLY PRINCIPLE, INSERTING THIS FALSE IDEA INTO THE MIND AND PSYCHE OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN; TO CREATE IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC A SENSE OF COLLECTIVE GUILT, THEREBY WEAKENING THE RESOLVE OF OUR NATION’S CITIZENRY TO THWART ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY A CITIZENRY’S PRIDE IN SELF AND NATIONINDOCTRINATE THE YOUTH OF OUR NATION TO ACCEPT COLLECTIVIST TENETS AND MARXIST POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES AS SUPERIOR TO THE TENETS OF INDIVIDUALISM UPON WHICH OUR NATION'S CONSTITUTION RESTS  AND UPON THE NOTIONS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND OF FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, THAT ALONE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE IMPORT AND PURPORT OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OF THE STRUCTURE OF A FREE REPUBLIC REEDUCATE THE ADULT POPULATION OF OUR NATION TO ACCEPT THE PRECEPTS OF COLLECTIVISM, TO CREATE A SENSE OF DEPENDENCY OF THE POPULATION ON GOVERNMENT TO SATISFY THE POPULATION’S NEEDS AND WANTSTO CRUSH THE INDIVIDUAL INTO SUBMISSION BY INCULCATING IN THE POPULATION A DESIRE TO BELONG TO THE GROUP THROUGH PRE-PROGRAMMED BEHAVIOR—DEFINED BY AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT—THEREBY THWARTING THE PUBLIC TO RISE UP AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT.DISARM AMERICAN CITIZENS TO PREVENT THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE NEW COLLECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY FROM SECURING FOR THEMSELVES THE MEANS TO HOLD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLEA compliant propaganda-laden Press, sold on the idea of a Marxist style one world Government—a vision of global domination of all Western Nation States, contemplating the end of the very notions of ‘nation state’ and ‘citizen of a nation state’—has demonstrated an ecstatic willingness and resolve to work on behalf of and to take its marching orders from the Marxist enterprise that the Democratic Party has slowly, inexorably, and inevitably devolved into. And, this Political Party, in turn, in all likelihood, takes its marching orders from our ostensible “allies” in Europe, in whom the Party shares common cause.And, what is that common cause? It is nothing less than the destruction of the sovereignty and independence of all Western Nations, along with the subjugation of the polity of those Nation States, including the citizenry of the United States.And, who are these purported allies of the Democratic Party? They include the innately and highly secretive, extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, inherently corrupt, abjectly ruthless, hedonistic and amoral, and insufferably decadent Rothschild clan and the clan's minions, most infamously, George Soros—whom, curiously, Fox News has just begun to mention on its nightly news programs. And, how long shall it be before the Fox News media organization demonstrates the moral courage to mention the name, Rothschild, itself—the Centuries old family, inbred, through the ages, with the royalty of Europe—in whom plans were first drawn up for domination of the nations of the world, and that remains today the principal architect of plans for the dissolution of the Nation States of Europe and of the United States.Simply witness the impact that implementation of their plans have had on the citizenry of the Nations of the European Union. The creation of the EU just didn’t happen by accident. The Blueprint for its construction began long ago, actually centuries ago, with the creation of the diabolical and horrific Central Banking System through which wealthy financiers, commencing with the ruthless Rothschild clan would be able to, were in fact able to, and were desirous of controlling the destines of Nations. And, the descendants of  the family Patriarch, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, have been machinating to bring their schema for a trans-global political, social, economic, financial, legal, and cultural system of Governance—the New World Order—to fruition.What Americans are witnessing occurring in their own Country, and what native populations of the Nations of the EU are now witnessing occurring in Europe, is the gathering storm of disaster for European and U.S. citizens alike—a cascading sequence of events—a horrific, cataclysmic reconfiguration of the entirety of Western Civilization into something out of science fiction--a Dystopian nightmare reality, for the populations of of Europe, and for the citizenry of the United States, from which no one can awaken. _____________________________________________

PART FIFTEEN

THE GREAT THREAT TO OUR NATION’S SURVIVAL COMES NOT FROM RUSSIA OR CHINA, BUT FROM RADICAL ELEMENTS HERE AT HOME, FED BY SO-CALLED “ALLIES” FROM ABROAD.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been warning about the threat posed to our Nation and to the Nations of Europe, by the Rothschilds; and we have discussed both the fact of and the nature of the attack by the transnationalist one-world, Government crowd on all that the populations of Europe and Americans, at home. Europe may not be salvaged, given the merciless grip of the Rothschild clan on Europe; but, then, apart from Nationalist fervor, a love of one’s Country, and history, and culture, and language, the citizenry of those Nation States of Europe did not have, and do not have a Bill of Rights to bind Governments and truly protect the rights and liberties of the populations of those Nation States, from tyranny. Americans, however, do have, in their Bill of Rights, that the framers of our Nation, lovingly and wisely gave to us, the means through which the citizenry’s natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights, bequeathed to that citizenry from a Loving, All Powerful Creator—are able to hold fervently and ably onto their individual autonomy. Individual autonomy, secures, for each American citizen, through the Nation's Bill of Rights, in clear, categorical, imperatives, the definitive proclamation of one's right to be left alone; that each individual American citizen has the right as  an individual to truly remain individual.Our Bill of Rights is the living testament to The Creator’s Divine Imperative—that Government cannot, ever, lawfully deny to the American citizen the Integrity of Self-hood; for the Creator gave to each of us an individual living Soul. The Human Soul is a unique marker, defining one's existence as an individual. And the very existence of our Bill of Rights makes that fact plain. The import of Individual Expression and Individual Autonomy succinctly and clearly exemplifies us as Americans.But, how do Americans best protect their Sacred, Inviolate Self, against the evil of Government? By force of arms. For it is only by force of arms that Government, a necessarily corrupt, artificial construct, must forbear, from imposing its will on the individual American citizen. It is only through the codification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment that the might of the Federal Government is kept well in check. The Radical Left and the Progressive elements in society know this. And the Transnational Neoliberal Globalists know this. And the Radical Anarchist Group, Antifa—that horrid, disgusting group of malcontents knows this, too.Antifa is beginning to learn about the power of firearms. Not incidentally or accidentally, the Globalists are  arming members of Antifa, with knives and other weapons. The public has recently heard about this from the Radical cable networks, like CNN, that oddly argue that this is a good thing. Likely, Globalists are also beginning to surreptitiously provide Antifa with firearms, teaching them how to use firearms to attack Americans who merely seek to uphold a Constitution and free Republic, in the form the founders gave to the people of our  Nation that we would remain free from the heavy hand of Government control; that Government should know and accept, even if only grudgingly, that each American citizen is an individual, who should be permitted to carve out his own destiny in America, as long as he harms no one else; that the life, well-being, and individual autonomy of each American citizen is sacrosanct, and inviolate. But the transnationalist Globalist elite find that idea offensive, repugnant, even; and, so they find an armed citizenry intolerable, as it upsets their plans for world domination. So it is likely beginning to arm those groups that do its bidding, like Antifa. And the mainstream media, a Seditious, virulent, Press, misusing the power the framers gave to it through the First Amendment, acts as an apt and pompous and singularly duplicitous, hypocritical apologist for the worst excesses carried out by that Group—rationalizing the Antifa’s heavy-handed tactics as just and necessary.And, so, through the medium of “fake news,” the mainstream Press conducts a virulent, vicious, merciless campaign on the Bill of Rights--condemning especially the free exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Press maliciously, sanctimoniously engages in an incessant reprehensible attack on the sanctity of our Nation’s Constitution and on the supremacy of our Nation’s laws.The mainstream Press engages in a continuous and vicious assault on our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation State. It argues incessantly for open borders, knowing full well that a Nation that cannot and, in fact, is ordered by a corrupt Congress to refrain from defending the integrity of its land, the integrity of its borders, amounts to a wholesale denial of the right of a Nation to exist as a Nation. In fact, the Radical Left, along with Anarchists, openly assert that our Nation has no justification for existing as an Independent Sovereign. And those sentiments are echoed in the mainstream Press. We are to become, then, no more than a geographic region, no longer a Sovereign State. And, were that end to be realized, we would see as well that the very notion of what it means to be a citizen of the United States and the very notion of a what it means for a Country to exist as an independent, Sovereign ‘Nation State,’ would become meaningless concepts.All that we have laid out here as true is now being openly attested to by at least one major news outlet: Fox News, as it rightfully condemns what it sees occurring in our Country; enabled by a vicious, virulent, renegade Press. Thus, the truth of what the Arbalest Quarrel relates to you, our kind reader, is vindicated by a major news source. Yet, it was surprising, to be sure, but both refreshing and wondrous to hear the night show host, Laura Ingraham exclaiming with singular clarity, to the insidiousness and ferocity of the attendant dangers that Collectivists pose to our Nation’s continued existence if, in the next few years, their vision comes to fruition.In case you missed the recent broadcast, here are a few excerpts from the show that caught our attention (and more available at the Fox News website):LAURA INGRAHAM: . . . American identity under assault. That's the focus of tonight's ‘Angle.’The historical purge that we're witnessing all over the country. It's part of a larger agenda to destroy what it means to be American. And it's getting more audacious by the day. In St. Louis Park, Minnesota, the geniuses on the city council there recently decided to ban the Pledge of Allegiance from town meetings. Their reason, to create a more welcoming environment to a diverse community. Welcoming to everybody, but Americans who actually love the pledge. Well, residents were rightly outraged by this insanity and local Patriots turned out and they stood up to the city council.And then in San Francisco, the public defecation capital of the world, taxpayers are going to shell out $600,000 to paint over a George Washington mural that offended a few snowflakes there. So, let me just get this straight. People peeing in the fountains and stepping on dirty needles. That's not offensive. But the first founding father is? Perfect.So, why would anyone after hearing these kinds of stories be surprised when someone like Left, a soccer star Megan Rapinoe who knelt during the national anthem back in 2016 still refuses to respect it today. Or when midfielder, Allie Long drags the American flag on the ground while representing the U.S. on the world stage. And while mugging for the cameras then drops the flag like it's a piece of trash.Thankfully another midfielder, Kelly O'Hara picked it up. And of course, Rapinoe discovered early on though really that you'll win permanent MVP status when you kick Donald Trump. Like when she used foul language nixing any traditional White House visit to the champions and this was before they even won the World Cup. [A REAL HUMAN BEING isn’t she, THAT Rapinoe; and New York gives the TEAM a ticker-tape parade; but for whom, exactly? Whom is it that the TREAM represents? The United States? Even as the TEAM drags our Flag on the ground? A bit discordant, no? Other Nations must have been embarrassed for us].The easiest path to social media stardom today is one where you take cheap swipes at American symbols and traditions and you must understand that the Left truly believes America itself is illegitimate to its core. What am I talking about? Well, its founding was fraudulent. They believe its founding documents meaningless. All because of slavery and the people who were involved in it. Our progress on racial issues is conveniently ignored by cynical actors who are frankly using these past horrors for a power grab and they hope eventually a total reorganization of our society here and a massive wealth confiscation. The phrase white privilege. Well, it's now the preferred weapon of choice and it's used by socialists know nothings to tar their political opponents and avoid real debate. Only guess what? Now even old white Democrats are in the privileged crosshairs.AOC blasts everyone and anyone any time of the day or night on social media. But when the leader of her own party calls her out, she cries foul. No, no Nancy is not a racist, but - well, but President Trump is routinely subjected of course to this kind of attack while his plan to put citizenship that question on the census was roundly derided as racist by Democrats. And today, referring to that issue, he shot back.{VIDEO CLIP} DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Now, they're trying to erase the very existence of a very important word and a very important thing, citizenship. We must have a reliable count of how many citizens, non-citizens and illegal aliens are in our country.INGRAHAM: Bingo. How is this controversial? Asking about citizens. It's like a question that has nothing to do with race at all. It's about who is American and who is not. [see Stephen D’Andrilli’s UFT article republished, in unabridged format in Ammoland Shooting Sports News]. And by the way, African Americans have been the most directly impacted by the mass flow, massive flow of illegal immigrants in the United States. No wonder polls now show that a majority of both black and Hispanic voters support adding the question to the census. Are racing our history our sense of who we are is making it easier to turn America into just kind of another member of a globalist super state.Europeans sacrificed their identities years ago on the altar of globalism, when they formed the European Union. Look at what it got them.INGRAHAM: Now, we may have masked morons of ANTIFA to deal with. . . . There is a price for surrounding your sovereignty and your identity. And we're going to pay it if we don't defend our history and our traditions. And that's “The Angle.” Joining me now is Victor Davis Hanson, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover's Institution. Victor why can't the Left see the value of symbols and traditions that don't blur the differences or the mistakes we made but that have the effect of binding us together at a time when so much else rips us apart.VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER'S INSTITUTION: I think they feel that if they were to do that Laura, they would not win elections and that they have to change the past and the present, so they can have power in the future. It's a war where demography, it's a war over making residents, the equals of citizens and in their view, the argument that they're advancing as we were so sin, we the Americans were so sin at our origins, we can't be modified, adapted or improved. We have to be dismantled and reconstituted on their agendas, according to their agendas and therefore they're going to have a lot of power and influence in the future.And so when you mentioned all of these incidents of the San Francisco murals or the Nike shoe controversy or the soccer team, this is the trench warfare or these are the soldiers at the front who are fighting for these elites that we see in the Democratic primary who are advocating Medicare or health care for all, who cross borders, who are escorting people illegally into the United States, who are attacking the past, demanding reparations or the New York.Remember the New York Times video op ed where they said we're just OK, we're not really exceptional or what Representative Omar detailed in a recent Washington Post interview where she said, she was very disappointed after leaving a refugee camp to see things weren't too good here in the land of her host.And so, this is the - I don't know the raw side of what the elites are talking about, but it's the same agenda, it's to create a new future by reconstituting or redefining the past and the present. INGRAHAM: And Victor, don't you agree if America herself is illegitimate. Of course, the founding documents and the principles undergirding those documents either have to be completely swept away and rewritten because they were written by a bunch of all racist white guys or many of them old racist white guys. That has to be rewritten, reconstituted, reformed, refounded as something very different. That seems to be where this is going. Because there is no concern for actual historical reference, historical context. It's either evil or good—. . . .HANSON: No, there isn't.INGRAHAM: And everything in the past is evil and everything now and present is good until that becomes evil, I guess.HANSON: Yes, we're not a physical society where we work all day in the field. So, we have the luxury of affluence and security and leisure to think that the world works the way your app does or your smartphone. And we believe that if we're not perfect then we're not good and that the sins of humanity which exists today, sexism, racism in every country to a much greater degree than they do in the United States. Those are uniquely our sins because we should be perfect just like our technology.”A few courageous broadcast networks and commentators, along with our astute and heroic President, Donald Trump, recognize the seriousness of the dangers facing our Nation and to its citizenry and are meeting the forces that would dare crush us into submission, head-on.The real danger to our Nation’s survival as a free Republic is not coming from, and never did come from Russia, or even from China. That was deception—carefully planned and carried out. How could those Nations harm us, fatally, really? Think about that for a moment. The silliness of the notion should be self-evident to all Americans. The public has been played for fools, ever since Trump took the Oath of Office. The true threat to our Nation’s survival as a free Republic is coming from so-called allies of us—the Commonwealth Nations and the EU; from ruthless, corrupt, and powerful Neoliberal Globalists and from those whom those Transnationalists, and Economic and Political Globalists control and fund, and organize and promote, within our Nation: the Radical Left; anarchist Groups, like Antifa, from Left-wing social media Tech Giants; from corrupt politicians and Government bureaucrats; and from a compliant Press. The Rothschild Globalist "Elite," has nurtured dissident elements within in our Nation. years ago, these stooges  of the Rothschild clan and its minions were sold on the idea that the United States must eventually be subsumed into transnational unified World Government, transforming the entirety of the Western Civilization into a neo-Feudalistic construct overseen by a secretive, insular Global Aristocracy.This is the unfortunate but true, insidious nature of the real threat to our survival as a free Republic and a free people: that we might lose all we hold most dear and sacred from forces weakening us from within, fed with the necessary funds and organizational might and expertise from what the mainstream media refers to as our “allies”--those reprehensible, loathsome, ruthless forces from outside the U.S. ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES FEAR AND HATE AN ARMED CITIZENRY AND WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO DESTROY IT

PART THIRTEEN

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS DON’T ACCEPT EXISTENCE OF BILL OF RIGHTS AS NATURAL RIGHTS AND WANT TO CREATE A NEW SET OF UNNATURAL RIGHTS TO REPLACE OUR NATION'S BILL OF RIGHTS

THE SEVEN COMMANDMENTS1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.3. No animal shall wear clothes.4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.5. No animal shall drink alcohol.6. No animal shall kill any other animal.7. All animals are equal.~ George Orwell, “Animal Farm” ((a satire on the duplicity and idiocy of the Communist vision of the perfect world order)(published in 1945)) (quotation from Chapter 2)

THE RADICAL LEFT’S GRAND DESIGN IS CLEAR: THRUST OUR NATION INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Rothschild clan and its minions in the EU are no longer even attempting to disguise their contempt for Western Nation States and for the populations of those Nations States. And, they are no longer attempting to disguise their plans to destroy the Nation States of Europe, along with the Commonwealth Nations—those that embrace Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.  They intend to destroy the independence and sovereignty of all Western Nations, including the destruction of the independence of the United States. These ruthless, diabolical, insufferable transnationalist “elites” have made their contempt of Western Nation States and of the common people of those Western Nation States transparently, poignantly obvious.’Consider the words of the outgoing European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, as reported by the website, Kentucky Hunting:"Ahead of the EU elections, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has blasted 'stupid nationalists,' who dare to 'love their own countries' and dislike migrants. Juncker took to CNN on Wednesday to share his belief the nationalist politicians pose a distinct threat to European unity with their stance on migration.“'These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries,'” he said, urging the EU to show 'solidarity' with migrants instead."U.S. legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, perceives the ominous portents existent in the pronouncements of the EU overseers; sees, in fact, the deviousness inherent in the entirety of the EU project, and Turley is not at all amused, as he makes clear in a post  on his website, jonathanturley.org, in May 2019: "We have previously discussed President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and his controversial statements. Juncker for many is the face of the detached and arrogant bureaucracy that dictates policies and practices in various nations. While the EU has long tried to assure people that it is not replacing their national identity or self-determination, Juncker has always been dismissive of such concerns, even with growing anti-EU movements. That dismissive attitude was evident this week when Juncker said on CNN 'These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries.'"The notion of people being stupid for being 'in love with their own countries' embodied the fears of critics that the EU was always an effort to erase national identity, as least in governance and policy. He added 'They don’t like those coming from far away, I like those coming from far away. . . we have to act in solidarity with those who are in a worse situation than we are in. . . It’s always easier to mobilize negative forces than to mobilize positive forces.' Of course, Juncker has never mobilized any forces beyond the top European elite. His CNN interview embodies his leadership style of disdainful and cavalier comments. He previously blasted the very notion of national borders.It is remarkably stupid for Juncker to openly maintain such a position when the EU is fighting to dampen calls for exits from the organization."Obviously, arrogant jackasses, like Jean-Claude Juncker of the EU, and such “luminaries” like Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell, and, other similar vultures in the U.S., don’t care what the commonalty of the Nations of Western Europe and of the U.S. think. They pretend to know better. These Radicals are so enamoured with themselves, so convinced that a  single and singular transnational system of governance will succeed, and should succeed, that they now let fly their true feelings toward the peoples of Europe and of the United States—all those who ascribe to the spirit of “Nationalism”—those who profess pride in their own Nation, culture, history, and language.Transnationalists—those pushing for an end to Western Nation States—tend to treat “Nationalists” as close-minded, reactionary elements, who would hold to their unique history and cultural heritage. And, THAT attitude is considered wrong, even outrageous? Apparently so. And so it is that the Radical elements both here and abroad, those seeking to establish, among Western Nations, a new transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, cultural, and legal system of governance, are now ever more open to letting the people of Europe and of the U.S. know the true horrific extent of their aims for Western Civilization. They are convinced that Great Britain will never actually leave the EU; that the Nationalist wave in Europe will burn itself out; and that Donald Trump will never secure a Second Term in Office—perceiving both Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 and Britain’s majority vote to leave the EU, and Nationalist fervor in Europe as no more than momentary anomalies, a temporary setback to their plans for Global domination.So, through the first of a two-prong attack on Western Civilization, the transnationalist Rothschild clan and its minions clamp down hard on Nationalist fervor in the EU and they denigrate and ridicule and rebuff efforts of the populations of the Europe to reassert their National Sovereignty and independence and they place obstacles in the path of the British people who voted to leave the EU.Contemporaneously, through the second of a two-prong attack on Western Civilization, the Rothschild clan and its minions, through their cohorts in the U.S. to denigrate President Trump. They attempt to derail the work of his Administration; to keep Trump preoccupied, fighting endlessly, aimlessly, all efforts to topple him. They seek to frustrate Trump at every turn. They operate in secret, machinating to undermine the U.S. Constitution; particularly, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. They seek to undercut the U.S. Constitution, because that sacred document does not cohere with the Rothschild plan for a transnational global system of governance. Is it any coincidence, then, that we see heretical speech emanating from Leftist Radicals, and, thence, echoed in the mainstream media Press and in such propaganda media sources as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, and PBS, becoming ever more strident and bizarre?

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS IN OUR COUNTRY SEEK TO REPLACE OUR FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL AND UNALIENABLE AND RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WITH OTHER MAN-CREATED “RIGHTS” OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING

Consider: only in very recent years have Progressive and Radical Left-wing politicians and their friends in the mainstream media dared openly to call for restraints on speech and on freedom of association among the polity; abridgment of the free exercise of religion; abrogation of the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; encroachment on the right to own and possess personal property; and outright eradication of the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms—audaciously refusing to accept the simple truth of the right to own and to possess firearms as a fundamental, natural, individual right, notwithstanding the clear and categorical meaning of the right codified in the Second Amendment, and openly contemptuous of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, that set the high Court’s imprimatur on the transparently clear meaning of the Second Amendment, if anyone happened to harbor any misunderstanding of the import and purport of the Second Amendment.Further, these Radical Leftists and Progressives in our midst have called for repeal of the Electoral College; have sought to pack the high Court with individuals who would demonstrate no reluctance in imposing their own Collectivist belief system on the Constitution, when deciding cases. And, it doesn’t stop there. They dare to create out of whole cloth an entirely new set of rights—rights that nowhere exist tacitly or expressly in the U.S. Constitution; In fact, these new “Rights” that the Radical Left and Progressives would impose on the American citizenry are  antithetical to very meaning and purpose of the Constitution that the framers of our Nation bequeathed to us. But, they don’t care. As it is their intention to destroy the Constitution, they have drummed up a “new” set of nonsensical “rights,”—as nonsensical as the “Seven Commandments” that Orwell dreamed up for inclusion in his satire, “Animal Farm.”

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE  ELEMENTS HAVE CREATED A NEW SET OF PROTOCOLS FOR A NEW WEAKENED AMERICA TO REPLACE THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS THAT THE FRAMERS IN THEIR WISDOM SAW NEED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

The Protocols that the Radical Left and Progressive Elements envision might very well include the following, preposterous--indeed imbecilic--protocols, as predicated on their own pronouncements:

• Abrogation of the original Bill of Rights
• The right of a pregnant woman to kill her unborn child up to and including the very moment of birth.
• The right of non-citizens to insist the United States grant them asylum
• The right of anyone residing in the United States to obtain free, public-supported higher education
• The right of anyone residing in the United States to access unlimited, free health care
• The right of non-citizens to free housing, free health-care, and unlimited welfare, all at taxpayer expense
• The right of non-citizens and convicted felons to vote in Federal elections
• The right of those groups of people, deemed to be victims in times past, to obtain reparation payments
• The right to receive public assistance, sustenance, and remuneration even if a person doesn’t wish to work
• The right of Government to determine what rights inure to the people and who may enjoy them.
• The right of Government to add to, modify, suspend, or revoke and right as exigency demands.
• Adoption of the European Union's “Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” *

What is difficult to believe is that the aforesaid protocols are not satire. They are in fact the feverish dream of Radical Left and Progressive politicians, and they are deadly serious about making them a reality. Imagine if these reprobates had their way and could actually substitute their “rights” for those codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights? If that were to happen, then slowly, inexorably, the U.S. would begin to look much like the EU, and the EU would begin to look increasingly like this new version of the U.S.; and who, then, would be able to tell the difference between us and them?“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” ~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (Chapter 10, last paragraph).How much easier it would be, then, for the U.S. to slip easily into the throes of the New Global World Order. Americans would hardly know it were even happening--until it were much too late to do anything about it!___________________________________________________*There are several important implications that beg to be addressed apropos of the “Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” and which we must needs consider, as they may not be obvious, but are critical to an understanding of the inherent limitation on “rights” as perceived by the Governmental EU bureaucrats who created these rights at the behest of the silent true rulers: the Rothschild clan and their ilk.First, this set of rights, bespeaks an autonomy that is beyond the member States of the EU to question, once the respective State Governments ratify this Convention. Second, as a corollary to the first point,  these “rights” qua “protocols” take precedence over the laws of the individual member Nations of the EU. Thus, the European Commission and European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, have political, legal, and legislative authority and control over each of the member State Governments. Third, while several of these protocols may seem on their face, at first glance, to be eminently fair—as a few allude to our own fundamental rights as set forth in our Bill of Rights—still, there is a major difference between the EU protocols set forth in the "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" and the Bill of Rights of the United States; for, every one of the European prootocols comes with conditions attached, as specifically set forth in the Articles, that reduces the protocols to a set of nonsensical rather than commonsensical "rights and freedoms. For, unlike our Nation's Bill of Rights, the protocols of the European Union operate with built-in constraints on the free exercise of such presumed "rights." And, it is through those conditions, which follow the recitation of the purported "rights" that it becomes manifestly clear that the engineers who constructed the "rights" intended them to be understood to be mere man-made creations--subject to modification, suspension, or outright abrogation at the whim and caprice of the overseers of the European Union. Thus, the "rights" (or protocols as they are often referred to) are understood not to be the creation of the Divine Creator, and, therefore, are understood not to be preordained in the people, unlike the rights that comprise our own Nation’s Bill of Rights, which renders them legally incapable of being modified, weakened, suspended, ignored, or altogether abrogated by Government.Unlike the natural, fundamental, primordial, immutable, unalienable rights of the American people, as codified lovingly by the framers of our Constitution into the Bill of Rights, the "rights" referred to in the EU's Convention" are all constructs of Government, subject to the EU Government’s built-in conditions that operate as constraints and as restraints on the exercise of any right or freedom. In that regard, it is incumbent on those who peruse the European Union's Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to realize, fourth, that the protocols are worthless, even as they seem pertinent and demonstrative of tangible force and efficacy. For the Human Rights the EU speaks of clearly are not to be perceived as a check on or guard against Government encroachment on the lives, thoughts, and actions of the people of the EU, but, rather, as simple Rules of Etiquette as between one person and another. Also, pay close attention to Article 15 of the Protocol, titled, “Derogation in Time of Emergency.”  To wit: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”Essentially, Article 15 means that each of the “Rights” set forth in the preceding “Articles 1 through 14” of Section I of the Convention, may be suspended when the overseers of the EU deem suspension of rights to be necessary, namely, when the the EU's overseers then determine what state of affairs operates as a “public emergency.” There is no debate; no appeal by any person or by any member Nation. While, it may be noted that secret (with particular emphasis on the word, ‘secret’) Executive Orders may exist in our own Nation that might serve to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and other Rights and Liberties of our Bill of Rights when public exigency demands, such secret U.S. Presidential Executive Order—if such does exist (and there may be more than one such secret Order)—is prima facie Constitutionally unlawful, and therefore invalid. See, Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (Circuit Court, D. Maryland) (April 1861, Term).Government--any Government, including our own--may, through dint of power, prevail on subduing the populace, but power to act against the people does not equate with right. In any event, an armed citizenry--our armed citizenry--is the ultimate guard against ("failsafe")  against misuse of power by the Government against the citizenry—and 'misuse of power' here is meant to be used in reference to "misuse of power" by any of the Three Branches of our Government, as against the citizenry. This brings us to the Fifth  and final point pertaining to the EU's Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Not one of the 14 Articles of “Rights” says anything about a right of individual citizens within a Nation of the EU to possess firearms. Fancy that? Was this just an oversight? Obviously, not. For, only an armed citizen can enforce rights that Government would seek to constrain, ignore, or revoke. Article 15 provides for and reserves one very specific right for itself, that it bestows only on itself: the right, as pointed out supra, to suspend or abrogate any of the 14 other purported rights mentioned in the Convention. It would hardly do for the EU to provide for the citizens' right to keep and bear arms--even if only understood as a man-made construct--for an armed citizenry might have much to say about Government that would dare reserve for itself the overriding, ultimate right to suspend or abrogate all of the protocols--Article 1 through 14--of the EU Convention. That would prove exceedingly difficult were the populations of the EU armed. For the populations could then really and truly compel the EU Government, to honor and commit to the rights and freedoms that it so pompously and sanctimoniously presents to the populations of the EU, through the Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That the EU Government fails, then, to provide for the right of the populations of the EU to keep and bear arms--even if such right as articulated specifically mentioned, as its stated purpose, the right of self-defense--that should tell the populations of the EU all it needs to know about the speciousness of Articles 1 through 14 of the Convention. For, clearly it isn't misuse of firearms by the occasional lunatic or criminal that frightens the EU overseers. It is, rather, the very real power existent in the populations of the EU that the overseers fear if the populations of the EU are armed. The EU, after all, belongs to the Rothschild clan and to the other architects of the EU. Only the police and military, who serve the EU, not the public, will be permitted to have access to firearms. And, the overseers, themselves, will equip themselves with firearms to protect themselves from the public if the public should at long last realize that the EU does not serve the interests of the public; that the EU overlords never intended to serve the interests of the public; that the EU overlords never did serve the interests of the public; that the EU was never  created to serve the public; and that the EU overlords will not, ever, serve the interests of the public. Rather the architects of the EU intended the populations of Europe to serve as mere subjects and serfs of the EU overlords, themselves. And with each passing day, that fact becomes ever clearer. The overlords of the EU operate with impunity. Their power increases. The Government of the EU becomes more entrenched; the lives of the public worsens. Their rights and freedoms--if such ever existed--is a thing of the past. If they truly expect to regain rights and freedoms, they will first have to reclaim their own Nation's sovereignty and independence from the EU puppet masters.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES SEEK TO DESTROY NATION'S BILL OF RIGHTS AND TO UNLEASH A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

PART TWELVE

The Democratic Party is in a bind. This is the inference to be drawn after the first two recently aired Democratic Party Debates. And no less a source of Radical Left, Marxist hate-filled proselytizing and propaganda-filled garbage than The New York Times newspaper recognizes this indisputable fact; and, recognizing it, laments it, but for a very specific reason--one that may not be apparent to the casual reader.In two recent stories—one, an Op-Ed, appearing in the Saturday, June 29, 2019 edition of the newspaper, and the other, a news story appearing on the front page of the Sunday, June 30, 2019 edition of the newspaper—two NY Times reporters in a news story, and one NY Times columnist in an Op-Ed, express concern, even consternation over the style, tone and mood of the two recent Democratic Party debates. Several of the candidate hopefuls were falling all over themselves in their call for radical change for the Nation—calling for no less than a Marxist Revolution. Their exuberance was on clear display for all to see. The problem was that these Radical Left candidates for the Democratic Party nomination were much too exuberant; much too honest in setting forth their agenda for our Nation in the 21st Century. For, what they are calling for, what they are pushing for, what they seek to accomplish is the dissolution of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation.President Trump has made clear, consistent with his policy objectives, that our Nation is not to be  beholding to or subordinated to any other Nation, Group of Nations, or any new social and political transnational Governmental world order. The Country had been in danger of losing its National Sovereignty and independence during the Administration of Barack Obama, through his duplicitous, seditious machinations.And work toward accomplishing that awful, horrific, nefarious objective would have continued under the Administration of Hillary Clinton. That is what the Radical Left wants, and the Democratic Party hopefuls were delivering that message to their base during the recent debates. They would attempt to accomplish immediately what Obama and Clinton had sought to accomplish slowly, incrementally. That's what the Radical Left wanted to hear, and hear that message, they did.Well, the message delivered at the Debates may be all well and good for the Radical Left base. It never tires of hearing how the United States Constitution ought to be shredded, commencing with the Bill of Rights; getting rid of the Second Amendment outright, and restraining and constraining the right of free speech of the First Amendment, on the other. And, the Radical Left never tires of hearing how our unique history, traditions, culture, and ethos are to be relegated unceremoniously to the dustbin.Yet, the message of the Radical Left means something patently horrific to everyone else—the vast majority of Americans, the silent majority in our Nation that happened to tune in on the debates. The silent majority does not ascribe to a new international world order, predicated on open borders, mass surveillance, loss of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights and liberties, and who do not place their confidence in the firm and callous hand of Government, that seeks to control all action, thought and conduct of the American populace.The plans expressed by these Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls may sound appealing to Progressives, to Marxists, and to Antifia anarchists and nihilists who seek to tear this Nation apart; who seek to create an entirely new system of Governance, one predicated on Socialist, Communist, and Marxist principles. And, the Democratic-Socialist agenda will, of course, certainly sound appealing to the millions of uneducated, or, at best, poorly educated, unskilled illegal aliens (who have no legal right to be in our Country in the first place). For, what it is that these functionally illiterate illegal aliens find most appealing about our Country has nothing to do with our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties; and it has nothing to do with the Governing principles and precepts upon which our Constitutional Republic rests and which they know little if anything about, and care not at all to know about.What these functionally illiterate illegal aliens find most appealing about our Country, what it is they are really looking for, and what it is that brought them here and which continues to bring, in droves, hundreds of thousands more of their ilk to our Nation, is the promise of U.S. Government and tax-payer assisted largess: free housing; free medical care; free education for their offspring, of which they have a multitude; and access to abundant welfare aid and programs and massive public assistance. These aliens and hundreds of thousands more of them—waves of them—illegally crossing our borders every month, have no concept of our fundamental rights and liberties and they have no desire of exercising such rights anyway because of the attendant personal responsibility attached. Yet, Americans are expected to obliterate their Constitution and dismantle a free Republic and to do so to cater to the riffraff of the world and to cater to the proponents and zealots of Marxist Collectivist ideology and Marxist social engineering who bemoan the very existence of sovereign, independent Nation States, and who seek not the preservation of, but the utter annihilation of our rich and unique national history and heritage* and ethos.The fact of the matter is that for millions of Americans who tuned in to hear the recent Democratic Party “Debates” and who listened to the Radical Dead Souls, calling for nothing less than a Marxist Revolution, were less than enthralled with the message delivered. In fact, the majority of Americans were positively alarmed at the tone, mood, and bravado of these individuals who would have the audacity to serve as U.S. President, seemingly on behalf of a Nation and its citizenry whom they really couldn’t care less about, as they seek to destroy the one and to reduce the other to servitude, penury, and misery, serving their lives out in a Socialist Collectivist nightmare of reality.Whether the Democratic Party candidates are cocksure that one of them—whoever it may be—will prevail over Donald Trump in the coming U.S. Presidential General Election, or they are are simply misguided in presuming that a Socialist or “Democratic-Socialist” will occupy the White House in 2020, they behaved, in the Debates, as if the success of their Political Party is assured and that a Marxist Collectivist Revolution is at hand and, that the implementation of their vision for a one-world Government is a foregone conclusion.They certainly didn’t restrain themselves in projecting the most outrageous social and political policy positions and in providing the American public with their prospects for our Country. In that, these Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls, were clear and categorical about the agenda they are hell-bent on setting for the Nation: a transitional path forward to ultimate subsumption of our Country, our Nation, into a transnational, trans-global political, financial, economic, social, cultural, and legal system of governance. That would indeed mark the end of our rights and liberties; the end of the supremacy of our laws; an end to our history; an end to the very idea of a United States existing as a distinct Nation State as it is subordinated to and subsumed into a new transnational Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural construct.A disaster in the making is, apparently, what these Radical Leftists of the new Democratic Party want, indeed, what they are banking on; what, in fact, they are calling for: reducing the Nation’s citizenry to abject poverty and servitude, to the point where the citizenry cannot ably resist the dismantling of their Nation’s Constitution and subsumption of the Nation into a new international system of governance, where our Nation’s laws are no longer the supreme Law of the Land; where the United States can no longer reasonably, rationally be considered an independent sovereign Nation; and where the people of the United States are no longer deemed citizens but, rather, subjects within a new and vast world order.But, unlike the Democratic Party candidates, who demonstrated remarkable, if bizarre, exuberance and giddiness at the thought of seeing their vision of a Collectivist Marxist World realized, The New York Times, no less a proponent for the Marxist overthrow of the natural order of things, exhibited a note of caution and wariness over the alacrity with which the Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President laid bare their plans for the Country if any one of them were able to defeat Trump and actually assume the Office of Chief Executive of the Nation.In the June 30 article, the NY Times reporters made this comment in the opening paragraph of their news account:“The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing seeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of a political backlash. Vowing to eliminate private health insurance, decriminalize illegal immigration and provide government health care benefits to undocumented migrants, high profile contenders like Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are wagering that they can energize voters eager to dismantle President Trump’s hard line policies.”Donald Trump’s hard line policies? Since when has it become hard line for a U.S. President to seek to protect and maintain the integrity of our Nation’s geographical borders; to work toward preservation of our Capitalist, free market economy; to faithfully execute the laws of our Nation—and that means, all of our laws—including, then, our immigration laws; and how is a U.S. President to help “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” if that means squandering our Nations limited funds and resources on government health care benefits and welfare to millions of illegal aliens? The New York Times’ sentiments are clearly in line with the most radical of Democratic-Socialist goals, and always have been; but, obviously, the Times, unlike the Democratic Party Candidates vying for their Party's nomination in the run-up to the General Election, is not convinced the American public is itself behind the Democrats, ready to jump on their bandwagon. In fact, the vast majority of Americans, the silent majority, couldn’t agree less with the aims and wishes of this neo-Democratic-Socialist Party. For the Party’s agenda and policy goals are a recipe for National disaster.In a June 29, 2019 Op-Ed, the NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, seemingly grudgingly acknowledges that the Democratic Party agenda is well beyond the pale of anything acceptable to the vast majority of Americans, as he tellingly recounts the message of the Democratic Party candidates, as perceived by the vast majority of Americans. Stephens’ asserts, in pertinent part:“In this week’s Democratic debates, it wasn’t just individual candidates who presented themselves to the public. It was also the party itself. What conclusions should ordinary people draw about what Democrats stand for, other than a thunderous repudiation of Donald Trump, and how they see America, other than as a land of unscrupulous profiteers and hapless victims?Here’s what: a party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country. A party that puts more of its faith, and invests most of its efforts, in them instead of us.They speak Spanish. We don’t. They are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. We are. They broke the rules to get into this country. We didn’t. They pay few or no taxes. We already pay most of those taxes. They willingly got themselves into debt. We’re asked to write it off. They don’t pay the premiums for private health insurance. We’re supposed to give up ours in exchange for some V.A.-type nightmare. They didn’t start enterprises that create employment and drive innovation. We’re expected to join the candidates in demonizing the job-creators, breaking up their businesses and taxing them to the hilt.That was the broad gist of the Democratic message, in which the only honorable exceptions, like Maryland’s John Delaney and Colorado’s John Hickenlooper, came across as square dancers at a rave.On closer inspection, the message got even worse.Promising access to health insurance for north of 11 million undocumented immigrants at a time when there’s a migration crisis at the southern border? Every candidate at Thursday’s debate raised a hand for that one, in what was surely the evening’s best moment for the Trump campaign.Calling for the decriminalization of border crossings (while opposing a wall)? That was a major theme of Wednesday’s debate, underlining the Republican contention that Democrats are a party of open borders, limitless amnesty and, in time, the Third World-ization of America.Switching to Spanish? Memo to Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker: If you can’t speak the language without a heavy American accent, don’t bother. It just reminds those of us who can that the only thing worse than an obnoxious gringo is a pandering one.Eliminating private health insurance, an industry that employs more than 500,000 workers and insures 150 million? Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris support it (though the California senator later recanted the position). Since Democrats are already committed to destroying the coal industry and seem inclined to turn Silicon Valley into a regulated utility, it’s worth asking: Just how much of the private economy are they even willing to keep?”Keep in mind Brett Stephen’s account of what he perceives as the fears of “ordinary Americans” does hit the mark. It isn’t really hyperbole even if his intention was to be sarcastic. For, the fears of a Collectivist-Marxist Revolution in this Country are for us "ordinary Americans" very real, and we do in fact have good and justifiable reason to dread such a Revolution even if Brett Stephen and other New York Times contributors, reporters, editors, and the Times' publisher do not and are, in fact, active proponents of just such a Revolution, seeing it as a positive thing, as do the Progressive elements and the Radical Left in this society.So the sentiments expressed by the Democratic Party candidate hopefuls are those exulted by The New York Times and by other mainstream media organizations. Brett Stephens' concern and that of The New York Times staff is not that a true Collectivist-Marxist vision cannot be realized--for they fervently wish for it to happen--but that it will not transpire if the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential Candidates are too vocal about their plans for our Country, as they certainly were during the first two Debates. Far from alleviating the fears of the vast majority of Americans the candidates exacerbated those fears; and that would only ensure Trump's reelection to a Second Term in Office.Of course, the Democratic Party and The New York Times, along with the rest of the mainstream media have been articulating the goals and desires of the Democratic Party for a long time—in fact, ever since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office.What the NY Times finds objectionable, apparently, is that the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidates have, for the first time, in the Debates, articulated their message directly and forcefully to the American people--too forcefully; thereby threatening to lose, not gain or buttress a substantial portion of the Electorate to their cause, approving of a Collectivist-Marxist vision for the Nation.The Radical Left base certainly agrees with the creation of a Marxist regime, as do the millions of illegal aliens. The vast majority of the American citizenry, however, does not. The Radical Left base hopes for an end to the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation State, thereby finally realizing the Communist aim of a one-world Government. And the millions of illiterate, ignorant, and uneducated or poorly educated illegal aliens, for their part, are simply hoping that, with a Democratic-Socialist in Office, they can remain in the U.S.; even gain citizenship, and then be assured of a constant, consistent supply of handouts, subsidized by the American taxpayer. 

THE BILL OF RIGHTS WOULD BE IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY IF A DEMOCRAT DOES DEFEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE GENERAL ELECTION

The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their Bill of Rights constrained or abrogated. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their history rewritten; nor the founders slandered. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their legal system subordinated to foreign laws and tribunals, and their Nation subsumed into transnational system of governance. Brett Stephens and Andrew Cuomo, and Eric Swalwell are not those people.What people like Stephens, Cuomo, and Swalwell fear is an armed citizenry that through its very existence would fight to prevent and would be fully capable of preventing a Marxist-Collectivist takeover of the Country. Thus, they seek to disarm the public. Recall that Cuomo and his henchmen were the architects of the New York Safe Act that places a ban on the very firearms with which the American people can ward off the inception of tyranny. And Recall Swalwell's intention to confiscate all semiautomatic firearms in the hands of law-abiding, rational, average Americans.And, recall that NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, on two occasions, has called for repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In an October 5, 2017 Times Op-Ed, published a few days after the psychotic killer, Stephen Paddock, went on a shooting rampage, Brett Stephens didn’t mince words as he went about viciously attacking guns and gun ownership  and possession, making clear what it is he wants. The very title of his Op-Ed made clear his fervent wish: “Repeal the Second Amendment.”  He said, in part:“I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment. . . . the more closely one looks at what passes for ‘common sense’ gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn”** is the fate that soon awaits us.”And, if Americans didn’t get the message in Stephen’s first Times Op-Ed, he reiterated the message in a second Op-Ed, titled, “To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment,” that was published in The New York Times on February 16, 2018, after the Parkland High School tragedy.Stephen’s argument against gun ownership and possession is nothing new. Americans have heard the same tiresome message  countless times before, albeit delivered with more sense of urgency and ferocity, immediately after a tragedy involving firearms in the hands of psychotic or psychopathic killers: namely that society must get rid of guns, but that those Americans who wish to own and possess firearms need not fear, because it isn’t the intention of Stephens, and Cuomo, and Swalwell, and any of the other Radical Left elements in our Nation to take away all guns from citizens. They just want to take away some of them--and they want to add a little more scrutiny on those who really wish to possess them. And, eventually, these people want to confiscate most firearms from the American citizenry; and, eventually, they seek to confiscate all firearms, so that no one may own or possess a firearm lawfully without first obtaining a valid license, issued by the appropriate Government authority--rendering the Second Amendment de facto repealed, as gun ownership and possession would devolve into mere privilege; no longer a right. And those who possess them--the wealthy, powerful, "Elite" of society would--then, alone, have lawful access to firearms, rendering firearms' ownership a "status" symbol, like owning a Ferrari, but even rarer, as money alone would not be sufficient to own and possess firearms. Since a person would need to acquire a valid license, one would have to show that he has the appropriate Marxist political connections.So, we go back to the Radical Left's desire to effectively repeal the Second Amendment,  which Brett Stephens would like to do outright, as he expressly, blatantly calls for, and that Cuomo, Swalwell, and other antigun zealots at the moment themselves call for, but tacitly.In other words, no American citizen, according to people like Stephens, Cuomo and Swalwell, should own or possess firearms as a matter of right, but only as a matter of Government license and Government beneficience (granted to a very few) to the wealthy and powerful “elites” in society who have the correct attitude. Americans’ autonomy and self-determination comes to end once Government restrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is not conjecture. That is ice-cold fact._____________________________*It should come as little surprise, if at all, to anyone, that the Radical Left's push to remove the Statues and emblems of the Confederacy and their desecration of war memorials and symbols--all of which are a important component of our Nation's rich cultural history and heritage, and deserving of our respect--would not stop at that point.Now, it has come to light, on the eve of our sacred July 4 Holiday, celebrating our Nation's Declaration of Independence from tyranny, that further symbols of our heritage are denounced and denigrated. The footwear Company, Nike, that had  sought to honor our Nation by manufacturing a tennis shoe with a historical American Flag, consisting of Thirteen Stars, representing the original Thirteen American colonies, has scrubbed that effort.Why? The Company has done so because Colin Kaepernick--yes, that Colin Kaepernick who took a knee while our National Anthem was played just before commencement of the Super Bowl in January 2012--told the Company to do so, and Kaepernick who is on the Company payroll, doing Advertisements for Nike, apparently has the clout to compel Nike to do his bidding. Kaepernick claims that the Thirteen Starred Flag represents racism. It does?One may find evil in the most innocuous of things if one has the mind to do so. According to a spokeswoman for Nike, as reported by The New York Times, in its Wednesday, July 3, 2019 newspaper:"Nike had made the decision to 'halt distribution' of the [commemorative Fourth of July] sneaker 'based on concerns that it could unintentionally offend and detract from the nation's patriotic holiday.'"That is an incredibly odd and duplicitous remark. How can an emblem of our Nation's history possibly detract from the "nation's patriotic holiday." There is obviously much more at play here. The Marxists and Anarchists among us slowly but incessantly and inexorably chisel away at our Nation's sacred symbols, emblems, and memorabilia. And, they attack honorable men, not just General Robert E. Lee and others who happened to represent the South during the American Civil War, but also our Nation's founders, not least of which include the Nation's First U.S. President, George Washington, and the Nation's Third U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson.Ostensibly, the attack on people and symbols of our Nation's history is grounded on issues of morality. That may sound plausible to some, if at first and cursory glance, but, there is something much more sinister taking place here. For the Radical Left and the Anarchists have a sordid, devious, and diabolical game plan that rests at the heart of their actions and antics, well beyond the stated concern of forcing "political correctness" on the public merely for its own sake.By denigrating historical personages, symbols and emblems and successfully seeking their removal from public spaces and eradication from our history books, these reprobates seek to induce amnesia in the mind and psyche of the American public, erasing all memory of our Nation's rich cultural history and heritage. Thus, they mean to destroy our Nation and its Constitution. The U.S is to become, then, to be perceived, not as an independent and Sovereign Nation State, but as little more than a geographical region of space, subsumed into a vast transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, cultural, and legal sphere of governance and influence. That goal becomes easier to accomplish once a Nation loses its National identity and ancestral memory. The overseers of the EU are attempting to exert control of the populations of the quasi-independent member Nation States, deliberately, diabolically attempting to undermine National identity, along with a Nation's sense of culture and history, unique to itself; substituting National identity with an amorphous identity with the EU, notwithstanding differences in language and historicity, going back centuries. And Brussels is suffering a backlash as a result. The Radical Left is copying the EU's playbook, by attempting to scrub clean our ancestral memory, inducing collective amnesia on the Nation. One major problem for the Radical Left is the existence of our Nation's unique Bill of Rights. A Marxist Revolution cannot succeed unless the Bill of Rights is destroyed. Thus, the Radical Left attacks it, sometimes subtly, sometimes not.It is, for example, much easier to constrain free speech if one forgets that, once upon a time, people were able to speak their minds, freely, openly, without threat of physical attack and verbal condemnation. And, it is easier to disarm the public if the public is induced to forget that, once upon a time, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not and could not be infringed. The Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists, intend to reduce the sum total of our Nation's history and rich cultural heritage to mere legend. In time, that legend will become myth; eventually fairy tale, and ultimately completely erased from all memory. That is what they want. That is the real import and purport of their desire to destroy symbols, artifacts, emblems, and accounts of our Nation's great founders, leaders, and military officers. For, once erased, their vision of a New World Order can finally take shape and be realized. If a people cannot recall what they once were, they cannot fret over and dwell over what they have lost. And, they become more amenable to change, believing whatever it is that they are told to believe--and accepting their new world as right, and just, and proper. This becomes far, far easier to accomplish with children, as they need not be induced to forget a past they had never known. Their heads can be filled with the dry rot of Collectivist precepts at the get-go of their primary school education. **The original movie, titled, “Red Dawn,” released in 1984, and starring Patrick Swayse, Charlie Sheen, and Lea Thompson, concerns an invasion of the U.S. by Soviet forces, supported by unnamed Central and/or South American and possibly Mexican Communist military forces. The protagonists are high school students in some generic area of rural America, who, operating as a well-armed partisan, guerrilla force, attack the invaders. It is odd, though, that Brett Stephens would refer to the 1984 movie as some sort of fantasy wish. Why would any American in their right mind look forward to the invasion of our Nation simply so they have an opportunity to engage in warfare on the home front. That would hardly amount to play acting.Actually, the greater threat to this Nation, as the Arbalest Quarrel, has made patently clear, as a central theme in its articles, is not the threat of Russian, or even Chinese interference in our elections. The true threat derives from within the Nation, and through a seditious Press, and through political and Grassroots elements taking their cue from and monies from wealthy, powerful Globalists within the EU (our Allies?) who seek to weaken our Constitution and to destroy our National Sovereignty, in order to drive us into the throes of a Global Conglomerate, controlled, politically, economically, socially, culturally and legally by a hidden power elite. What we face is a new world order; what the writer Sheldon S. Wolin, in his in his sociological and political science work on  titled,“Democracy, Inc.,” refers to as “Inverted Totalitarianism” which, as he says, consists of a “blend of powers,” wielded by a small group of “elite” forces; at once impenetrable, secluded, unapproachable, faceless and omnipotent, answerable to no one but themselves; operating in accordance with their own personal trans-global, neoliberal economic interests and in support of their own inscrutable and pathological supranational political, social, cultural, and militaristic goals; altogether at odds with the precepts of our Constitutional Republic, and oblivious to the concerns and interests of the American citizenry.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CUOMO, SWALWELL, AND OTHERS OF THE RADICAL LEFT INTEND TO OBLITERATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS, COMMENCING WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

PART ELEVEN

Radical Left elements, with the connivance of the mainstream news media—the Dead Souls existing among us—slowly, methodically, systematically work toward completing their Marxist agenda, notwithstanding the failure to install their candidate, the duplicitous, innately evil Hillary Clinton, in the White House. But, to make their abominable policy objectives palatable to a wary, discerning American public, this Radical Left realizes the need to control the narrative and to foreclose debate on all Second Amendment related matters, and on any other matter that touches upon their policy goals. And, so, through mass, repetitious story-telling, the most ludicrous of proposed changes to our Nation and to its Constitution become commonplace and then accepted as normal and proper. They have their own tenets, their own set of principals, their own Commandments: right out of the Marxist Playbook.A compliant Press, sold on the idea of a Marxist style Amerika, willing to take—indeed, ecstatically taking— marching orders from the Marxist enterprise that the Democratic Party has slowly, inexorably, systematically, and inevitably devolved into and that, in turn, likely takes its orders design from the extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, and innately corrupt, ruthless, and decadent Rothschild clan, dispensing its orders and edicts through its apparatchiks ensconced in their plush offices in Brussels—has focused all of its attention on denouncing, ridiculing, debasing, vilifying, and destroying the duly elected U.S. President, Donald Trump.Disrupting Trump at every turn has been the raison d’être of the mainstream Press since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office on January 20, 2017. The mainstream media Press and Democratic Party leadership, along with most of the rank and file Party membership and the Deep State Federal Government Bureaucracy, and with the acquiescence of not a few Republicans, has sought to disrupt Donald Trump and his Administration at every turn, lest Trump continue to sully their plans: plans that go far beyond orchestration of a mere Center Left-wing agenda for the Country. For, the forces at work both within the U.S. and outside it, intend something much more ambitious and horrific.This ruthless lot intends to capture the United States, drawing it, kicking and screaming, if need be, into the orbit of the EU. These Radical Left reprobates intend to force the United States into the arms of EU’s planners: those orchestrating a New World Order; relegating the United States into one of many vassal States—like the Nations of Europe—a mere appendage of a transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, legal, and cultural system of governance—a post Nation State world; a mammoth, insatiable beast that gobbles up Nations whole, and reduces populations to abject poverty and servitude. For Americans this means the end of personal freedom and personal autonomy; the end of the right of the individual to be individual, to control one’s own destiny, to remain free from Government interference.These Godless, ruthless overseers of men, controllers of human thought and action, dare dismiss out-of-hand the very truth inherent in the concept of preexisting natural rights. These ruthless Dead Souls would dare to destroy exercise of the the fundamental rights of Americans—the foundation of one’s physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual Self and of one's aspirations: the core of the Bill of Rights. These include the right of free expression and association, the right of free exercise of religion, the right of the people to be free from unreasonable Government searches and seizures, and, most importantly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, especially and singularly, sustains, nurtures, and ensures all the others, sanctifying one’s God-given right of self-defense and God-given right to defend one’s physical, intellectual, and spiritual Self against all State encroachment that, given its nature, would seek, must seek, to crush the individual into submission.The framers of the Constitution of the United States knew full well the danger of a powerful, overbearing centralized authority. Having thrown off the yoke of one such authority, they had no wish, if unintentionally, to create another. They were faced with a conundrum: how to establish a centralized Government strong enough to withstand attacks from outside the Nation but constrained from usurping its formidable power to subjugate the citizenry within the Nation?The Constitution the framers of our Nation hammered out is a testament to their diligence and ingenuity. The blueprint for a Constitutional Republic that the framers designed is unlike that existent in any other Nation on this Earth, existing either before or since the creation of the United States. The framers of our Constitution, the founders of our Constitutional Republic, created and implemented a Governmental structure for our Nation that, to the extent possible, responds to the dilemma they were faced with.This is made abundantly, categorically, and transparently clear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: the framers of our Constitution asserted that it is Government that exists to serve the American people and not the people that serve Government. The American people themselves are, then, the true and sole and ultimate authority; sovereign ruler; and final arbiter of the Nation:“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”It is “We the People” that do “form” the Nation. Does a Constitution or other Government forming document of any other Nation on Earth make this claim? And, if so, does the Constitution or other Government forming document of any other Nation on Earth establish the fact—in the language and in the context of that Nation's Constitution or other Government forming document, and not as mere platitude—that it is the people of the Nation themselves that create their Nation and who are therefore the ultimate authority, power, and arbiter of and for their Nation? Not likely.Combing the records for any Constitution or other Government forming document of any other Nation, confederation of Nations, or aggregation of regions will fail to yield anything remotely like our own U.S. Constitution, or one that has endured for so long as ours has.The framers of our Constitution created a centralized “federal” Government that would only be permitted to wield specific power. Thus, such power that the federal Government wields is limited. The primary roles of Government--Legislative, Executive, and Judicial--is exercised by three independent Branches, thus effectively checking the power of any other Branch, and preventing Government from growing ever more powerful. And the nature and extent of the power and authority of each Branch is established clearly and categorically.No Branch is permitted to usurp the power of any other Branch, nor override the power of any other Branch; nor is any Branch of the federal Government permitted to acquiesce to another Branch. Each Branch of the federal Government is constrained to exercise such powers and to wield such authority as precisely prescribed to it in the Constitution’s Articles; and to exercise no other power; nor wield more authority than the powers set for that Branch, as set forth in the Articles.And, to further check the power of the fledgling Nation’s Government, which, given the nature of the beast to accumulate more and more power for itself, if left unchecked, the framers incorporated into the Constitution a Bill of Rights. But, this Bill of Rights was nothing like that existing in any other Nation that happened to have one at all. For our Bill of Rights is not a collection of rights and liberties created by Government.Our Bill of Rights is a codification of preexisting rights intrinsic in each living soul. Our Bill of Rights is not mere platitude, niceties, inconsequential pleasantries, or whimsical touches, expressing, at best, a Nation's honorable intention but having no real effect other than what a Government wishes to give to it. No! the rights codified in our Nation's Bill of Rights is much, much more. Our Bill of Rights comprises affirmations of powers inherent in the American people themselves, preexistent, immutable, indestructible; unalienable;  existing before Government, and beyond the power of Government to lawfully tamper with. And, they are "real powers," not phantoms; They are powers that the framers of the Constitution expected the American people to exercise readily; and to do so in order to effectively corral the Beast--the federal Government. Yet, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and the other progressive and radical Leftist elements do not see the Bill of Rights in that way. They fail to realize and to appreciate the salient fact that the rights codified in the Bill of Rights were not created by the framers of the Constitution; they are simply assertions of rights intrinsic in the soul of each American, and, they need not have been incorporated into the Constitution, but were done so--at the behest of those among the framers who were most prescient, the Antifederalists--to serve as a constant reminder to those who wield power in Government that it is, not them, but the American people who ultimately are in charge. For, it is, after all, their Nation, and the Government belongs to them, to serve them.Those who wield power in Government must remember that it is they who are the servants of the American people; and not the American people who serve them.Yet, we see in the political pronouncements of Cuomo, Swalwell and others, constant efforts to deceive the public, as they beseech the public to relinquish their sacred rights and liberties under the guise of doing so to protect the public, as if the public needs their protection, an arrogant attitude of its own. In truth, they intend to weaken the public, in order to effectively control it, subjugate it. And, to accomplish that end, they must destroy the Bill of Rights. And, to do that, they must somehow convince the public that the Bill of Rights is nothing more than a collection of man-made rights--some good, some not so good, and some, like the right set forth in the Second Amendment, altogether, bad--and all requiring modification, reinterpretation, or outright abrogation. These radical Left elements have, in recent years, become very vocal in their antipathy toward our Nation's Bill of Rights, as they have become ever more frustrated with their inability to transform the Nation into a Marxist, Collectivist construct, to be subsumed eventually into the EU and, thence, into a one-world, unified system of Governance.Radical Left-wing politicians and media personnel dare openly to call for restraints on speech and on freedom of association among the polity; abridgment of the free exercise of religion; abrogation of the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; encroachment on the right to own and possess personal property; and outright eradication of the Second Amendment, audaciously refusing to accept the simple truth of an individual right of the American people to keep and bear arms: and contemptuous then of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald.Cuomo, Swalwell, and the rest of the sordid lot, engage in heresy and sedition and do so openly, bombastically, endlessly. They adamantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of fundamental, preexisting, immutable, unalienable rights; intrinsic to and preexistent in each American citizen and therefore beyond the power of Government to modify, ignore, or abrogate.These Dead Souls endorse the false notion that our Nation's Governmental structure is easily transformable. It isn't and should not be. And these Dead Souls argue that our rights and liberties are infinitely malleable. They aren't and cannot be. But, the false belief allows them to maintain our Nation’s Governmental structure can be manipulated to suit their ends and that our sacred rights and liberties can be modified or abrogated to conform to their vision of reality in a particular moment of time.People like Cuomo and Swalwell are the very manifestation of the real fear our founders rightfully felt could one day doom our Country: that arrogant, ruthless individuals from within our Nation would dare wrest control of the Nation from the American people. And so the framers incorporated the Bill of Rights into our Constitution, and made certain that the Nation's citizenry would be able, in accordance with their God-given right, to be well armed.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a constant reminder to Cuomo and Swalwell and the rest of them, that a metamorphosis of our Nation into a Collectivist, Marxist nightmare they and other Radicals envision is not so easy to manifest in reality. Thus, they seek to destroy the sacred right that stands in their way—which the framers of our Constitution intended to stand in the way of all those who would dare usurp power for themselves.Cuomo and Swalwell and the rest of the Radical Left continue to debase, damn, and ridicule both the Second Amendment and those who support it. In doing so, they aptly illustrate their condemnation of, disgust with, contempt for, and outright abhorrence of a Governmental structure—a Constitutional Republic, predicated on and defended by an armed citizenry—that they cannot square with the tenets of their radical, Collectivist, Marxist belief system, and which they cannot and will not, then, ever abide by.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO'S HATRED OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT KNOWS NO BOUNDS

PART TEN

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo hates guns, all kinds of guns. He hates them with a passion. His vehement disdain for these inanimate objects rests on the ground that, as he perceives it, they serve no legitimate or useful purpose. Guns do kill, of course. That fact isn’t to be denied. But, there is a huge difference between guns in the hands of criminals and lunatics, on the one hand, and guns in the hands of law-abiding, trained individuals, on the other—a world of difference that antigun zealots don’t seem to recognize or appreciate; or, if they do, then it is something they simply refuse to acknowledge.Criminals and lunatics use guns to threaten life and to destroy innocent life. Law-abiding rational citizens use guns to thwart threats by criminals and lunatics, in order to protect their life and other innocent life.  The mainstream media and antigun zealots invariably conflate the two or otherwise skirt this critical difference. Why do they do this? They do so because drawing attention to a clear and obvious difference between misuse of guns by criminals and lunatics, on the one hand, and the proper, lawful use of guns for self-defense by the law-abiding citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t fit the false and shameless narrative antigun zealots wish to convey: that no concrete difference exists between proper lawful use and improper illegal use of firearms.According to the antigun zealots’ running narrative, the very existence of guns threaten the well-being, cohesion, and order of society; so, for them, it doesn’t matter who has them. The idea expressed through the tale spun, and constantly, tediously regurgitated for public consumption, is patently false, even if it seems superficially sound.Firearms will invariably make their way into the hands of criminals and lunatics; and, even if that were not so, nonetheless the criminal element and lunatic fringe will always exist, threatening the life and well-being of everyone else through the use of one implement or another—be it knife, hammer, baseball bat, or anything else. It is, therefore, only with a firearm—the best means of self-defense at the disposal of the average, freedom-loving, law-abiding, American citizen—that real threats to life and safety will ever be effectively thwarted.Not infrequently off-duty police officers, in civilian garb, have protected their own life with a firearm when confronted by a would-be assailant, when that would-be assailant is unaware his targeted victim is an armed police officer. The tables are quickly turned on the assailant. But, even if they acknowledge that police officers have, often enough, defended their own life and well-being with a firearm, when off-duty, nonetheless, they refuse to recommend similar protection for the average law-abiding civilian citizen, notwithstanding that the life of an off-duty police officer, and the life of prominent politicians and of wealthy individuals who can afford armed guards, or who have armed guards assigned to them, are treated differently and better than the rest of us.Thus, Cuomo and other Radical Leftists refuse even so much as to acknowledge, even if grudgingly, the benefits a firearm affords the average law-abiding citizen. After all, they have a fairy tale to tell the public. And it is that the armed citizen is somehow less safe when confronted by an assailant and that society, too, is more threatened by an armed citizenry.Removing firearms from the hands of the average, honest, rational, law-abiding American citizen is their raison d'etre. So, Cuomo and the Radical Left elements that comprise antigun groups continue their call for ever more restrictive gun laws; weaving a fable--one consistent with both the tenets of Collectivism and with their own warped political, social, and ethical view of society and of the role and place of the citizen in that society. The Second Amendment is an anathema to them. Thus, they seek no less than the eventual destruction of the Second Amendment.It is the American citizenry, itself, that antigun zealots, like Cuomo, seek to disarm; it isn't the criminal element and the occasional lunatic they are really intent on disarming. If Cuomo's true aim and that of the Radical Left, pertaining to gun ownership and gun possession, remains hidden, then it is hidden in plain view.Denying criminals and lunatics access to guns is merely the pretext to placate the public—a make-believe tale concocted—to make the call for stringent arms control palatable to non-discerning members of the populace, even as the public is made less safe and even as that goal is wholly incompatible with the clear, import, purport, and categorical imperative of the Second Amendment—that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed.The plain fact of the matter is that Cuomo and other Progressives and Radical Leftists do not truly consider the Bill of Rights to be a salient component of the Constitution. Yet, the Ten Amendments, that comprise our Bill of Rights, must be taken together, as the framers intended, as one, unified whole, and an integral and critical component of the U.S. Constitution. Cuomo and those who agree with is political and social philosophy play with the Ten Amendments, pretending that these Ten Amendments—fundamental, primordial, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator—are, in their inception, nothing more than man-made constructions, not unlike any Congressional Statute, which they are not. But, this is the tacit assumption and fiction that informs all the policy decisions and aims of Cuomo, and of the other Radical Leftists, who hold to, and place their faith in, the tenets of Collectivism.These Collectivists assume, WRONGLY, that the original Ten Amendments, are capable of being lawfully modified, weakened, and, in some instances, as with the Second Amendment, even abrogated, erased, altogether obliterated, on the ground, as they believe, and as they argue, albeit erroneously, and even implausibly, to the perceptive American citizen, that the Second Amendment has no context in a modern society. Yet, in the same breath, these Radical Leftists and progressive elements in our midst, claim, ingenuously, to support the Constitution.How often have New York residents heard this third-term Governor, Cuomo, bombastically asserting that he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, even as his actions invariably belie his words? Governor Cuomo, and others who express his sentiments, reject the Second Amendment out-of-hand—a critical component of and, in fact, one of the most important components of the Constitution, as a Free Republic would not, could not, long exist without it. Yet, Cuomo and others of his political and social persuasion couldn’t care less about the Constitution, even as they exclaim, disingenuously and hypocritically, that they do.

ANDREW CUOMO IS ABSOLUTELY APOPLECTIC ABOUT BOTH GUNS AND CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF GUNS

Americans must not forget that Cuomo’s obsession with guns, generally, and with civilian ownership and possession of guns, particularly, isn’t something he concocted out-of-the-blue, and it didn't happen yesterday. Having been able to use his State, New York, as a test-bed for his radical antigun policies to play out, Cuomo’s attack on the Second Amendment commenced many years ago, on January 1, 2011, during his first term in Office. Cuomo’s agenda then took shape over time, rapidly gathering steam, during the course of his first four-year term in Office, as New York’s Governor. Let Americans be ever mindful of that.As reported by the weblog Observer, in an article published on January 9, 2013, titled, 'Cuomo Vows to 'Enact the Toughest Assault Weapon Ban in the Nation, Period!'“One of the most hotly anticipated elements of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s annual State of the State address today [to the New York Legislature, delivered on Jan 9, 2013] was his plan to enact ‘sweeping’ gun control reforms in New York. In his speech, the governor outlined a seven-point gun control plan focused on “high-capacity assault rifles” that he promised would be one of the ‘toughest’ in the nation and lead similar laws to spread beyond New York.‘Gun violence has been on a rampage as we know firsthand and as we know painfully,’ said the governor. ‘We must stop the madness, my friends. In one word, it’s just ‘enough.’ It has been enough. We need a gun policy in this state that is reasonable, that is balanced, that is measured. . . .’ The governor outlined the items on his seven-point gun plan.‘Number one: Enact the toughest assault weapon ban in the nation, period!' he shouted, before ticking off his other new gun control proposals. 'Number two, close the private sale loophole by requiring federal background checks. Number three, ban high-capacity magazines. Number four, enact tougher penalties for illegal gun use, guns in school grounds and violent gangs. Number five, keep guns from people who are mentally ill. Number six, ban direct internet sales of ammunition in New York. Number seven, create a state [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check on all ammunition purchases.’ [To this 7 Point list, we can now add, Cuomo’s 8th Point: “On Monday, February 25, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Red Flag Bill into law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He was joined by many of his colleagues in New York State government, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to celebrate this new legislation, the first in the nation of its kind. . . .” (Source: John Jay College of Criminal Justice), Governor Andrew Cuomo predicting the rest of the country will follow New York’s lead and adopt stiffer gun laws].‘New York State led the way on guns once before. It was the Sullivan’s law of 1911, which was the first-in-the-nation gun control law. A model law’ he explained. [But, is the Sullivan law something to be proud about, really? See, New York Post article on this subject: “The Strange Birth of New York’s Gun law,” published January 16, 2012] ‘I know that the issue of gun control is hard. I know that it’s political. I know it’s controversial,’ the governor said, his voice rising with every word. ‘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! Too many innocent people have died already! End this madness now!’By the end of the speech, the governor was shouting.” Cuomo never intended his antigun agenda to be confined to one State. His agenda was much more ambitious. On October 30, 2015, The New York Times exclaimed, in an article titled, "Cuomo Planning Role in National Gun Control Campaign," that Cuomo anticipated national attention.  “ ‘The political climate is right again for action,’ ” said Mr. Cuomo, who has endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president. He added, ‘The appetite is there, I think, in the presidential election, especially in the Democratic primary but also in the general election.’ ”  Well, that didn’t come to pass and Governor Cuomo obviously never forgave Donald Trump for having had the audacity to win the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereby dashing Cuomo’s hope of implementation of a National NY Safe Act—dashing Cuomo's hope of adding an important feather in “Chief Cuomo’s" own headdress. See article in the weblog, "Syracuse," posted on April 29, 2019, titled, "Cuomo to Trump on gun violence: You have done nothing but tweet."Don’t for a moment think that the incessant, vicious, virulent attack on the Second Amendment won't factor as a major issue in the upcoming 2020 U.S. Presidential election, as Democrats gear up for the debates, beginning this month. It most definitely will.Eric Swalwell and Kamala Harris, especially, have made “gun control” a salient component of their campaigns; and Cuomo will, no doubt, be cheering them on, all the way, hoping for National attention on the "gun issue," for himself, if he is able to insinuate himself into the National Democratic Party machinery, with the aim of seeing the New York Safe Act becoming the Law of the Land.Feeling that he has been cheated out of that goal, in 2016, with the defeat of Hillary Clinton, Cuomo is certainly looking for redemption in 2020. And, he may very well obtain it, if, God-forbid, a Democrat should defeat Trump in 2020.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A LICENSE TO KILL: NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019 AMOUNTS TO “LAWFUL” MURDER

PART EIGHT

ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, LEADER OF THE STATE AND A ROMAN CATHOLIC, NOT ONLY SANCTIONS MURDER OF INNOCENT LIVES, BUT, THROUGH AN UNQUESTIONED AT-WILL ABORTION POLICY, HE TACITLY ENCOURAGES THE TAKING OF LIFE OF INNOCENT AMERICAN INFANTS

And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon. 2 Kings 24:2 - 24:5 King James Version (KJV)These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look; a lying tongue; and hands that shed innocent blood; An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief; A false witness that speaketh lies; and he that soweth discord among brethren.~2 Kings 24:4 King James verison, Proverbs 6:16-19 King James Version (KJV)Governor Cuomo’s dangerous policy objectives and initiatives do not rest solely on his disdain for the Second Amendment. He also demonstrated a desire, indeed, a passion to upend all New York laws that had hitherto restrained abortion. With enactment of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, New York has now removed any constraint or restraint on abortion. The Governor muscled through his reprehensible abortion policy through the Democratic Party controlled New York Legislature, just as he had previously muscled through his horrible antigun policy. He did this with cold, calculated, laser-focused intention and resolveOnce enacted in Albany, it was a mere formality for Cuomo to sign the deceptively titled, “Reproductive Health Act of 2019,” into law. The 2019 Act, doesn’t promote health, any more than the 2013 NY Safe Act ensures safety from gun violence. Instead the “Reproductive Health Act of 2019” destroys life, the most innocent life, and it is now, all oh so nice and legal in New York to do so.How was Cuomo able to do this? He was able to accomplish this by sleight-of-hand. Heretofore, abortion was a crime in New York. But, with Democrats presently in control of both Houses of the Legislature in Albany--the Assembly and the State Senate--Cuomo encouraged and cajoled the Legislature into striking the word, ‘abortion,’ from the New York Penal Code and from other New York Statutes—wherever the the term, ‘abortion,’ appeared. This then opened the door to legally sanctioned murder, infanticide. Peculiarly and insidiously, Cuomo dares proclaim late-term abortion—abortion literally up to the moment of birth—to be a fundamental right even though nothing in the U.S. Constitution remotely supports such an absurd notion.* Cuomo and other supporters of late-term, essentially at-will, abortion believe that an audacious proclamation raising licensed murder to the level of a Constitutional right can pass Constitutional scrutiny. But, is that so? It is only a matter of time before New York’s Reproductive Health Act will be challenged in the Courts.

NEW YORK'S CARDINAL TIMOTHY DOLAN CALLS GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO OUT OVER THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019: CUOMO'S  LICENSE TO KILL

As the battle over abortion-murder brews in the States and is fought over in our Nation’s Courts, the horror over this act of legalized murder isn’t lost on the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.Cardinal Dolan took Cuomo to task in blunt, forceful language, asserting in his Op-Ed appearing in the New York Post:“I’m thinking first of the ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law, which allows for an abortion right up to the moment of birth; drops all charges against an abortionist who allows an aborted baby, who somehow survives the scissors, scalpel, saline and dismemberment, to die before his eyes; mandates that, to make an abortion more convenient and easy, a physician need not perform it; and might even be used to suppress the conscience rights of health care professionals not to assist in the grisly procedures. All this in a state that already had the most permissive abortion laws in the country.As if that’s not enough, instead of admitting that abortion is always a tragic choice, and that life-giving alternatives should be more vigorously promoted, the governor and his ‘progressive’ supporters celebrated signing the bill. At the governor’s command, even the lights of the Freedom Tower sparkled with delight.Those who once told us that abortion had to remain safe, legal and rare now have made it dangerous, imposed and frequent.Then our governor insults and caricatures the church in what’s supposed to be an uplifting and unifying occasion, his ‘State of the State’ address.”The National Catholic Register ran Cardinal Dolan’s direct and vehement denunciation. And, it is patently clear that Cardinal Dolan isn’t simply venting his righteous outrage and indignation upon New York’s abortion Act that legally sanctions the murder of innocent lives, but is directing his outrage on the Governor Cuomo, since, after all, the Governor is the author of the Reproductive Health Act, and bears ultimate responsibility for it. Real blame rests, then, on Cuomo himself, for forcing through this abortion Act abomination in the State Legislature, and, in so, doing, making New York the Abortion Capital of the Country. Cardinal Dolan makes his disgust of Governor Cuomo, a Roman Catholic himself, crystal clear, as Cuomo's actions bespeak a direct attack on the Church itself!“ ‘Andrew Cuomo has insulted the Church, flaunted publicly his dissent from Catholic doctrine, and celebrated the Jan. 22 signing of the state’s ‘ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law.’Cardinal Dolan’s criticisms of Cuomo were direct: “Why would he publicly brag in a political address about his dissent from timeless and substantive Church belief? Why would he quote Pope Francis out of context as an applause line to misrepresent us bishops here as being opposed to our Holy Father? Why did he reduce the sexual abuse of minors, a broad societal and cultural curse that afflicts every family, public school, religion and government program, to a ‘Catholic problem?’”“I’m a pastor, not a politician, but I feel obliged to ask these questions, as daily do I hear them from my people, as well as colleagues from other creeds. I’ve been attacked in the past when I asked — sadly and reluctantly — if the party that my folks proudly claimed as their own, the Democrats, had chosen to alienate faithful Catholic voters. Now you know why I asked,” Cardinal Dolan added.Cardinal Dolan said that while the state’s Democrats purport to be progressive, their recent abortion bill is anything but.”Cardinal Dolan does not stand alone in his directed outrage toward Governor Cuomo. Cardinal Dolan has supporters in New York, standing firmly with him, including some Democrats, notably the Democrats for the Life of America. The National Catholic Register reports,In a Jan. 29 statement, the group said: “Abortion is big business in New York, with unlimited public funding and an abortion rate twice the national average. The governor’s new law will not address the high abortion rate, nor will it help pregnant women who feel pressured or coerced into abortion. The law will help influential and financially flush abortion corporations increase their customer base and profit margin. One in three aborted children were African-American, and one in four were Hispanic. The new law further exploits women, particularly minority populations who are overrepresented in these numbers,” the group said.“We call on New York legislators — particularly Democrats — to embark on a mission to make New York, the state, have the lowest abortion rate in the nation. The estimated $18 million that would be spent yearly on abortion could be put toward programs to prevent pregnancy, including contraction and sex education, prenatal and postnatal health care, public housing, affordable child care and paid maternity leave. Furthermore, we recommend outreach to minority communities to vastly bring down the perceived targeting of women and babies of color.”“As Democrats, we advocate for progressive solutions to problems facing the weakest in society: the poor, minorities, women and children — even if they are yet to be born. New York should repeal this anti-women law, and no other state should replicate it,” the statement added.The National Catholic Register added, in its article, this critical point about Excommunication from the Catholic Church:While Cardinal Dolan has been outspoken in his opposition to the abortion law and Cuomo’s support for it, some Catholics have called for him to excommunicate or impose some other canonical sanctions on the governor, but Cardinal Dolan has recently indicated he is unlikely to do so. The cardinal’s office did not respond to a request from CNA for comments on that possibility. Excommunication from the Church is an extremely serious action, reserved for the most serious of transgressions against the Church. But is excommunication of the Roman Catholic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, practicable, even if clearly warranted, as it is here?

WHAT IS EXCOMMUNICATION?

The website Vatican.com explains the act of 'Excommunication':“Excommunication was a method used by the Roman Catholic Church to exclude one of its members from participating in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. The Roman Catholic Church operates as a society and therefore has the right to excommunicate any of its members, either temporarily or permanently. . . if they go against the church’s constitution and teachings or do not operate within the given authority. According to the Roman Catholic Church, excommunication is the most serious ecclesiastical penalty.” Governor Cuomo must answer the charge. What does he do? Like the adept and cunning rhetorician that Cuomo is, he attempts to reconcile Catholic stricture against abortion with his public policy avidly supporting abortion. As reported in the Weblog, The Deacon’s Bench, Cuomo tries to parry Cardinal Dolan's strident criticism:“I was educated in religious schools, and I am a former altar boy. My Roman Catholic values are my personal values. The decisions I choose to make in my life, or in counseling my daughters, are based on my personal moral and religious beliefs.Thanks to the nation’s founders, no elected official is empowered to make personal religious beliefs the law of the land. My oath of office is to the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York — not to the Catholic Church. My religion cannot demand favoritism as I execute my public duties.”Cuomo cannot and does not refute what amounts to demonstrable hypocrisy, try as he might, for there is an inherent problem with Cuomo’s sanctimonious remarks. Catholic stricture condemns murder; but, then, the laws and Constitutions of both this Nation and of New York condemn murder, too! There is no safe harbor for Cuomo and others of the Radical Left on the matter.** The intentional taking of innocent human life is contrary to God's will, and, therefore, no less contrary to what may be otherwise deemed a justifiable act of man.  ___________________________________________*Cuomo’s statements to the contrary, the New York abortion law permits abortion at any stage of pregnancy, up to the very moment of birth. This is clear from the text of the actual Act. See AQ article.**Abortion, the intentional taking of a human life sans any ethical justification, such as to secure the life of the mother, is a homicide, the unjustified taking of human life: namely, manslaughter or murder. The New York Penal Code, NY CLS Penal § 125.27 of Article 125, Homicide and Related Offenses, of Part Three of the Penal Code of New York, defines the crime of 'murder' in the first degree' as follows: "A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person and [specific conditions set forth]. Note: while 'abortion', in New York historically and technically fell under the serious crime of manslaughter, and not, murder, even when conducted with intent, it was nonetheless still a homicide in New York, and therefore punishable as such, with serious penalties attached. Abortion was defined as a specific form of  homicide, falling within the purview of Manslaughter, either in the first degree or second degree, both forms of which were specifically and categorically repealed on January 22, 2019, as specifically set forth in the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, enacted on January 22, 2019. There is, at present, no crime under which abortion falls, in New York. It is for this reason that abortion may be performed at any time, for any reason whether self-induced or performed by a third party, in New York, regardless of both newspaper accounts and the accounts of other pro-abortion apologists to the contrary. If there is no penalty associated with an act, there is in effect, no crime, and there is no  longer any crime of abortion in New York. Understandably, and certainly unsurprisingly, many, many non-residents are traveling to New York for the very purpose of having an abortion. This is likely to continue and gather speed in the future, especially as some States are enacting laws to curb abortion. Hence, New York will likely become, and be known as, the abortion Capital of the Nation, as well as the Nation's financial hub. ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT VISION FOR AMERICA MARKS NATION’S DEMISE, NOT ITS SALVATION

"The self-deceived person may even think he is able to console others who became victims of perfidious deception, but what insanity when someone who himself has lost the eternal wants to heal the person who is extremely sick unto death!" ~Søren Kierkegaard, from Works of Love (1847)

PART SEVEN

Radical Left politicians, along with a compliant Press, carry the message of the Collectivist vision—a vision that overrides concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the Nation and of the Nation’s citizenry.Like the crass hypocrites they are, radical Leftists love to go on about how they respect the rule of law, but ignore it when they find it convenient to do so to support their radical agenda. Lacking all visible restraint and common decency, they flagrantly, even exuberantly, attack our Constitution, our institutions, our history, our culture, our ethos, our Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethical underpinnings and belief in the Divine Creator.These Dead Souls, these transgressors of the Creator’s sacred Commandments attack all our citizenry holds most dear and these extremists do so with increasing frequency and ferocity. Everything about them bespeaks ill-will, anger, hatred, resentment, intemperance, rage. They don’t seek to preserve our Nation; rather, they seek to destroy it. Both in their words and actions, they intend to rend everything, both tangible and intangible, that represents and constitutes the very soul-memory of our Nation and its people. These radical Leftists, these God-deniers, these Dead Souls, will suffer no one that dares disagree with them.These Dead Souls ignore, out-of-hand, fundamental rights etched in the Bill of Rights, but show no reluctance in creating out of whole cloth other “rights” that cohere with their Collectivist precepts. They claim as fundamental rights: the right to attend college; the right to abortion on demand; the right of non-citizens to reside here under a general prescription of seeking asylum; and the right to be free from so-called “hate speech” and hurtful speech in the public space.But such purported “rights” exist nowhere, tacitly or expressly, in the Bill of Rights or, for that matter, anywhere else in the Nation’s Constitution. Indeed, one presumed fundamental right catalogued by the Radical Left—the claim of a fundamental right to abortion on demand, abjectly unnatural, is transparently contradicted by Federal Statute and Supreme Court precedent, as is the right to be free from such vague notions as “hate speech” and hurtful speech.Yet, as these Dead Souls don’t profess a belief in the concept of natural rights preexistent in the citizenry, such new panoply of “rights,” that are permitted to exist at all, shall consist only of those that Government deigns to grant to the polity, whether to a few members of the polity or to several of its members; whether to most members of the polity or to all its members—but with the understanding that such set of rights and liberties may be amended, ignored, or abrogated as Government needs and goals change, or as Government simply wishes.And Government, as Government is conceived by these Radical Leftists, these Dead Souls, may at will, amend ignore or abrogate any and all such rights and liberties; doing so if for no other reason than to make the point that all lawful power, authority, and control emanates from and proceeds through Government to the Governed, the people, and not to Government through the consent of the Governed, the people. Thus, the Radical Left seeks to turn the very political framework of our Nation on its head.These Leftist extremists in the United States—these proponents of the political and social philosophy of Collectivism—will seek the “consent of the governed” one final time. By turns, they persuade, urge, and cajole the public to relinquish all power and authority to Government, claiming, all the while that this will all be for the best: for the good of society, for the good of the Collective, for the good of the Hive, albeit not good, at all, for the individual, the American citizen.And, this fact explains the Radical left's single-minded obsession with the Second Amendment in particular, 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. And, for these Americans who are not so easily duped, who do not wish to acquiesce, the Radical Left is not reluctant to use threats. Recall the remarks of the “illustrious” Congressional Representative from the “Sanctuary” State of California, Eric Swalwell, who, in November 2018, brazenly, spouted that he would be ready “to nuke” gun owners who do not willingly surrender their “assault weapons.” Many Americans took offense at the remark and rightfully so. Yet, the liberal “fact-checker” website, Snopes, counters that Swalwell had never really meant what he said. Trying to cast a positive light on Swalwell’s remark, Snopes reports:What's True [about Swalwell’s remark]In a tweet on 16 November, Swalwell responded to a gun rights enthusiast who said the Democrats' proposal to confiscate or buy semi-automatic rifles would result in "war" due to resistance from the gun owners, stating "it would be a short war" because "the government has nukes."What's False [about Swalwell’s remark]Swalwell quickly insisted that his reference to the government's possession of nuclear weapons was intended as no more than a joke and emphasized that he was not warning gun owners about such a response to their (hypothetical) resistance to gun confiscation.But, who is the joke really on? Obviously, the remark was hyperbole. That much is true. But Swalwell’s sentiment wasn’t, and isn’t hyperbole. Swalwell is deadly serious. Eric Swalwell is one of a large bevy of Democratic Party candidates campaigning for his Party’s nomination for U.S. President in the upcoming 2020 election, and, while all of these Candidates are virulently antigun, Eric Swalwell, in particular, is running prominently on an antigun platform.Lauding the Australian Government’s gun confiscation policy, Swalwell is openly critical of our own Nation’s Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, and he has made clear that he intends to confiscate all firearms Government defines as 'assault weapons.'What isn’t humorous about Swalwell’s remarks—not the least bit humorous—and isn’t meant to be a joke, is a point that Swalwell has stated and reiterated often, and it is a cornerstone of his antigun plank. Swalwell has made it abundantly clear and is deadly serious when he asserts his intention to confiscate all firearms that Government—his Administration—defines as ‘assault weapons.’ And, he has also made it crystal clear that any American citizen who fails to surrender those weapons will be arrested and prosecuted.Consistent with the pronouncements of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Swalwell waxes poetic about Australia’s extraordinarily restrictive gun measures. But, keep in mind that Australia’s heavy-handed antigun stance and actions that Swalwell and that Obama and Clinton applaud, isn’t a Constitutional Republic in the vein of our own Nation. Australia is a Commonwealth Nation, presided over by a Governor General, who answers to the Queen of England. Moreover, Australia, unlike our Nation, never did recognize a right of the people of Australia to own and possess firearms, independent of Government say-so. Hell, Australia doesn’t even have a Bill of Rights and its overseers have vigorously fought against inclusion of one. Not surprisingly, then, the Australian Government can by,  fiat, restrict gun ownership and possession, and Australians--less citizens than subjects of the realm--have no legal recourse. And, this is the Country that Swalwell, and Obama, and Clinton, and all of the other Leftist extremists emulate?To say these Leftist extremists hold a vision of America different from that of the founders’ vision, indeed a vision diametrically opposed to that of our founders’, is a crass understatement. For the assertion fails to capture the sheer scale and scope of the Radical Left's horrific agenda--what it is the Radical Left wants to accomplish and what it intends to force upon Americans, all of us--in the event it gains control of all three Branches of Government.What these extremists, these Dead Souls, seek to accomplish is the creation of an entirely different kind of America; an America no longer conceived as a free Republic, no longer existing as an independent, Sovereign Nation State. What these Dead Souls have in mind for Americans and for the Nation is the Nation's dissolution and the subjugation of its citizens. They perceive the remains of what once existed as a free Republic and independent Sovereign Nation State subsumed into a new Governmental and societal construct entirely—indeed, completely consumed by a new international world order that, like a giant serpent, swallows Nation’s whole.Thus, these Radical Leftists, these Dead Souls, seek to demolish the very existence of our Country as a Sovereign Nation State and free Republic; and, in so doing, they seek to undercut the very notion of a Bill of Rights that embraces fundamental, natural rights, preexistent in the Nation’s citizenry—rights, then, that, in the founders' vision, precede and transcend Government and rest well beyond the lawful power of Government to constrain. The Radical Left’s objectives  for this Nation are ruthlessly, remorselessly and frightfully diabolical; its rhetoric, transparently duplicitous; its lack of concern for the Nation's citizenry, abjectly shameful; its methods, rapaciously mercenary. Americans would do well to keep all this uppermost in mind when they go to the polls in 2020.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT ATTACKS AND TRIES TO SILENCE AMERICANS WHO DEFEND BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST SOCIALIST AGENDA

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ~From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

CUOMO, SWALWELL, AND OTHERS LEAD LEFTIST CHARGE AGAINST OUR MOST SACRED RIGHT AS THE RADICAL LEFT, THROUGH A COMPLIANT PRESS, CONTINUES TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE.

Convinced their goals are right and proper, Leftist extremists in Congress and in the Government Bureaucracy, in the Press, in the academia, in entertainment, and in our business sectors, relentlessly attack anyone who disagrees with them. They do not promote and encourage discourse and debate on policy issues. Quite the opposite. They intend to preempt and preclude discourse and debate on all issues. They are Dead Souls, heralds of death and destruction. They seek to tear down, demolish, and upend every aspect of our history, traditions, core values, and salient rights and liberties. They are intent on wiping the slate clean, not to secure the rights of the people but, rather, to strip the people of their God-Given rights: the antithesis of and a perversion of the Declaration of Independence.Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, and Eric Swalwell, Congressional Representative from California, typify these Dead Souls. Unfortunately, sufficient numbers of the populace, both ignorant and well-learned alike—most residing in predominately in urban areas of the Country, and many residing in liberal bastions like New York, California, Illinois, and others—acquiesce to the policy goals of these Dead Souls and willingly allow themselves to be led by the nose, to the ruination and destruction of our Country. With population movements and shifts of radical Leftists into hitherto predominately conservative States, such as Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and even in Montana (as reported in the New York Times in 2013), we find our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties growing more tenuous, situated on more precarious ground.

PRESUMPTUOUS OF HUMAN LIFE, GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO HYPOCRITICALLY AND SANCTIMONIOUSLY CONTENDS HE VALUES HUMAN LIFE.

Andrew Cuomo pompously declared, in 2014, as reported in The Washington Times: “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”Oh really? So, Mr. Cuomo, who are these “extreme conservatives” whom you detest? We will tell you who they are. These people are Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights as written, conceived, and understood by the framers who drafted it. They are Americans who demonstrate an aversion to treating an unborn, or an about-to-be born innocent human life like so much garbage, to be unceremoniously discarded as biological waste simply because the mother would rather not be bothered with that unborn child. These “extreme conservatives,” as you call them, are Americans who believe that illegal aliens who defy our laws, do not, contrary to your opinion, have any right—moral, legal, or logical—to reside in our Country even if they insist that they do and even if they presume, further, although erroneously, that the American tax-payer must bear the burden to provide for them when that taxpayer finds it difficult enough to provide for him or herself. Cuomo doesn’t care whether the public agrees with him or not, and, apparently, he doesn't care what the public thinks of him. As he sees it, all power resides in him to do whatever he damn well pleases; all the worse, Governor Cuomo, thinks, for those naysayers in the New York State Government in Albany and among the public who happen to disagree with him. Cuomo is a driven man, on his own unholy crusade. The way Cuomo sees it: a person must either get onboard with the game plan; or get out of the way. That, apparently, is how Cuomo perceives the Democratic process.Recall, this is a man who pursued with single-minded obsession and passion further gun restrictions in his State, New York, that, before enactment of the New York Safe Act, had among the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation. Cuomo knew that further draconian antigun policies would be highly unpopular. He therefore conspired to pass the New York Safe Act, quickly, in the dark of night, as an emergency measure, absent debate among New York Assemblymen and Senators; and out of earshot of the New York public. Once enacted in Albany, the radical Leftist, Andrew Cuomo, signed the Safe Act into law, in 2013, and he did so amid great fanfare. And, in doing so, he disingenuously proclaimed his desire to protect human life, albeit in some inarticulable general sense, as Cuomo’s true motive in thrusting the Safe Act on New York gun owners has little if anything to do with protecting human life and has everything to do with oppressing the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, and resident of New York. Cuomo dares not express his true motive.Law-abiding gun owners are not, after all, asking the Government to provide them protection from predators that abound in New York. They never did ask Government for such protection. In any event, Government is ill-equipped to do that; and, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Government has no obligation to ensure the life, safety, and well-being of any American, anyway, except in very narrow, and carefully circumscribed instances. Cuomo knows this, but cares not to admit it, as there is no upside in doing so.It stands to reason, then, that law-abiding gun owners simply do not wish to be deprived of the right to protect their own life with the best means available for doing so—a firearm. But Cuomo will have none of that. And, now, having been elected to a third term as Governor, he works tirelessly, obsessively, to further restrict exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The underlying goal of the New York Safe Act of 2013 is to is to strip Americans of their God-given right to keep and bear arms, even though the Constitution is clear about this, and notwithstanding that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases placed its imprimatur. It should be obvious to anyone, be that person a legal scholar or the average man-on-the-street, that the the natural and fundamental right, as etched in the Second Amendment is clear, succinct, categorical and unambiguous. Yet some Courts, on both the State and Federal levels, regularly take issue with this. That fact isn’t lost on Justice Clarence Thomas who, in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, stated, in no uncertain terms, “[the United States Supreme] Court’s refusal to review a decision [of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit] 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. . . . 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."Cuomo and other radical Leftists--most disturbingly, those rendering judgment on us, in their capacity as jurists--are seemingly oblivious to the categorical imperative of the Second Amendment, and are openly defiant of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Now, in his third term, Cuomo, has continually pushed for ever more draconian gun laws. In so doing, he has made clear that the the NY Safe Act isn’t a finished product and was never intended to be a finished product. It is, rather, simply, a work in progress. Governor Cuomo won’t be satisfied until the Second Amendment ceases to exist in New York and in the rest of the Nation, as well.Cuomo, along with other Left-wing radicals, in business, in Government, in academia, in the Press, and even in the Courts, is working ceaselessly, obsessively to chisel away at the notion--at the very idea--that Americans have a fundamental, natural, and unalienable right to keep and bear arms.Americans must take seriously the very real threat these powerful and ruthless elements pose to THIS, our most sacred and inviolate right.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE RADICAL LEFT IN AMERICA: SOWERS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION

The current generation now sees everything clearly, it marvels at the errors, it laughs at the folly of its ancestors, not seeing that this chronicle is all overscored by divine fire, that every letter of it cries out, that from everywhere the piercing finger is pointed at it, at this current generation; but the current generation laughs and presumptuously, proudly begins a series of new errors, at which their descendants will also laugh afterwards.” ~ Nikolai Gogol, (born March 31, 1809; died March 4, 1852); Russian Dramatist; quotation from Gogol’s seminal satire on imperial Russian venality, vulgarity, and pomp, “Dead Souls.”

PART FIVE

The radical Left in this Country acts like petulant children. Ever disdainful of our Nation’s rich cultural and historical and ethical heritage, and contemptuous of the profundity of the sacred Document upon which our Nation has been structured and upon which the foundation of our Nation securely rests, this radical Left, ascribing to the tenets of Collectivism, peevishly, presumptuously presumes it knows better than the framers how a Nation ought to be structured, and how a Nation ought to be governed. This extremist left-wing Marxist element in our Nation exhibits no restraint as it dares to tamper with the U.S. Constitution that the framers, through their blood, through their selfless sacrifice, lovingly bequeathed to their descendants—this Nation’s proud citizenry.And what is THIS extremist alien Marxist element that would upend our Nation? It is a heterogeneous horde of unrepentant Dead Souls. These Dead Souls adhere to the tenets of Collectivism. Collectivism embraces a set of principles completely at odds with that set of principles inherent in our Constitution—principles predicated on the philosophical concept and tenets of Individualism that the radical Left contemptuously spurns. Convinced of the absolute infallibility of its beliefs—ever prey to delusions of grandeur—the radical Left exhibits rancor toward the founders of our Nation, as it goes about unceremoniously, indiscriminately, rapaciously destroying and ravaging the monuments to our forebears.These Dead Souls operate with rabid ferocious, feverish, and all too characteristic abandon, yet with clear, cold, callous, calculated purpose, as they are fixated on erasing, annihilating, obliterating our Nation’s rich cultural history and heritage—the totality of our Nation’s ancestral memory. Screaming like maniacal banshees, they denounce those who disagree with them; outrageously daring to cripple or abrogate outright the Articles of our Constitution that constrain Government; and, at one and the same time, they attempt to obliterate the fundamental rights and liberties that ensure our citizenry’s freedoms—all the while proclaiming that this is all for the best. But all for the best for whom, exactly: for illegal aliens, who have no comprehension of our system of laws and governance, or for the sanctity of, indeed, the very conception of natural, fundamental, and unalienable rights? for convicted felons, gangbangers, and other assorted maniacs, lunatics, sociopaths, and psychopaths, who pose a constant threat to the safety and well-being of the average, law-abiding, sane American citizen? for nihilistic Anarchists, Marxists, Communists, and Socialists, whose aim is the dissolution of our independent, Sovereign, Nation State, and, indeed, who desire to destroy all Western Nations? for a handful of billionaire neoliberals and Globalists who seek to institute a new world order, consisting of one political, social, economic, financial, and cultural system of governance that they alone rule and preside over? for obdurate, headstrong, boisterous, teenagers and rowdy college kids, and for the radical instructors and administrators of our educational institutions who urge them on, often joining them in their charges mindless ecstatic escapades, intent on destruction of the very soul of our Nation? for Hollywood moguls and actors, and for technology company CEOs, who use their wealth and influence heedlessly, arrogantly and self-righteously to attack the U.S. President, in support of the radical left agenda? for the bureaucrats and their minions in Government, and for those politicians who, having a voracious, insatiable lust for for power, would dare use it to destroy the institution of the U.S. Presidency and bring, as well, dishonor, disrepute to the Government and to the American people for whom, ostensibly, they work? for those publishers, editors, reporters, and commentators of the mainstream media who, hiding behind the First Amendment Freedom of the Press, spew invective and venom, and who hurl epithets incessantly, spitefully at the President? for all those people in America who would dare launch reckless ad hominem attacks against anyone, indeed, everyone, who happens to adhere to a different set of political and philosophical beliefs—political and philosophical beliefs that, unlike their own, entail a deep, abiding respect for our Nation’s rich and unique cultural heritage and history, and who revere our Nation’s Constitution, and who venerate our Nation’s founding fathers, and who appreciate our Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethic, and who would rather demonstrate to the world an abiding admiration for, rather than a loathing for, our system of law and jurisprudence, and for our Bill of Rights, and for our institutions, and for our free market economic system that has brought wealth and prosperity to millions of Americans and has made our Nation the envy of the world?In our Nation, unlike any other nation, it is the American citizenry itself in whom ultimate power and authority resides. This is made pointedly and categorically clear, through the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that inures in and to the people themselves and not in Government. But, these Collectivists see the Second Amendment, not as a godsend, but as a blemish, an imperfection. Yet, in attacking the Second Amendment—and of late, attacking the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, as well—and by attacking the President, and by tearing down monuments, and by dishonoring our Nation’s Flag, these Collectivists, these Dead Souls, discredit themselves, as Americans. But, much worse, they bring dishonor to the Nation. And they bring dishonor to the men and women who have given their lives to defend and preserve our Nation and our way of life, since the very birth of our Nation.By assailing, berating, mocking, and discrediting our Nation, our President, our Constitution, our sacred rights and liberties, our history, our traditions, our core values—all those things that make us Americans, a unique and free people—these Left-wing extremists make jackasses of themselves in the eyes of the world, and, in so doing, would dare draw down the enmity of the world upon our Nation and all of its people. These radical elements in our Nation, these Dead Souls, hypocritically proclaim a moral need to act against the very Nation that has given them sustenance, and that continues, remarkably, to sustain them even as they flail out, rabidly against it.But, then, these Collectivists, these ghoulish apparitions, who live among us, aren’t really Americans. They have forsaken any right to call themselves Americans, to think of themselves as Americans, as they unconscionably sow disharmony and discord in our Country.Is this Nation, then, to fall to those who cast aspersions on it, from within the bowels of it? The hideous ghouls who desire to rend the entire fabric of our Nation--a Nation that has stood strong, unconquered, unyielding against external foes, since its birth--ought deal harshly with these contemptible malcontents. They who hate our Nation and its people and its Constitution must be cast out from our Nation. Perhaps, the EU, whom these ghouls admire so, will take them in. It is evident they wish to see our Nation folded into a new trans-world system of governance, where orders and edicts emanate from Brussels.Yet, these Dead Souls will suffer no one to tell them they are wrong and have been wrong all along, dead wrong. Their agenda serves only to wreak havoc across our Nation. Were they to succeed, they would bring nothing but ruin, desolation, and horror to this Nation and to its people; but they don't care. In their blind rage, it is sadly evident that these Dead Souls want to accomplish just that: to destroy the Nation outright. The fruits of their design are plentiful. We see their grand design today in their attempt to erase our history; in their attempt to weaken our fundamental rights and liberties; in their desire to redistribute the Nation’s bounty in accordance with the tenets of Marxism; in their dishonor of our Nation’s flag and in their antipathy toward other National emblems and monuments. And we see their insidious design in their stated desire to rewrite the United States Constitution—the foundation and framework of our free Republic.These ghouls demonstrate, plainly, in their every word and deed, that they disdain the very notion of the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation. Recall Obama, one of their smooth-talking stooges. Ever the apologist, ever emulating the EU, Obama used the Office of the Presidency to bind this Nation to the EU. President Trump, though, has worked ardently, stoically, on behalf of the American people, to reverse course; to reverse the Marxist agenda set by the previous President.Is it any wonder, then, why the Democratic “Socialists”—these Dead Souls—seek to regain the reins of all three Branches of Government. They wish to reset policy in accordance with the Obama/Clinton agenda?These Dead Souls continue, incessantly, obstinately, spinning their wheels attacking the President. They are apoplectic that Donald Trump won the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.But, perhaps these constant, insatiable, virulent attacks on the President may have a silver lining. The Dead Souls in Congress won’t succeed. The Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, couldn’t take down the President, and they won’t succeed to do so either. But, their buffoonish, imbecilic attempt does keep them preoccupied. Just, imagine, for a moment, the damaging legislation they would produce if they directed attention to their salient Article 1 pursuit, instead?______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE RADICAL LEFT AGENDA’S FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: DISARM THE PUBLIC

PART FOUR

THE PURVEYORS OF COLLECTIVE GUILT: ANDREW CUOMO AND ERIC SWALWELL

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty. . . . and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” ~ From the essay, “Of Crimes and Punishments,” by Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, Marquis of Gualdrasco and Villareggio (born March 15, 1738 – died November 28, 1794); Italian criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician; widely considered as the most talented jurist and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. What the jurist, Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, pointed out most eloquently in the Eighteenth Century, concerning the disarming of the civilian population, is no less true today. Yet, radical Left politicians, in the Twenty-first Century are spouting the same inane remarks about firearms’ ownership that antigun politicians evidently spouted in the Eighteenth Century, which, then, would account for Beccaria’s essay, and, tacitly, for Beccaria’s scathing rebuke of them. And, what are those absurd remarks that antigun politicians, and antigun advocates, and zealots crow endlessly, mindlessly about? It all boils down to this:In order to enhance public safety, it is necessary to confiscate firearms. This is done for your [the public’s] own good. Gun violence will be curtailed, once confiscation of guns has been accomplished. Fewer guns means less crime. And, if you do not surrender your firearms, we will make an example of you—all for the public good, of course!Antigun politicians evidently recited  words to that effect in Eighteenth Century Europe, just as they do today—thus, Beccaria’s strong rebuke. But, whether any of the antigun politicians and antigun zealots of the Eighteenth Century, as with their counterparts today, truly believed in their own imbecilic remarks, that is debatable. But, what isn’t debatable, today at least, is that antigun politicians intend to harass law-abiding gun owners to the point that most of us—as these antigun politicians and zealots undoubtedly hope—will relent, and surrender, albeit reluctantly, our firearms to Government authorities.Of course the criminal element, ever disdainful of laws--then, in the Eighteenth Century, as Beccaria points out, and in any other period of history, up to the present time--will continue merrily along to obtain their firearms with relative ease. Law breakers such as criminals and lunatics and other assorted flotsam and jetsam in America, today, obtain all or virtually all the firearms they utilize to commit acts of violence, through unlawful means: namely, on the black market, or through theft, or through deceit. Should that come as a surprise to anyone? And there will, of course, be no concomitant decrease in gun violence in the U.S. through mass confiscation of firearms from the law-abiding citizenry. But, then, gun confiscation to reduce crime isn’t really the radical Left’s reason to confiscate firearms from the civilian population of this Country, anyway. It never was. That is mere pretext. It plays well in the Press. The goal of the radical Left here is, and always has been, population control, not gun control. it is the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners that is of paramount concern to the radical Left in this Country, and not the criminal element, the gang-banger, or the lunatic. A bloated overbearing, overarching power hungry Government and an armed, wary citizenry would make for strange bedfellows, indeed. Is it any wonder, then, that the radical Left's gun policies are directed predominately to the eradication of gun ownership and possession existent among the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, and that less attention is directed to and less time is devoted to the criminal element and lunatic that present laws dictate should never possess firearms? Why aren't the myriad number of Federal and State gun laws and the myriad municipal gun codes, regulations, and ordinances already on the books, not adequately enforced? Does the radical Left truly believe that denying the average, law-abiding citizen his fundamental right to keep and bear arms obviate misuse of firearms by those who are not permitted to have firearms in the first place? Not Likely. It is the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens whom the radical Left is determined to rein in, as the noose tightens over every other elemental natural right, as well; and, inversely, Governmental control over all thought and action grows and at an accelerated pace.A perfect case study of this point, and ongoing at this very moment, is the situation presently playing out in Venezuela, under the Madura Socialist Dictatorship. A reporter for the Washington Examiner, Claude Thompson, poignantly pointed out, on April 30, 2019:"Videos emerging from Venezuela Tuesday show anti-Nicolás Maduro protesters being reportedly shot at and run over by military members while civilians are unable to use conventional weapons to defend themselves following a private gun ownership ban in 2012.Videos circulating on social media show an unidentified helicopter reportedly shooting at protesters and armored military vehicles running over groups of citizens protesting the continuing reign of Maduro, who refuses to yield control of the country to Juan Guaidó, who multiple countries, including the United States, recognize as the legitimate president of the country."Are the scenes coming out of Venezuela, in recent days, a foreshadowing of what we can expect with the installation of a Socialist Dictatorship in our Country? That can very well happen if the Collectivists in our Nation come to power. They will begin the dismantling of our Free Republic by instituting a massive gun confiscation program. That will be the radical Left's first order of business.We know that the radical Left--these followers of  the tenets of Collectivism--disdain the very idea of fundamental rights, as natural rights, preexistent in the individual—rights bestowed on each American citizen by Divine Grace rather than by grace of Government.After all, the very existence of an armed citizenry galls the radical Left—the Collectivists—who are intent on creating an omnipotent, omnipresent central Government, a Government that isn’t answerable to its citizenry. The founders of our Nation would be appalled. But, then, the Collectivists don’t give a damn about what the founders thought, or would think, about the Collectivist agenda.The Collectivists envision a new world order, where sovereign, independent Western Nation States, including the United States, will cease to exist. The Collectivists envision  the erection of a new political, social, cultural, economic, financial, and legal system of governance; one where edicts emanate from the European Union’s Executive arm, the European Commission, whose headquarters is in Brussels, the Capital region of Belgium.Recall the Globalist President Barack Obama’s address to the European Union, delivered in Hannover Germany, on April 25, 2018. In pertinent part Obama said,“And this is what I want to talk to you about today—the future that we are building together—not separately, but together. And that starts right here in Europe.” Was Obama’s remark mere pleasantry, or was it something more; a portentous foreshadowing of something sinister; something ominous in store for Americans: heralding the dismantling of our institutions, the destruction of our Free Republic, the loss of sovereignty; the subordination of the United States to a foreign power; the subjugation of a free people, the abrogation of our Constitution; the rescission of our Nation’s fundamental, unalienable, sacred and inviolate rights and liberties?But whether these Collectivists know it or not, their vision will lead to Armageddon. Our citizenry will not bow easily to subjugation. They did not do so in the 1700s, as the British Empire learned well. And they will not do so now. If the Collectivists seek to thrust their vision on Americans by force of arms, they will be met with force of arms. If the Collectivists seek to thrust their vision of America on the citizenry through subterfuge, they should know that Americans are not easily duped and the Collectivists' efforts will be severely repulsed.It is absolutely galling to hear people like Governor Andrew Cuomo and Representative Eric Swalwell, sanctimoniously bellowing, by turns both belligerent and flippant, for ever more restrictions on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. Indeed, Cuomo and Swalwell, like other radical Leftists in our midst, are no longer maintaining the pretense that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is worth securing at all.While some remarks still invoke the notion that fewer guns means less crime—regardless of the fact that it is not the number of guns in circulation but whom it is that has access to them that is the salient factor —antigun politicians, such as Cuomo and Swalwell, no longer really pretend that gun confiscation will translate into less crime. It is, rather, the tacit implication of their message—namely that guns signify something bad in and of themselves and, so, no one, aside from the police and military should have access to them—that is the real message blared out, behind the banter of gun violence, that they seek to convey to the public.So it is that Cuomo and Swalwell, and other radical Leftists—using the pretext of gun violence, perpetrated by the occasional maniac, lunatic, criminal, and gang-banger—denigrate tens of millions of average, rational, law-abiding American gun owners who do continue to cherish their sacred right to keep and bear arms and who do not take lightly nor kindly to the attack on both them and on their responsibly owned and possessed firearms.It has become patently clear that Cuomo and Swalwell place the law-abiding gun owner in the same camp as psychopathic criminals and the maniacs who happen to use firearms to commit violence. Cuomo and Swalwell dare impose collective guilt on all gun owners despite the fact that it is only a few—the lowest common denominator in society—that is responsible for gun violence. That becomes evident through both the words they utter and through the policies they endorse, which they seek to translate into law.Cuomo and Swalwell remain unperturbed at the outlandishness of their remarks and of their policy goals. They continue to castigate, taunt, and deride gun owners mercilessly—people like you and me who seek merely to exercise our God-given right—YES, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT—to keep and bear arms.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.