THE SOLUTION TO MASS SHOOTINGS IS THE ARMED CITIZEN

ANTIGUN RHETORIC WON’T STOP VIOLENT CRIME; IT ONLY ENCOURAGES IT

It never takes long for Joe Biden, the symbol and embodiment of Democrat-Party incompetence and irascibility, to launch into tiresome tirades over guns. On May 24, the same day a lunatic went on a rampage at an elementary school 80 miles Southwest of San Antonio, the puppet masters’ propagandists drafted up a speech for Biden to deliver to the Nation. Reuters reported his words:“‘As a nation, we have to ask, ‘When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?’ Biden said on national television, suggesting reinstating a U.S. ban on assault-style weapons and other ‘common sense gun laws.’ . . . ‘I hoped when I became president I would not have to do this, again,’ a visibly shaken Biden said, decrying the death of ‘beautiful, innocent’ second, third and fourth graders in ‘another massacre.’”Pay close attention to the buzzwords:

• ‘Gun Lobby’
• ‘Assault weapons’
• ‘Common sense gun laws’

Also consider what’s missing in Biden’s speech. There’s no mention, explicit or tacit, of effective school security measures that, had they been implemented, would have surely blunted the attack.The killer simply walked into the school, into a classroom, and commenced shooting. Had not a police officer arrived quickly on the scene, killing the attacker, many more innocent children and teachers would likely have been injured or killed. See, e.g., KHOU local news report.  Did Biden’s handlers inform him the shooter had simply walked into an unguarded, unlocked school? If not, did Biden bother to ask how the shooter could gain easy access to a school after incidents like this had happened in Schools in the past? Likely not.Biden receives his speech and dutifully recites his lines as best he can, in his debilitated physical and mental state.Still, one would think the matter of school safety and security would have warranted at least some mention after the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, and would have seen rapid implementation certainly after the subsequent major shooting incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018.Yet, the need for school security is routinely ignored by the present Administration and by the Democrat-Party-controlled Congress and by Democrat-Party-controlled jurisdictions across the Country.But the public does hear often and vociferously that guns are to be blamed; that there are too many of them in the Country; that the Country needs more antigun laws; and that good Americans should rage, and rage some more, over the prevalence of guns in the Country, and over those Americans who insist on possessing “assault weapons.”It is curious, though, the public hears little if any news about infants and toddlers, mostly black, who happen to be caught in crossfires as criminal gangs engage in shootouts in City streets, across America, on a regular basis.But the answer to shootings in schools, or on the city streets, or in shopping malls, or in stores isn’t to be found in getting rid of so-called “assault weapons” in the hands of millions of citizens. And appealing to raw emotion does nothing positive. It only breeds ill-will in the citizenry and demonstrates the contempt Anti-Second Amendment politicians and the Press hold the American public in.The answer to shooting incidents in the schools and to incidents of violent crime elsewhere in the Nation are to be found, first and foremost, in the armed citizenry. But that idea is anathema to the present Administration, and to a Democrat Party-controlled Congress, and to Democrat-controlled jurisdictions around the Country.They refuse to acknowledge that armed citizens would blunt mass shootings and would end violent crime spikes.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this. In respect to the school shooting incident in Florida, we said,A viable security plan to protect students from harm never existed in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. But other Schools across the Nation that have implemented effective security, have been free from deadly threats to students and to teachers. That means all schools must embrace a proactive, not reactive, stance to threats of violence of any kind. A sound plan to protect students is doable and helpful. Going after guns is not.” The police cannot be everywhere at once. In fact, in this post-George Floyd era, with incessant calls for constraining police, preventing them from protecting their communities, the need for well-trained, astute armed citizens is more urgent and acute. But the public never sees that; never hears that. Instead, Anti-Second Amendment politicians, Anti-Second Amendment policy and political action groups, the Press, and most cable and broadcast TV news networks simply reiterate the same tiresome clichés.They talk incessantly about the need for more “commonsense gun laws.” By that they mean de facto repeal of the Second Amendment.They talk persistently and perniciously about the need to curb civilian-citizen ownership and possession of “assault weapons.” By that they mean a ban on semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns, across the board, and anything else they can shoehorn under that nebulous descriptor, such as revolving shotguns, and 50 caliber revolvers.And they go on endlessly about the “gun lobby.” And by that they mean any pro-Second Amendment gun Group which, by extension, means millions of average, law-abiding citizens who exercise and cherish the fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms.One doesn’t hear, though, of mass shootings at airports, or in Government buildings, or in schools across the nation where  hardened security measures have been implemented, including armed security officers.But, even if the Federal Government could lockdown the entire Country through implementation of massive military and police presence, Americans would never agree to that; nor should they. That isn’t our Nation’s mindset.Most Americans would not willingly trade away their liberty for a modicum of security. Absence of freedom and liberty is not to be found in our Nation’s history, heritage, traditions, culture, or character. Freedom and liberty runs through and is the cornerstone of all of it.Freedom and liberty is what defines us as Americans. It is part and parcel of our makeup; our identity. Americans would never agree to nor tolerate life in a Country under a constant state of siege. The ostensible cure would be worse than the disease.Stringent control over guns and a population under constant surveillance, as evidenced in China or Singapore, is repugnant to Americans.Yet, even as our Nation moves in the direction of oppression—as Americans’ thoughts are censored, their actions monitored, their privacy invaded—as the surveillance State takes hold and tyranny becomes more evident and prevalent, criminal violence isn’t tapering off. It’s getting worse.And spikes in crime are most evident in Democrat-controlled Cities such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and L.A., and Philadelphia, PA.Yet it is these Cities with the highest incidences of crime in the Nation that have enacted some of the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation.These Cities are lenient toward psychopathic criminals on the one hand, and brain-addled lunatics and illegal aliens, on the other. The former have no regard for the law even if they do understand it; and the latter, lacking all comprehension of the law, cannot possibly have regard for it.So, unlike China and Singapore—two Countries that can at least boast of relief from most violent crime—we in the United States under the domination of Democrats have not relief from violent crime even as the citizenry sees systematic erosion of its God-Given rights. The net result is that we have neither security nor liberty.But even as we Americans presently have neither, the pertinent question is this: why can’t Americans have both security and liberty?The idea, thrust on Americans by the Government, that you can have one or the other but not both is a false dichotomy. The two go together. In fact, the two are inextricably bound together.Armed Self-Defense—against insistent and persistent dangers wrought by predatory man, predatory creature, or the predatory Government—is the well-spring of security for preservation of the Republic and preservation of Self. That same right of Armed Self-Defense is also the preeminent and elemental foundation of Freedom and Liberty, upon which all other freedoms and liberty rest.If one is denied exercise of the right of armed self-defense, then preservation of both Self and Country is endangered, and one is not free. Any such “freedom” that one thinks he has or is told by others that he has, in the absence of exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, is illusory.Armed self-defense, necessary for both security of Self and “necessary for the security of a free State” is at one and the same time a basic liberty and natural law right and is codified as such in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.Many of our Nation’s purported leaders don’t see the plain truth of this and, further, deny the fact of it; and too many rank and file Americans don’t see the truth either.And the pity of it is that the rest of us, the majority of us, who are not susceptible to the delusion fostered by Government and a seditious Press must suffer the consequences just the same.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

CORRUPTION AND UNFAIRNESS PLAGUE THE NYPD LICENSE DIVISION

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS AND ON PROBLEMS ATTENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY'S CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY SCHEMA

PART FOUR

New York City’s handgun licensing rules are bloated and absurd as written and adopted, and are arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory in their application. This engenders abuse of discretion. Even worse, the City’s handgun licensing scheme has, in recent years, invited outright criminal corruption in those NYPD officers whose job it is to administer the licensing process.Stephen L. D’Andrilli, co-author of this article, co-founder of the Arbalest quarrel, and a decorated veteran police officer with the NYPD, pointed all this out when queried about the present licensing scheme in a 2016 CNN Money article, titled, “Only in New York: Bribing cops for a gun license.”The reporter, Aaron Smith, wrote in pertinent part:“Buying a gun in America can be an expensive ordeal. Or it can be cheap and easy. It depends on where you live.Bribing cops for gun licenses could only happen in a place like New York. In most other parts of the United States, licenses are not even required for handguns.‘New York City, as a major city in the U.S., is one of the most restrictive cities in the country concerning gun licensing laws,’ said retired police officer Stephen D'Andrilli, a former NYPD cop who is now a consultant for clients seeking handgun licenses.The licensing system is meant to filter out dangerous applicants, like those with a history of domestic violence. But D'Andrilli, who extolls the ‘utmost importance’ of the Second Amendment through his website the Arbalest Quarrel, said the restrictive laws of New York have created an environment that allows a black market to exist.‘What they're doing is they're creating a privilege for having a gun and licensing it and they're creating this prohibition style system where people are paying someone off to get a gun,’ he said.”The CNN report wasn’t the only piece on NYPD corruption in the License Division. The Daily News published, on April 25, 2016, an article by New York attorney and former NYPD Trial Commissioner, Arnold Kriss. The article is titled, “Massive questions behind the blue wall: We need an independent commission to probe NYPD.” Arnold Kriss said,“For the first time in over 60 years, top NYPD officials are accused of taking money and gifts for favors. Where this will go when the ship-jumping begins and the brass and others start talking to federal prosecutors — non-stop — is anyone’s guess.This is potentially department-shattering stuff.” And, one year to the day after the Daily News article came out, WSJ came out with its story on License Division corruption in an article titled, “Former NYPD Officers Face Federal Bribery Charges”: “Three ex-officers and a former Brooklyn prosecutor are accused of swapping gun licenses for cash, prostitutes, guns and more.In the scheme, so-called expediters, or individuals who charge clients to help them get gun-license approvals, bribed officers in the NYPD’s gun licensing division, according to prosecutors. These officers then approved or expedited more than 100 gun licenses, including for people with criminal histories, prosecutors said.”Outright criminal conduct in the NYPD License Division may have been cleaned up, yet serious problems attendant to the awarding of concealed handgun carry licenses in New York remain. These core problems can only be resolved through a massive restructuring and transformation of the entire concealed handgun NYPD licensing structure in the City.The task ahead is immensely difficult if not well-nigh impossible because the problems that beset the NYPD License Division are inextricably entwined in New York's historical landscape. New York City's present Mayor Eric Adams, isn't the man to take on the task, as he hasn't the will to do so. In fact, his sympathies rest with leaving matters as they are. Even as the City continues to burn, Eric Adams' message doesn't change when it comes to the issue of guns, for he continues to conflate criminal violence with gun violence. Back on January 24, 2022, the Mayor said, as reported by Fox News,“‘We are in the middle of a crisis with guns,’ said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over the weekend. ‘You carry a gun in our city, there is no apology to you,’ Adams added.New York state and city have some of the most strict gun laws in the country, prohibiting most people in the state to openly carry, but Democratic leaders point to guns coming in from other states as a culprit behind the skyrocketing shootings.”One should take note that Adams doesn't draw a distinction between guns as carried by average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens for self-defense, and the lunatics and criminals who injure or kill innocent people, regardless of the means employed by these lunatics and criminals. Arming the citizen is not on his radar. From Mayor Adams'  perspective, the armed responsible, rational, law-abiding citizen is as much a threat to the well-being of the City as are the lunatics and psychopaths who prey upon them. The problem is that New York City is far removed from being a tranquil, idyllic paradise. It is a hell-scape. Everyone knows it. Certainly, the Mayor does. But he refuses even to consider the fact that arming tens of thousands of innocent people, who wish to take responsibility for their own life and well-being, as is their fundamental right, might succeed in securing for New Yorkers a truly safe environment that, to date, has stubbornly eluded and resisted remedying. The Mayor surely desires to reduce the plague of incessant violent crime that has gripped the City for years. Or does he? Is it just gross incompetence, or is it  a cultivated habit and predilection against guns that prevent him from trying something new, trying a new tactic that accounts for his failure to get a handle on violent crime that has a vise-grip on the City? Or is it something more alarming and disturbing that prevents him from relaxing the draconian standards that, to date, preclude the mass of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens from securing, for him or herself, a concealed handgun carry license, enabling the citizen to lawfully purchase a handgun in New York, thereby providing the citizen with the means—the only truly effective means—by which that citizen can protect him or herself against violent, irrational, unprovoked, and random, predatory attack? Does Eric Adams have a latent or calculated desire to take an active role in destroying a free Constitutional Republic? And does that latent or calculated desire inform the Mayor's actions and the actions of political leaders like Eric Adams who seem to be incapable of providing for the welfare of the people of his City? Is the placement of Eric Adams in the Office of Mayor of New York City, by the perverse machinations of Neo-Marxist Internationalist Neoliberal Globalist elites, all by design?Is Eric Adams, not unlike the Chicago Mayor, Laurie Lightfoot, and myriad others, who, operating at the behest of creatures like George Soros, see the need for and who tolerate or who even encourage a complete breakdown of America's institutions and societal order that a new, seemingly better global order can take root and eventually supplant all western nation-states? And, to that end, is it not the armed citizen, rather than the armed and crazed criminal or lunatic that these Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists perceive as the true problem? If that is the case, then lunatics, and psychopaths, and garden-variety criminals, and the tens of millions of illegal aliens looking for and promised free goodies at expense of the American taxpayer, and the well-funded, international drug and sex-trafficking cartels hopping into and out of the Nation's Southern Border, at will, all serve a purpose. It is these sordid elements that the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists see as useful, even necessary tools—operating on their behalf, albeit unconsciously—to hasten the end of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State. And it is the armed American citizen whose presence—indeed, whose very existence—prevents the accomplishment of their goal, whom these ruthless forces that crush view as their one true, intractable and formidable foe. So it is that the message about guns and the tone, coming out of the Mayor and coming out of the tools like him, such as the current President of the United States, Joe Biden, are always the same. The explicit message is that it is guns that are bad; guns that are evil; guns that are the root cause of society's problems—that are the root cause of the Nation's problems. The tacit message is that it is guns in the hands of the citizenry that is the root cause of the Nation's woes; it is the armed citizen who is a danger to Nation and Country, and to “democracy.” And who are these armed citizens? It is those people—those Americans who seek to exercise the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is those people who pose a genuine threat, an insistent threat, to “democracy.” It is those political “conservatives,” those “white supremacists and racists,” those members of organized “militias”—in fact, any American who happens to hold to a vision of America as reflected in the Nation's Bill of Rights, who view our Nation as the founders of the Republic viewed it; who hold true to that vision, and who fervently desire to preserve the history, heritage, culture, values and core Christian ethos upon which a new Nation rose and rapidly became the most prosperous, powerful, and vigorous Nation on Earth. It is these people whom the hordes of Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” abhor and fear. And it is guns wielded by tens of millions of average Americans that the Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” must contend with, must constrain, must defeat so that the United States can be brought low, and the Nation's remains can be inserted into a new western international order, the “Open Society” that the Globalist kingpin, George Soros, has been entrusted to bring to fruition. But none of this is spoken about by the leaders, the flunkies, the placeholders of high Government Office. Instead, they deflect attention away from the campaign to systematically dismantle a free Republic and entrap and enslave tens of millions of Americans. The matter of Ukraine is a convenient vehicle to direct the American public's attention. Discussion of Ukraine serves that purpose, as it has nothing to do with us, Americans, but serves as a useful mechanism for the forces that crush, providing them with a made-to-order safety valve through which to vent and divert the public's justified attention and concerns over the fate of their Country. The forces that crush have successfully diverted public attention away from the Nation's economy, away from the systematic destruction of the Nation's institutions, away from the industrial scale corruption in Government and its failure to uphold the laws and Constitution of the Nation, and away from the usurpation of the sovereignty of the people over Government, that becomes more and more obvious with each passing day. But, the problem of guns in the hands of tens of millions of citizens remains an intolerable, insufferable problem for these Marxists/Globalists. And a different tack is employed to deal with that: continually attack guns and attack criminal violence through the use of guns. But, as for the criminal or lunatic or psychopath who is responsible for violent crime—that person gets a pass.And as for the issue of guns, the focus is on New York City—as a microcosm, a stand-in for the rest of urban America. It is guns, in the City, then, rather than the individual who misuses them that are responsible for criminal violence; not the sentient mind—not the criminals and lunatics and all the rest of the flotsam and jetsam that are agents of violence occurring throughout the City, who reasonably bear sole responsibility, sole responsibility for that violence. And, even there, the tale of woe in the City isn't about guns—not really. For if the creatures causing the mayhem in New York City and in other major urban areas around the Country are simply—albeit unconsciously—working at the behest of the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist elites who seek to hasten the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, then talk about guns as THE problem is really nothing more than a makeweight; or perhaps, not even that. The issue of guns and so-called gun violence is itself simply a deflection. It is a distraction—a distraction away from a discussion of crime and away even from guns, and toward a discussion, tacit as it is, of the armed citizenry, and of the tens of millions of firearms in the hands of the armed citizenry. And, is it mere coincidence, that the Stooge in Chief, the corrupt, demented Joe Biden keeps coming back to the issue of guns, and to the need to curtail them, now especially, with the midterm elections steadily approaching, and with the Democrats/Marxists/Globalists concerned that they are about to lose their tenuous control of Congress?And Eric Adams, himself, may not really fathom the extent to which he, too, is but a useful tool of secretive, powerful, ruthless elements and interests, whose singular goal is the destruction of the most powerful symbol of true freedom and liberty still existent in the world: the United States, as a free Constitutional Republic. So, it is no accident that Eric Adams doesn't even suggest arming the innocent person to combat rampant, violent crime in the City. The whole object is to disarm that person. Better, it is, then—even as it is unstated—to accept the intractable violence. As this state of affairs benefits the Neo-Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalists and their agenda; better it is to accept intractable violence, even use it to advantage, so that citizens remain unarmed and those that are armed—disarm them by any means, legal or not, to effectuate that result. Thus, Eric Adams will not deign to allow innocent New York City residents and workers and visitors to the City, to defend themselves against increasing random violent crime, even as that alone would offer immediate respite for a tired, anxious City, from the mayhem—the “orchestrated” mayhem. But, at least New Yorkers can rest easy knowing that their illustrious Mayor is well protected even if they, themselves, are not. Protecting the Mayor from the orchestrated violence is the first and last order of business. New York residents and workers, and visitors to the City, don't factor into that equation.  As reported by Politico,“[t]he NYPD increased security for Eric Adams Tuesday [April 12, 2022], after complaints about the mayor surfaced on social media in the wake of the subway shooting that wounded 23 commuters. . . .Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell said from NYPD headquarters in Lower Manhattan, where she was joined by police brass and a representative from the FBI. ‘In an abundance of caution, we are tightening the mayor’s security detail.’ Sewell said the references to Adams, while not direct threats, were concerning enough to lead her to beef up the mayor’s security detail, which is currently overseen by his brother.”So, then, what does this report tell you: one, that, Mayor Adams' plan to tackle violent crime hasn't done a damn thing to curb violent crime one bit; two, that the Mayor's well-hyped plan for dealing with violent crime hasn't made a dent in it and, in fact, the City's violent crime only worsens; and, three, that the beefing up of the mayor's own security detail only serves to emphasize the horrific criminal violence, running rampant in the City—which, apparently, is a thing expected; tolerated; even welcomed—as it hastens the destruction of American society and the birth of a globalized slave community of billions of souls.So, the public shouldn't expect to see a paradigm shift in the City's tackling of violent crime; certainly not any time soon—and for the reason set forth above. The salient reason why violent crime in New York City will continue unabated is because that disruption of society is all calculated; it is all by design. It is in strict accordance with the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist game plan: one that started with Bill Clinton; continued under the regimes of George Bush and Barack Obama; and would certainly have continued under a Hillary Clinton Presidency but for the unexpected loss to Donald Trump in 2016, who, despite incessant attempts to sabotage his Presidency and railroad him personally, actually and remarkably brought a measure of stability to the Country, at least for a time; but, then, Trump was cast aside by ruthless and powerful forces both inside and outside the Country. The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist returned to its agenda, and made up for four years of lost time; continuing apace under the corrupt, effete, emotionally, and intellectually weak and demented Joe Biden—just the unbelievably ridiculous stooge the forces that crush needed and wanted to unravel Trump's accomplishments that served to strengthen and stabilize the Country on all major indicators of health: social, economic, and geopolitical.And, where is this Country now? Economically, socially, and geopolitically, the Country is weak; stagnant. It is in a state of precipitous decline, as intended.Now, more than ever, the Nation's citizenry must be attuned to the wreck of their Country. They must retain control of their weaponry. There may come a time in the not too distant future that the armed citizen will be all that's left to keep the Republic intact. But, as for Cities like New York, the armed citizen, a force otherwise to be reckoned with, will not be tolerated. Fortunately, New York City and several other jurisdictions are beyond the pale. It must be left to the U.S. Supreme Court—the last bastion of hope among the three Branches of the U.S. Government—to preserve the Republic. And the Court's handling of the Bruen case gives the Court ample opportunity. But, will the Justices be up to the task?The belief system of many people in major urban areas that are beset by uncommon violent crime is to reject out-of-hand, recourse to firearms in the hands of the commonalty. And, so, denizens of New York aren't going to see a transformation in attitudes or policies toward civilian citizen ownership. And Mayor Adams, for his part, will continue to reinforce, rather than change, the public's attitudes toward armed self-defense, even in the face of intractable violent crime. That must now be left to the U.S. Supreme Court. And that Branch of Government has also been under attack. The recent Senate confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson is a move in the wrong direction. Her methodology for reviewing cases, and her philosophical predilections are wholly distinct from that of Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, and that jurisprudential philosophy is altogether inconsistent with the preservation of the U.S. Constitution as written, and, so, as conceived by the framers of it.  It is not expected that Brown will render an opinion on the Bruen case, as a decision on the case is expected in early summer. But, Justice Breyer intends to step down until the current term ends in late June or early July, as reported by Forbes. And that is cutting it close. The danger is that Breyer will leave prior to a decision being handed down in Bruen. Although neither Breyer's bizarre notion of the import of the Second Amendment nor the methodology employed in case analysis is expected to comprise part of the majority opinion if the Conservative wing holds firm, still his jurisprudential philosophy is a known quantity and will be reflected in his dissenting opinions which will comport with his dissenting opinions in Heller and McDonald. But dissenting opinions do have weight, and the analysis therein can be adopted in future case decisions if the liberal wing of the Court secures a majority. As an internationalist, a dissenting opinion in the Bruen case, composed by Ketanji Brown Jackson, is likely to be much more radical than one composed by Breyer. She is likely to imbue her views of guns and the Second Amendment from the standpoint of international law and international norms—that law and those norms fashioned by the United Nations and the EU, and thereby ignore or even refute the principle that High Court decisions involving natural law rights codified in the Bill of Rights—must adhere to the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights which, means, then, the application of American norms, to case law analysis, and must not impose international norms on BOR analysis and decisions. More people like Ketanji Brown Jackson on the High Court will result in a radical contravention of U.S. Supreme Court case review. The Constitution, thus interpreted by international law and international norms standards, which are completely alien to us—that do not, for example, even recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a fundamental, unalienable, eternal, immutable right—would invariably, irreparably damage and upend the Nation's Bill of Rights, upon which individual autonomy, individual liberty, and American sovereignty over the Government rests and upon which a free Constitutional Republic can only hope to survive.How, then, would Ketanji Brown Jackson rule in the Bruen case? One need only look at the presence of New York City's absurd and unconstitutional concealed handgun carry regime to get an inkling of Ketanji Brown Jackson's view of the Second Amendment Right, which she would defend, and which she, no less than the Mayor of New York City, himself, would refrain from ever tampering with.That bizarre mindset—alien to the philosophical underpinnings of our Nation as reflected in its Constitution, and particularly, in the Nation's Bill of Rights—won't change for the following reasons:First, the idea of arming civilian citizens so that they may take an active role in tackling the intractable violence plaguing the City remains more repugnant to the Mayor, and to tens of thousands of frightened New York City residents who voted for him, than is the presence of legions of lunatics and psychopaths who have taken over the City and who continually, and with impunity, prey on, and who pose a constant threat to the millions of innocent people who reside in and/or work in the City. The fear of guns and gun ownership and possession is deep-seated, unconscious, difficult to dislodge from many a New York resident's psyche.Second, reformation of the concealed handgun carry license schema in New York City is difficult—indeed well-nigh impossible—because the regulatory regime is itself a product of, grounded in, and inextricably bound to and entwined in the actions of the New York State Legislature, in Albany. Third, the actions of Albany are tied to New York's historical landscape that bespeaks a long-standing aversion to, and even pathological abhorrence toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Fourth, over a hundred years of New York case law is directed to and devoted to the destruction of the natural law right of armed self-defense. The United States Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, do nothing to dispel the New York Courts antagonism toward the natural law right of armed self-defense. Rather, the State and Federal Courts engage in bizarre jurisprudential contortions, distortions, and confabulations that serve at once to dismiss Heller and McDonald rulings and reaffirm old Second Amendment New York rulings that perpetuate historical prejudices about the Second Amendment and are wholly inconsistent with Heller and McDonald.In our next article, we explain in detail the nature of the difficulties attendant to reforming New York City's concealed handgun carry licensing regime.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS’ “BLUEPRINT TO END GUN VIOLENCE” IS A HOAX

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS

PART THREE

NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ comprehensive strategy to stem the tide of intractable criminal violence in the City will do nothing of the kind—is doing nothing of the kind. It is a hoax, plain and simple, albeit one well-planned and orchestrated. It is intended to delude the public into placing confidence in his Administration. It is designed to convince the public that the Mayor is doing something concrete to promote public safety. And that is to mean that he has a handle on violent crime. Image is everything, and Mayor Adams maintains vigorous control over that image, carefully overseeing all communications that go out to the Press. See the article in Legal Insurrection, published, on April 4, 2022, titled,  “‘Discipline of Message’: NYC Mayor Adams Wants to Approve All City's Communications.”The “Blueprint,” released with fanfare on the “Official website of the City of New York,” on January 24, 2022, creates an impression, as it was undoubtedly designed to do, that Eric Adams intends to deal head-on with the intractable crime problem—a violent crime wave that continually threatens millions of innocent people in the City, whether they reside there, work there, or are simply visiting.But, how well is this “Blueprint to End Gun Violence” working out? Not so well, it turns out. And that fact is difficult to hide, much as Mayor Adams would like to hide it, regardless of the clampdown on communications from the Mayor’s Office.Even the Radical Left, which supports the Mayor, realizes this and is vocal about it. See MSN.com which cites an article appearing on the website, Slate. The progressive left website, Slate, harbors no illusion about the inherent deficiencies of the Mayor’s “Blueprint,” and expressly asserts its belief about it, referring to the Mayor's plan as a “Trojan Horse.”Be that as it may, “Slate’s” disagreement with Adams’ “Blueprint” has nothing to do with overt concern over incessant crime in the City. Rather, Slate expresses displeasure at the prospect of the Mayor's plan targeting the perpetrators of it, the majority of whom happen to be “non-white” people.Slate posits the plan as racist and, and expresses its indignation and disdain over the implementation, implying that the presence of violent, horrific crime in New York City is preferable to the measures the Mayor intends to invoke to contain it.And violent crime does continue to spiral out of control, as reported on Fox News, on March 2. 2022.See also the article in law enforcement today, posted on April 9, 2022.So, with pushback on Adams’ “Blueprint” coming from polar opposite corners, one wonders if there is a solution to the problem of intractable crime at all.There is a solution, of course. But it’s a solution this Mayor, no less than the previous one, refuses to countenance. For, the perfect solution to incessant, violent crime in the City is one that both Adams, and his predecessor, de Blasio, consider more problematic than runaway horrific violence.And we all know what that solution is: It’s “the armed citizen.”If Eric Adams truly wished to deal effectively with the intractable violent crime problem in the City, he would revise the City’s politically motivated handgun licensing Rules that, on any serious reflection, are absurd. He would have to do this if he were serious about combatting violent crime. And, he doesn’t have to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to make that decision for him through the Bruen case.But that isn’t a tack that Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul, no less than their predecessors, Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo would ever consider—not in their wildest dreams.In fact, these people have spent considerable time hobbling the average citizens’ access to the most effective means of ensuring their defense against violent crime. Of course, the criminals and lunatics know this too. And that goes far to explain how it is and why it is violent crime in New York continues to increase exponentially. Criminals and lunatics know that it is more likely than not that their targets won’t be armed and therefore need not fear their would-be victims turning the tables on them.From his latest comments, Mayor Adams' posture on the armed civilian citizen is clear enough. And that posture explains why he doesn't refer to armed self-defense at all as a means to deal a blow to violent crime. For, the mainstay of Mayor Adams' approach to curtailing violent crimes involves ramping up police efforts to curb crime. See the recent article in the progressive website Politico published on April 3, 2022.Also see the transcript of April 3, 2022, Face the Nation interview of Eric Adams, and the article in Bearing Arms.Eric Adams refers to himself as the new “face of the Democratic Party,” as reported in the New York Post. But, on reflection, his isn't really a new face at all. It is simply a new mask worn over an old face.It is clear enough, from prior remarks he made, that Mayor Adams is an avid supporter of stringent gun licensing in New York, no less so than the new New York Governor, Kathy Hochul. See February 4, 2021 article in St. Andrews Law Review:“Public officials fear any outcome that curtails their ability to regulate firearms. New York City Mayor Eric Adams said that restricting the state’s ability to regulate weapons will simply instigate violence. Governor Kathy Hochul echoed Adams’ sentiments in similar remarks.” And Arizona State University Crime and Justice News reported this, on Eric Adams' stance on firearms’ licensing, apropos of the Bruen ruling:“The ruling is expected to come down after Eric Adams replaces de Blasio as mayor. Adams, who emphasized public safety as key to the city's recovery during his campaign, said that limiting the state's ability to regulate firearms ‘is a recipe for disaster.’”Thus, Mayor Adams dismisses out-of-hand the most effective means at his disposal. For it is the armed citizen who can, in the final analysis, play an important role in combatting intractable, violent crime in the City.Adams sees, albeit erroneously, the armed citizen as likely aggravating a volatile criminal situation in the City rather than lessening violence. So if New York City is to see any change to the concealed handgun carry licensing Rules, such change will have to come from the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court itself.See the article in The Ticker:“New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Mayor-elect Eric Adams have concerns over this case, primarily from a public safety viewpoint.While safety is certainly a factor that can be used to determine which specific, sensitive public places can prohibit firearms, such as libraries, it cannot be used to serve as a prior restraint to prevent people from being able to defend themselves with firearms outside of their home completely.By the end of the arguments, most of the justices appeared likely to strike down or limit New York’s law.If the court correctly rules in favor of the petitioners, New York could be forced to rewrite its law to allow more citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense, with clearer criteria and less discretionary hurdles.In addition, New York could become a ‘shall issue’ state, which would compel licensing officers to approve applications if they meet objectively set state requirements, such as meeting the minimum age and having no felony criminal activity.While some advocates will argue that allowing more citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense will lead to an increase in uncontrolled gun violence, the result would be the opposite.Allowing more good citizens to legally carry guns will lead to more deterrence and a higher likelihood that they will be able to successfully defend their families and themselves against criminals.New York is one of the most restrictive states when it comes to allowing citizens to legally have firearms, yet it declared a statewide gun violence emergency in July ignoring the fact that most of the gun violence is a direct consequence of illegal, not legal, firearms.Most states, both liberal and conservative states included, adopted a ‘shall issue’ system in recent decades, yet they have less violence than in New York.”Also see the article in the Free Republic.New York as with several other jurisdictions around the Country gives great latitude to handgun licensing officials to make the decision whether to issue an unrestricted handgun carry license to the applicant, or not. Yet, it is the States with the most restrictive gun licensing that are plagued by violent crime. You would think that Cities like New York would consider relaxing the rules on the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses, since nothing else, historically and to date works, effectively to deter violent crime. Yet, nothing is done. Go figure.The governing principle of these jurisdictions—that uniformly abhor the notion of the armed citizen who takes responsibility for his or her personal defense—is the “may issue/proper cause” standard to carry a handgun, concealed. That standard, as applied in New York City, is up for review at the U.S. Supreme Court. And a decision is anticipated in early Summer 2022.How will the U.S. Supreme Court rule in Bruen? It is expected that the Court will rule the NYPD standards for determining the propriety of issuing a concealed handgun carry license to be unconstitutional both as constructed and as applied.To be sure, the entire “may issue” structure for issuing a concealed handgun license in any jurisdiction around the Country is misguided from the get-go because the standards created whatever they may be, are inherently subjective as applied. The entire “may issue” structure is unsound and anathema to the fundamental, unalienable natural law right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The very constitutionality of “may issue/proper cause” was at the heart of the Bruen case, pushing well beyond the borders of New York City and New York State, as the issue was promulgated in Plaintiffs Brief to the Court.But Chief Justice John Roberts narrowed the focus of Bruen, thereby forcing the Justices to consider only the constitutionality of the City’s concealed handgun carry Rules. The salient issue of whether “may issue” infringes the core of the Second Amendment is not up for review.By doing this, the issue, as framed for review, takes as a given that “may issue” is sound and valid but that the City’s Rules regarding “may issue” might not be.It will be interesting to see what Justices Thomas and Alito do with this. Consistent with their opinions in the seminal Second Amendment cases, Heller and McDonald, Justices Thomas and Alito may well view the entirety of “may issue/proper cause schemes unconstitutional, notwithstanding the deformation of the issue by Chief Justice Roberts. In that event, their opinions would be relegated to concurrences; not majority rulings, and other “may issue/proper cause” jurisdictions can rest easy that their own draconian handgun carry licensing rules remain untouched by Bruen. This, no doubt, is what Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court had in mind; had certainly intended to do to soften what otherwise would seem to augur yet another landmark Second Amendment case decision.If a handgun licensing scheme is to be retained in New York City at all, it should be simplified, made straightforward, and applied fairly to all applicants. In particular, concealed carry provisions should address the needs of the average law-abiding, responsible citizens who do business in the City and/or reside there. And provision should be made for those law-abiding, responsible citizens who happen to visit the City.The present New York City handgun licensing scheme is deficient on any rational measure. And it isn’t applied in a fair and impartial manner.And woe to any person from another jurisdiction who brings a handgun into the City, and is found possessing a handgun, sans a valid unrestricted handgun carry license issued by the NYPD Licensing Division. At the moment it is that person, and not the gun-wielding rabid lunatic, psychopathic gangbanger, or garden-variety common criminal who will suffer the greatest wrath from the City’s criminal justice system.It has always been thus. And that fact isn’t going to change soon, regardless of the enormity and severity of crime in the City. See the article posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, published, August 6, 2015, titled, “Who’s Packing In New York City?” But, even if the Bruen Court strikes down, or otherwise places stringent curbs on the inordinate discretion presently extended to the NYPD Licensing Division in prosecuting applications for concealed handgun carry licenses, it is another question entirely—and a pertinent one—whether the Mayor’s Office will abide by that High Court decision. And that is worrisome.Consider——Back in November 2021, Mayor-Elect Eric Adams specifically addressed Bruen, on MSNBC News, when questioned by the host, Andrea Mitchell:“‘The concealed weapon ruling that’s going to come about is extremely challenging for us,’ says Adams. ‘This is different from a rural county somewhere. And this could have a major impact on our ability to keep our city safe, but we will adjust.’”So, there you have it! In an act of sly casuistry, rather than clarity, the Mayor says, “we will adjust.” He doesn’t say, “we will comply with the rulings of the Court.”  The Mayor's choice of words is telling. For he would rather suffer continuing waves of violent crime than acquiesce to the Constitutional right of all citizens to bear a handgun outside the home or outside their place of business, for their own defense.Even with a U.S. Supreme Court directive that might strike down the entire licensing structure of New York City, the Mayor of New York City and the Governor of the State will—by dictate of the Neoliberal Globalists and Globalist Marxist forces that secretly control them—fanatically resist the reversal of over a century of ever-growing unconstitutional restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And we know whereof we speak, based on past practices.We have seen how State, local, and county governments, along with lower Courts have—have, through the last decade—blatantly, arrogantly, and contemptuously dismissed out-of-hand clear and explicit rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases.Can one reasonably expect that the State of New York and its major metropolitan area, New York City, will do an immediate and abrupt about-face toward concealed handgun carry when Bruen, as the third seminal Second Amendment case, comes down the pike with further explicit rulings? Sadly, we have to say: Not likely! The State and City will come up with dubious schemes to avoid taking any action that would do harm to a handgun licensing structure that has been in place for over 110 years.New York City residents should not expect the Mayor to reform the City’s draconian handgun licensing Rules even with clear, categorical rulings from the High Court.Mayor Eric Adams is of the same mindset and holds to the same alien ideology as both his predecessor, Bill de Blasio, and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, and boasts the same sympathies of myriads of other Federal, State, and local government flunkies.It would be naïve to think Eric Adams is cut from a different cloth. The secretive powerful interests behind his election are the same as those who thrust de Blasio into Office. These powerful, malevolent interests have made certain that the toadies they place into Office share the same worldview, and that worldview is not amenable to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic.These forces are intent on replacing a free Republic, and a sovereign people, with an entirely new and ambitious, political, social, economic, financial, juridical, and multicultural construct. It is a paradigm antithetical to the needs and desires and fundamental rights of the American people. This new paradigm or framework goes by many names: “the international order;” “the new world order;” “the global democratic liberal world order;” Kissinger’s “world order,” the “neo-feudal world order,” “liberal internationalism,” and, the “Soros/Open Society.” But, by whatever name, the demise of the United States as a truly sovereign, independent Nation-State, along with the demise of the American citizenry as sole sovereign of their Government and the demise of the very concept of ‘citizen’ are the end goals.To accomplish these ends, the forces that crush are hell-bent on shattering the will, psyche, reasoning capacity, and sanity of the American people.To that end, violent societal upheaval is not to be contained or constrained, but to be encouraged.Americans have in the last few years witnessed violent societal upheaval. They see many of their political leaders embracing, enhancing, aggravating upheaval without care for the horror and misery inflicted on innocent individuals.We have seen this “Democrat Party” tolerating, even coaxing, and encouraging BLM and ANTIFA riots in the Summer of 2020 and the rioting continues today. See, e.g., articles in the Washington Examiner, and The Frontier Post.The vigorous, violent, outrageous assault on the U.S. Constitution and on the American citizenry by the ruthless, powerful, inordinately wealthy, and well-connected forces that crush is plain:

• Conceptualization and Implementation of a coordinated FBI hit job on ordinary American citizens who have justifiably sought a serious, comprehensive investigation of and serious accounting of those shenanigans and machinations involving the 2020 election that improbably ensconced, as titular head of the Executive Branch of Government, an obviously corrupt, emotionally and physically weak, and dementia-ridden shell of a man;

• Outrageous DOJ Persecution of “militia” members and Castigation and Remonstrations against average American parents who simply wish to exercise their fundamental rights of free speech and free association without fear of governmental backlash, interference, and reprisals for harboring ideas and beliefs inconsistent with that of the Administration;

• Endangering the Sanctity and Inviolability of the American Citizenry by unlawfully and brazenly secreting into the Nation hordes of illegal aliens from around the world, including violent criminals—literally millions of them;

• Massive Social Engineering Programs and Social and Psychic Conditioning and Indoctrination of the entire American citizenry: including Adults, Youth, and Children;

• Deliberate Actions aimed at Demoralizing and Weakening the Military and Community Police apparatuses of the Nation;

• Placement of scores of defective, incompetent, easily, malleable people in the highest levels of Government to assist in the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic

• Consolidation of all the Apparatuses of Government by which the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic can proceed at a record pace, unconstrained, from within.

And the public is expected to do nothing to prevent the coopting of their Country, but simply acquiesce, sit still, and moronically enjoy the hayride to oblivion. And, for those Americans who refuse to submit, who know what is in store for them and their Country, and who refuse to be mesmerized by the claptrap incessantly spread through the airwaves, legacy newspapers, and the internet, they can expect to be unceremoniously crushed beneath the wheels of the hay wagon.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

NEW YORK MAYOR ERIC ADAMS: DOES HE OR DOESN’T HE —CARRY A HANDGUN THAT IS? SHOULD IT MATTER?

NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS IS NO SAVIOR OF THE CITY AFTER THE IGNOMINIOUS, AND DISASTROUS REIGN OF BILL DE BLASIO, AN UNAPOLOGETIC COMMUNIST; HE IS JUST ANOTHER CONJURER, CHARLATAN, AND LIAR.

PART ONE

During his Mayoral run, Eric Adams asserted he would carry a handgun for self-defense once he became Mayor in lieu of reliance on a special police security detail.The New York Post, for one, reported, back in January 2020, that,“Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, a former cop, said Thursday that he’d pack heat if elected mayor in 2021 rather than waste taxpayer money by having his own security detail like Mayor Bill de Blasio and his predecessors.“Yes I will, number one,’ Adams told the FAQ NYC podcast when asked if he’d pack a firearm as mayor.‘And number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city is safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’” Jump forward to March 26, 2022.In a news story titled, “Did Adams follow through on his campaign promise to carry a gun as mayor?”, 1010 News had this to say about Eric Adams’ remarks:“Now, as the mayor of New York City, he still has a security detail and demonstrated at a press conference Friday that he’s not walking around armed.When asked at a traffic safety event if he followed through on his promise, he smiled and opened his jacket to demonstrate he’s not carrying a gun.‘I stated that if I receive a threat from my intel that states there’s a real threat that I would make that determination. Intel protects me,’ said Adams. ‘If I feel the need to do so then I would do so.’[But] His quote from 2020 does not leave much room for interpretation, even if Adams would like to clarify his intent now.A host for the ‘FAQ NYC’ podcast [had] asked him ‘As mayor would you carry a firearm on you even with a security detail?’Adams responded ‘Yes I will, number one, and number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city’s safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’” See also the article in Arbalest Quarrel, titled, “NYPD Officer Shootings Draw Attention To Mayor Eric Adams’ Plans To Make NYS Safe: What Will He Do?”, posted on January 23, 2022. What is a person to make of Adams’ inconsistent remarks?Is the Mayor a hypocrite? Of course. There’s no way for Adams’ to slither around this, try as he might; try as he has.But, then, should anyone be surprised? After all, hypocrisy is a character trait of all politicians. It defines them, and not in a good way.The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word, ‘hypocrite,’ as a ‘person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.’ But there is much more to the word than that. The ancient Greeks from whom the word, ‘hypocrite’ derived perceived a hypocrite to be a heinous individual, deserving of contempt. The Merrian Webster Dictionary goes to some length in discussing the etymology of the word:“A number of different things might pop to mind when we hear the word hypocrite. Maybe it’s a politician caught in a scandal; maybe it’s a religious leader doing something counter to their creed; maybe it’s a scheming and conniving character featured in soap operas. But it’s likely that the one thing that doesn’t come to mind is the theater.The word hypocrite ultimately came into English from the Greek word hypokrites, which means ‘an actor’ or ‘a stage player.’ The Greek word itself is a compound noun: it’s made up of two Greek words that literally translate as ‘an interpreter from underneath.’ That bizarre compound makes more sense when you know that the actors in ancient Greek theater wore large masks to mark which character they were playing, and so they interpreted the story from underneath their masks. The Greek word took on an extended meaning to refer to any person who was wearing a figurative mask and pretending to be someone or something they were not. This sense was taken into medieval French and then into English, where it showed up with its earlier spelling, ypocrite, in 13th-century religious texts to refer to someone who pretends to be morally good or pious in order to deceive others. (Hypocrite gained its initial h- by the 16th century.) It took a surprisingly long time for hypocrite to gain its more general meaning that we use today [as pointed out supra] ‘a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.’” See also the Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “Truth and Hypocrisy: Bill of Rights Betrayal,” posted on February 18, 2014, one of our first articles. In another Arbalest Quarrel article, posted, five days later, titled, “NY SAFE Advocate and Gun Hypocrite Ferguson: Is the Story Over? Not by a Long Shot,” we dealt further with the notion of ‘hypocrisy.’ Of ‘hypocrisy’ we said, in pertinent part, in that article:“A person who lies does not honor his fellows. No one should lie as a matter of practice. But those who know their words affect the lives of millions of others should be especially mindful of the impact of their words. Those who impact the lives of millions of people through lies are particularly heinous individuals. They do not honor their fellow man. And by failing to honor their fellow man they themselves are not honorable and are not worthy of honor.”Hypocrisy is rife in American politics. Politicians are cut from the same cloth, and Eric Adams, the present New York City Mayor, is no different.Politicians are all consummate actors, but they are actors whose words and actions impact the lives of the citizenry, unlike theater actors whose fictions are confined to the stage.Mayor Adams says he carries a handgun but does not. He says he does not employ an NYPD security detail but he does.Of course, whether or not Adams’ carries a gun when walking around the City is really beside the point. As a retired NYPD police officer, he'd have no trouble obtaining the necessary credentials to do so, anyway. That, unfortunately, cannot be said of the average American citizen who resides in the City. Perhaps a decision in the Bruen case will change that.And, as for Adams’ foregoing an NYPD security detail, the remark is false bravado. The City isn’t any safer under his watch than it was under that of his predecessor, Bill de Blasio. Hence the Mayor’s desire for and need for a security detail exists. Adams is acutely aware of the constant dangers that innocent human beings face in the urban jungle—New York City. Crime continues to surge.As this article goes to publication, March 27, 2022, the New York Post writes: “Major crime and gun violence in the Big Apple have shown no signs of slowing as Mayor Eric Adams pushes people to get back to work and attempts to clean up the subway system.New police data shows that serious crime is up nearly 14 percent this year as of Sunday, compared to the same period in 2020 — when the city was bustling before COVID-19.The early crime trends this year present a challenge for Adams, who last week called for workers to return to New York City — promising a safer city. . . .There have been 300 more serious assaults this year, compared to 2020 — 2,994 versus 2690, an 11.3 percent increase, according to the data released Monday.Burglaries are up 6.6 percent from 1,908 to 2,034 and grand larcenies up 7 percent from 3,753 to 6,763, the data shows.Shootings have also surged nearly 60 percent from pre-pandemic times, from 97 to 154 incidents.There have been 300 more serious assaults this year, compared to 2020 — 2,994 versus 2690, an 11.3 percent increase, according to the data released Monday.Burglaries are up 6.6 percent from 1,908 to 2,034 and grand larcenies up 7 percent from 3,753 to 6,763, the data shows.Shootings have also surged nearly 60 percent from pre-pandemic times, from 97 to 154 incidents.”In light of these troubling crime statistics what is particularly troubling,  galling, and damning is not the content of Adams’ remarks concerning his personal security but the fact that he dared to lie to the public about it, and did so blatantly, casually, with a smile on his face, no less. Has this man so little regard for the average, innocent law-abiding, New York City resident who, unlike him, has no access to police protection and who is denied,out-of-hand, the natural right of armed defense? Does this  Mayor know, or even care, that the average New York City resident must suffer the reality of masses of violent, vile animals, roaming, undeterred, through the streets, subways, train stations, and business establishments of a concrete jungle every day, looking to injure, maim, and kill innocent people—among them, senior citizens and even toddlers? In most of America, the citizenry wouldn't tolerate, for one moment, the horrific conditions existent in and allowed to fester in New York City.And, so, Mayor Adams resorts to lies. And, if he can flippantly lie about one thing, would he not lie about other things—serious matters affecting the physical safety, security, and well-being of the lives of all innocent New York City residents—matters that go beyond those affecting his own life and well-being.Adams brands himself as the “Compassionate Capitalist” ostensibly to distinguish and distance himself from his predecessor, Bill de Blasio. Did Adams come up with that expression, or did his image-makers invoke it, perhaps during a public relations brainstorming strategy session?New Yorkers are constantly confronted with dissimulation, not solutions to real, urgent, and intractable problems. Plans, initiatives, blueprints for action, are little more than shadow play; a ruse; an elaborate, carefully choreographed, managed, and executed masquerade to delude the public. Superficiality overshadows substance at every turn. Everything stays the same; status quo. This is fine for the powers that be, but not for the commonalty.In the next article, we lay this bare, as we continue our exploration of New York City's newly minted Mayor, Eric Adams.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

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

NYPD OFFICER SHOOTINGS DRAW ATTENTION TO MAYOR ERIC ADAMS’ PLANS TO MAKE NYC SAFE: WHAT WILL HE DO?

Five NYPD officers have been shot in the line of duty, only three weeks into the New Year in Eric Adams’ reign as New York City Mayor.Most recently, on January 21, 2022, a psychopath and recidivist criminal with multiple violent felony arrests in New York and other States, Lashawn McNeil, 47, on probation, shot two police officers in New York City. See New York Post article.Officer Jason Rivera, 22, died in the line of duty, and his partner, Officer Wilbert Mora, 27, is clinging to life. The officers had answered a call involving a domestic situation in Harlem.The wife of the slain officer posted a moving tribute to her husband. The killer also shot and wounded a third officer, who returned fire, hitting McNeil in the head and arm. The killer is in critical condition as of Saturday morning. See report in The New York Times.A helluva guy, isn’t he? Let’s wish him well. Maybe the City should erect a statue to him, just like the statue it erected to George Floyd, in Brooklyn—at the same time the City removed the statue of Teddy Roosevelt.George Floyd was a drug addict and small-time crook—another character worth emulating.Just think: If Floyd had not attempted to pass a counterfeit bill off on a grocery store clerk, he would still be alive. But, then, the Neo-Marxist Democrat Party would’ve had to bide its time, awaiting some other pretext to speed the destabilization of society. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes that point clear, for which her own cohorts slammed her—apparently for being too straightforward and literal. 

AMERICA'S NEO-MARXISTS RETAIN STRANGLEHOLD ON NEW YORK CITY

Neo-Marxists retain a nice, firm stranglehold on the City, even after one of their own—Bill de Blasio—has packed up his bags and departed from Gracie Mansion.The new Mayor, Eric Adams, had once served as an NYPD officer, retiring as a Captain.Unlike de Blasio, Eric Adams isn’t a rabid Communist but he is still subject to manipulation by those elements that helped get him elected and who seek the destruction of the City and the Country.This is clear enough from Adams’ own words, following the recent shooting of those two young police officers.And what did NYPD Captain Adams—now NYC Mayor—say to the City and the Country after the most recent shootings? Just this——“ ‘The police department is doing their job taking thousands of guns off the streets, yet each time you take a gun off, there’s a constant flow of new guns coming here. . . .‘And if we don’t coordinate to go after those gun dealers that are supplying large cities in America such as New York, we are losing the battle, and the federal government must step in and play a role in doing so.‘We need Washington to join us and act now to stop the flow of guns in New York City and cities like New York.’” See NY Post article.Later, Adams told Dana Bash, host on ABC’s Good Morning America:“‘We are able to stop terrorism in this city when state, federal and local law enforcement agencies shared information. . . .‘This is a sea of crime that has been fed by many rivers. . . . We have to dam those rivers.’” See report in NY Daily News.Honestly, is this what the City and the Country want or need to hear from the Mayor? Does the City and Country need to hear seemingly glowing, but vague and bland, or tiresome and nonsensical rhetoric, of Anti-Second Amendment zealots who wish to distract and deflect attention away from themselves and from a failed Criminal Justice System they, themselves, coldly, callously, calculatedly thrust on America?Obviously, the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters had scripted Eric Adams’ words for him. And Adams dutifully regurgitated them. The words were contrived; all pretense. His intent was to keep New Yorkers in a perpetual state of passivity, apathy, and mental darkness.If Adams had truly sought to come across as a transformative figure, rather than as a carbon copy of the previous inept, yet smug de Blasio, he might have delivered something to stir the passions; to shake the public from its stupor and naivety. Adams might have said something like the following——

*********

“Criminals take notice: if you kill a ‘Cop,’ you’re going down! I will not tolerate murders and assaults or attempted murders and assaults on Cops on my watch. I am, this day, declaring war on Cop Killers and would-be Cop-killers.For twenty years I served proudly as a New York City Police Officer. My first obligation as Mayor is to the well-being of the people of the City, just as it was when I served as a New York City Police Officer and Captain. An attack on a New York City Police Officers is also an attack on every other good citizen of our community, and I will not tolerate it. Two years ago, after an assassination attempt on a fellow police officer, the Sergeants Benevolent Association wrote to my predecessor:“‘Mayor De Blasio, the members of the NYPD are declaring war on you. . . ! We do not respect you, DO NOT visit us in hospitals. You sold the NYPD to the vile creatures, the 1% who hate cops but vote for you. . . . NYPD cops have been assassinated because of you. . . . This isn’t over, Game on.’” [taken from an article appearing on the website, Right Edition] I am here to tell the Sergeants Benevolent Association that I have burned your words into memory. I am not de Blasio, nor do I choose to be. His days are over. In the next few weeks, I will be implementing my plan for a safe, secure, and thriving New York. That plan will include the following:

• The creation of police intelligence units and quick reaction forces to target organized crime, criminal gangs, and sociopaths that commit violent crimes against police officers and against innocent civilians;

• Encouraging City’s prosecutors to bring criminal charges against all violent offenders and to seek incarceration and, for repeat offenders, lengthy prison sentences;

• Encouraging all Branches of the City Government to swiftly draw up concrete, comprehensive, and robust plans to secure the City from the violence that has plagued it for so many years under the previous Administration;

• The Creation of task forces, mobilizing business and community leaders to assist my Office in developing zero-tolerance policies toward crime, vagrancy, and random violent acts committed by criminals, sociopaths, and psychotics against innocent citizens;

• The Complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division concerning the issuance of firearms and handguns licenses for retired police officers, licensed security guard companies, and civilians.

As a former police officer, I am able to carry a gun. But that doesn’t make me special. I believe all responsible, law-abiding citizens of New York City, no less than I, should be able to carry a handgun for self-defense. That is their fundamental right. That is why I am undertaking a complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division.During my campaign for Mayor, I was asked whether, as a former police officer, I would carry a firearm if I became Mayor. I answered, ‘Yes I will, number one. . . . ‘And number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city is safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’  [from the New York Post]Now that I have been elected Mayor, I stand by those words. Unlike my predecessor, I intend to make our City safe. For far too long this City has had its priorities completely backward. The previous City Administration made its commitments to the wrong people, to the wrong groups, and to the wrong elements of society. This will all change on my watch. I will provide the impetus for a revitalized New York City—A City where people will want to live and feel safe and secure, where people wish to visit rather than avoid, and where businesses can grow and prosper.”

*********

Alas, in his public remarks Mayor Adams didn't say anything to suggest a sea-change from the prior disastrous Administration.During his conversation on ABCs Good Morning America, Mayor Adams did mention he will be rolling out a plan this week to take on the “gun violence.”We can’t know what that plan entails. We would hope whatever it is, it will include our aforesaid recommendations. But we have our doubts.Our concern is that, by Eric Adams’ use of the Neo-Marxists’ buzz-phrase, ‘gun violence,’ and by tying that phrase in with ‘[domestic] terrorism,’ and by constantly exclaiming and reiterating that “the federal government needs to step in and play a role,” Eric Adams is playing directly to the Harris-Biden Administration’s goal of Federal Government intrusion on State’s rights in violation of the Tenth Amendment and on the American peoples’ rights under both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.The ball is now in your court, Mr. Mayor. We pray to God, you do the right thing for the people of New York City.As the Mayor of a major, prominent American City, what you do will set an example for good or ill not only for New York City but for the Country as a whole. You can kowtow to a rogue Federal Government or you can defend the Nation's Bill of Rights. But don't think for one moment you can play both ends against the middle. The public won't fall for it; not anymore._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

FREEDOM IS WON AND CAN BE MAINTAINED ONLY BY FORCE OF ARMS

CATACLYSMIC CONFRONTATION ON THE HORIZON: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT VERSUS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

[SEGMENTS OF THIS ESSAY WERE SUBSTANTIALLY UPDATED ON 2/11/2022]

PART ONE

Forget the blither and blather of the Pelosi January 6 Commission, the claptrap and gibberish incessantly flying out of the maw of the “Grand Idiot in Chief” Joe Biden, and the facile oiliness of Garland, Fauci, and all the rest of the ungodly swine let loose to prey on the good people of our Nation.The United States as a free Constitutional Republic cannot be undone, will never be undone, as long as the citizenry remains armed—and armed to the hilt. And that is something the American Neo-Marxist internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists cannot and will not abide if their one-world transnational governmental scheme is ever to come to fruition.These Destructive elements know they cannot corral and subjugate the American people if they cannot disarm them. That end goal is essential if these Destructive forces are to realize their vision of a one-world government. They know this task has become less and less feasible and more and more daunting with each passing day.Americans have grown wise to the antics of a rogue Administration and a rogue Congress and they want an end to the charade these treacherous malevolent and malignant creatures have played upon the American people for the last year. The alacrity of ineptitude and corruption, duplicity and insincerity, audaciousness and presumptuousness of the rogue Harris-Biden Administration and the equally rogue and decadent combined cabal of Pelosi/Schumer/McConnel controlled Congress are too much in evidence for even the most lackadaisical and jaded among Americans to fail to take notice and, hence, to be alarmed.The inanity of the past year has taken its inevitable toll on both the patience and sanity of the American people and on the political, social, and economic stability of the Nation. It is impossible for people and the Nation to weather the perturbations running through them both. Even Leftist commentators know this and they have intimated as much—frantic about the outcome of the coming Midterm Elections—when they stand to lose all that the Neo-Marxist agenda has hitherto accomplished. And Rogue Republicans like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have long been a part of the venal, rancid Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist cavalcade. Just listen to the “Republican” Senator Mitt Romney complain that the demented, enervated, dissembling occupier of the Oval Office, Joe Biden, didn't reach out to him for Republican Party assistance to federalize the electoral system, ensuring retention of Marxist-Democrat Party control of Congress in the 2022 Midterm elections. The Washington Times laid this out just the other day, in an article titled, “Romney: Biden botched election reform by not talking to centrist Republicans.”“Mitt Romney said Sunday the White House never reached out to him on voting rights even though the Utah Republican is one of the few GOP senators who might be open to a bipartisan overhaul of election laws.Mr. Romney‘s criticism of the president’s leadership comes as Democrats forge ahead with a likely ill-fated plan to blow up Senate filibuster rules and ram through a partisan plan.The former Republican presidential nominee said he is working with a dozen Democrats and Republicans on ways to strengthen the Electoral Count Act after the chaos that culminated with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, so it was disappointing to see the White House try and muscle through alternative plans that GOP lawmakers view as a federal takeover of elections.‘Sadly, this election reform bill that the president has been pushing, I never got a call on that from the White House. There was no negotiation bringing Republicans and Democrats together to try and come up with something that would meet bipartisan interest,’ Mr. Romney told NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’‘They want a real dramatic change,’ Mr. Romney said of Democratic leaders. ‘They feel that instead of elections being run at the state level, they should really be managed and run at the federal level. And recognize the founders didn’t have that vision in mind. They didn’t want an autocrat to be able to pull the lever in one place and change all the election laws. Instead, they spread that out over 50 states.’Democrats say their voting bills are needed to overrule a slew of election integrity measures that have been enacted in GOP-led states since 2020.”The expression ‘Centrist Republican’ that Romney applies to himself and to others like him is a misnomer. There are none today. There can’t be, not in any meaningful sense of the word. There are, first, those Americans who believe fervently in preserving the Nation in the form the Founders created and bequeathed to us—a free Constitutional Republic. These Americans, the true Patriots, have taken an active stand to protect the Nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. They have made their voices heard vociferously, fiercely, even in the face of Government and the large omnipresent social media and technology companies that have pressed feverishly ahead to quell those dissenting voices. America’s Patriots are fully prepared, if or when the need arises, to take up arms against those forces that intend to destroy the Republic and who to subjugate the citizenry. Then there are, second, those Americans who have capitulated to the destruction of the Republic—either through quiet acquiescence, resignation, or outright obeisance to the forces that dare to crush the Nation and its people into submission. In that second group, there are found those who have actively joined the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist effort to undermine the Constitution and to eradicate a free Republic. These include the true believers of the new world order agenda, and Collectivist ideology, and Critical Race Theory Dogma. They are cultists, acolytes, in every sense of the word—thoroughly onboard with the gameplan that envisions dissolution of a free, independent, sovereign State and repression of the American citizenry. They are avid participants in the effort to see the Nation torn asunder. In their ranks, one also finds people like Romney, Cheney, Kinzinger, and corporatists—to be perceived less as cultists, and more crass opportunists, easily bribed, more interested in turning a profit than in preventing tyranny.Thus, in the midst of—at the moment—a seemingly quiet (Below the Threshold) American Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution aimed at overriding and reversing the American Revolution of 1776, there are to be found, among active participants in the struggle over the soul of the Country, American's Patriots, who wish to preserve the Nation in the form the founders conceived for it—a free Constitutional Republic—and Neo-Marxists/Neoliberal Globalists, who are not only conspiring to dissolve the Republic but to dismantle the very concept of an independent, sovereign Nation-State and sovereign American people, merging the Nation's remains into a neo-feudalistic, trans-Global empire.But to succeed in their Counterrevolution without bloodshed—as their agenda is exceedingly unpopular even among most of those Americans who think of themselves as liberal-minded Democrats—they are forced to work ostensibly within the constraints of the Constitution. And, to manage that, these Neo-Marxists/Neoliberal Globalists must take unlawful control of the electoral system as they did during the 2020 General Election. They must overhaul the electoral system. And that first requires overhauling the Senate filibuster Rule. But they do not have the votes to accomplish that. Democrat Party Senators Manchin and Sinema won't give them that. Both puppet-masters and their puppets are becoming increasingly worried, frantic that, even after having prevented Donald Trump from serving a second term in Office, their plans for the eradication of a free Constitutional Republic may still come to naught.The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalists and their many toadies are, unsurprisingly, desperate to control the 2022 November midterm elections just as they had manipulated the 2020 General election. They need to enshrine their electoral fraud machinations into law if they are to maintain control over Congress. And they are not able to accomplish that. And that failure will disrupt their plans as in 2016, most certainly derailing their agenda a second time. So, once again they are resorting to the seditious legacy Press as their Sounding Board. And this Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist captured Press is, true to form, falling back on the usual dreary, boring rhetoric of racism to chastise and cajole anyone who fails to support the passage of their ridiculous voting measures. See two Fox news articles just posted, January 18, 2022. One Fox news article is titled “Liberal media use Martin Luther King Jr. day to push election Legislation, claim ‘voting rights under assault,’” and the other Fox news article is titled, “Schumer tells Democrats to reluctant to nuke filibuster: ‘We are all going to go on the record.’”  These Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are intent on maintaining a stranglehold on the Nation, insistent on the usurpation of the sovereignty of the citizenry to main indefinite and absolute control over the Federal Government, and over the Nation's institutions, and over the Nation's people.And this unlawful usurpation of the citizenry’s sovereignty by a rogue, treasonous, tyrannical Federal Government and a duplicitous Congress is too painfully evident to be reasonably denied. To enshrine a successful Counterrevolution in perpetuity, these plotters need to have absolute control over the electoral system. And their blueprint for that was laid out in the takeover of the 2020 General Election, which saw a quiet coup of Government. And these conspirators are hell-bent on keeping the lid on that, censoring, ridiculing, and strong-arming any American who insists on questioning the legitimacy of the election that took place—that resulted in the ousting of Donald Trump, and the seating of the corrupt, senile dimwit and subservient toady of the Neo-Marxists/Neoliberal Globalists, Joe Biden, into the U.S. Presidential suite.The American people need to remember and constantly remind themselves that, despite the coup d’état of the Federal Government, through the unlawful scheming and fraud of the 2020 General Election, the American people still wield, by right, ultimate and sole sovereignty over Government. But it is not succored for them, as they can see. They must assert it.And there must eventually be an accounting, and there will be an accounting, after the 2022 Midterm elections. And the American people are holding fast to, and must continue to hold fast to their firearms. Many other Americans, who, in their dim memory, recall the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, are purchasing firearms and ammunition for the first time, recognizing a free Constitutional Republic is rapidly falling from their grasp. And they are prepared to assert their lawful power over the Government.This absolutely terrifies the ruthless forces—operating silently in the shadows—both here and abroad. For far too long they have exerted inordinate influence and power over their many toadies——

• In the Federal Government
• In Many State, and Local Governments;
• In the Public and Private Health Fields;
• In the Press, in Social Media, and “Big Tech;”
• In Broadcast and Cable News and Commentary;
• In Academia and Public Education;
• In Business, High finance, and the Central (Federal Reserve) Bank;
• In Sports and other Entertainment.

And with the exceptionally good reason these ruthless, powerful forces are terrified of America’s many armed citizens. But these destructive forces can’t back down now. They can't ease up on their grand Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist takeover gameplan. They have come much too far for that.Yes, they have been able to prevent the Populist Donald Trump from securing a second term in office, albeit through massive election fraud, chicanery, and illegal electoral engineering. And they have unlawfully silenced dissent. And they have unlawfully denied to tens of thousands of American citizens, operation of the citizens’ sacred Constitutional Rights through blatant and glaring, disregard of and outright violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They have pushed the American people against a wall.And so, the forces that dare to crush our Nation and its people into submission must see their game through to the end: it is all, or nothing at all—both for them and for us.How do we know this? The absurdist, farcical play the Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists puppet-masters have staged to date demonstrates how frantic they are to control the actions and thoughts of the American people.These destructive agencies must proceed forthwith with their agenda, that they may undertake the grand finale: their dangerous endgame. They must and will, at some point, attempt to confiscate the firearms of the American people en masse.Just consider the outright, outrageous unconstitutional actions and schemes that Americans have suffered to date through the deceit and machinations and illegal maneuvering of the treachery of many in the Federal Government and through the treachery of many actors outside the Government as well—taunting, challenging, daring the American people to resist. Consider these outrageous assaults on our Constitution and on the Sovereignty of the American people:

• Creation of Nancy Pelosi’s “Star Chamber” January 6 Commission

• Establishment of the DOJ Department’s newly formed Domestic Terrorism Unit, to target and hunt down American citizens

• Insidious Attacks on America’s Moms and Dads, and on Trump Supporters

• Continued Mindless, Senseless Denigration of and Attacks on Donald Trump

• Incoherent, Duplicitous Disinformation/Misinformation/Pseudo-Information Campaigns Orchestrated by the Federal Government, the Legacy Press, and Major Social Media Companies, all directed against the population at large

• Psychological Conditioning Programs Designed to Produce and Provoke Mass Confusion, Anxiety, and Hysteria in the Nation’s Citizenry and in the Nation’s youth and young adults

• The Perpetration and Perpetuation of an outlandish fictitious pseudo-religious dogma grounded absurdly on the Glorification of Victimhood and on the Idea of the Moral Righteousness of Social and Sexual Deviancy and of a host of other Psychological Pathologies

• De facto Abrogation of Natural, Basic Rights and Liberties of the Citizenry

• The Contemptuous Dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court Orders and Decisions; and Disdainful Disregard of Congressional Statutes

• Governmental Policy Decisions and Initiatives Designed and Calibrated to Destabilize Society, Weaken the Economy, and Endanger National Security

• Odd tolerance toward, even outright enabling of, harmful, illegal Actions of the worst, most detestable elements of Society and, concomitantly, Clampdowns on the Freedoms and Autonomy of Average, Responsible, Rational Americans

• The Presumptuous, Outrageous Opening of the Nation’s Territorial Borders to Millions of Itinerant illegal aliens, many of whom have been deported from the Country several times before but who are given Sanctuary in the U.S. by the Administration in clear violation of the Nation’s Immigration Laws

• Creation of new voting blocs from the millions of illegal aliens, convicted felons, lunatics, malleable adolescents, malcontents, and slothful individuals

• Seditious Pronouncements and Narratives Passed off as “News” by a Press that is in league with the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Agenda to Eradicate a free Constitutional Republic

• Neo-Marxist Legislators blatantly and egregiously telling Social Media and Big Tech Kingpins to engage in further Censoring of Speech instead of urging restraint and the refraining of censorship on pain of Congressional action

• Harris-Biden Administration nominations of the most corrupt, ill-suited, inept, Anti-American, and, in some instances, strange and bizarre cast of characters ever to hold public office

• House Passage of the  Voting Rights Package, combining the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act—a Bald-faced, Shameless Attempt by Congressional Marxists to unlawfully bypass Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution—thereby federalizing the election process that belongs solely to the States and ensuring that Neo-Marxists retain control of Congress in November 2022 after the Midterm elections

• Unmitigated, incessant Lying and Deceit directed toward the American People

• Painfully and oddly taciturn Republican Members of the Senate and House, seemingly oblivious to the blatant Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist attempt to destroy the Republic: Have they been bribed to remain quiet, or are most of them just frightened docile little lambs themselves, afraid to lock horns with the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist toadies and puppet-masters?

How can the Federal Government and various State Governments, along with the Press, and Social Media Companies, get away with continuous wholesale evisceration and immolation of our Nation and its people? The short answer is: They can’t; at least not legally anyway, but for the fact that Americans allow this to happen, at least tacitly.But how long will Americans put up with this dangerous nonsense?_____________________________________

AMERICAN NEO-MARXISM TAKES DIRECT AIM AT WHAT IT CALLS AMERICA’S “GUN CULTURE”

PART TWO

The fundamental, unalienable, absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is deeply rooted in our culture. There is no doubt about that. No one can reasonably deny this. In fact, the Neo-Marxist internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists both readily acknowledge the import of the right codified in the Second Amendment even as they abhor and disdainfully object to it.But, the use of the specific phrase ‘Gun Culture,’ is a political fiction, a wholly made-up terminology, no less so than is the expression ‘Assault Weapon.’ Both are manufactured phrases that Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist propagandists concocted to use and exploit against the American people in order to hobble, demoralize, and disrupt American society and America’s noble institutions.Their goal is not abstruse. They seek no less than the eradication of a free Constitutional Republic. And, through both their words and actions, the accomplishment of that goal has become increasingly plain. They intend to replace the Republic with an altogether alien and artificial political, social, economic, cultural, juridical construct—a nightmarish massive Collectivist scheme. They fancy an America as a totalitarian enclave devoid of geographical borders, devoid of a common language, devoid of National identity, and harboring an assemblage of ragtag, itinerants, completely dependent on the grace of Government to fulfill their minimum basic needs. If there is a throwback to an early age, to be seen in all of this, it is in their belief system and not that of American Patriots. America’s Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists imagine a world before the rise of modern nation-states, a neo-Feudalism, where a few “Lords” live in luxury and everyone else devolves to a state of penury and repression. And why would the American citizenry acquiesce to this?The forces that crush nation-states into submission view this Nation’s uniqueness not as a thing to be applauded and cherished but as a thing to be denigrated, ridiculed, denied, and ultimately destroyed. And they want to convince the American people—their incessant propaganda, attempts to convince, the American people—that our free Republic is not worth salvaging.And as the economy continues to suffer—all of it by design—and as Government doggedly continues to impose rapacious authoritarian policies on the people, and as the Government insidiously drives more and more people to destitution, many Americans are beginning to lose faith in both themselves and in the Republic; many are looking to Government for succor and protection. And all of this is as intended by the forces that crush entire nations into submission.And the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists blame the breakdown of law and order they themselves have fostered and nurtured not on the devious Government policy goals and initiatives—upon which breakdown of societal order is based—but on America’s “Gun Culture.”These malevolent, maleficent, malignant forces disingenuously argue the fault is not of their own making—that none of the problems plaguing America of late is of their own making—but that it is the result of America’s indefatigable “love of Guns,” of the omnipresence of a “Gun Culture” that permeates all of American society and that has existed since the dawn of the Republic. And they loudly bray that it is this “Gun Culture” that is the singular cause of the mayhem plaguing many of the Country’s major Cities; that it is this “Gun Culture” that manifests in cities around the Country as out-of-control “Gun Violence,” or so they say. But is this true? No!

THERE IS NO “GUN CULTURE” IN AMERICA, AND THERE NEVER WAS

Let us be clear: There IS NO “GUN CULTURE” in America. There IS, though, a unique “AMERICAN CULTURE.” And the two of them are not the same thing.This requires explication as much falsehood is generated and spouted over it and many gun owners may not be aware of it. The propaganda surrounding this notion and all the other notions thrust on the American people is the product of a long insidious campaign planned and executed by the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Government. And they operate in tandem with the major technology companies and with the legacy Press. Their intention is to injure and soften the American psyche. And they have become very adept at it.Through an obvious long-standing—albeit never openly admitted incestuous relationship—the bloated Federal Government, the large-scale Legacy Press, and the massive Social Media/Technology companies have, for years, combined their forces in a campaign to confuse, distract, and discourage the American public in a calculated attempt to prevent the public from focusing on the salient problem facing the Country: the very real possibility of the loss of it. For that is the plan. It was always their plan. It is the finale sought by the ruthless forces that seek to crush a free Constitutional Republic, and with that, to crush the spirit of the American people.The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists would never admit this and they still don’t. But they cannot reasonably deny it; the Nation is falling apart at the seams. Obviously, they don't wish to take credit for that, even as they are the ones that planned for it. But, they can't very well blame Trump or the American people for the multiplicity of serious ills plaguing society. So, they don't mention any of it. Rather they focus on quietly instituting more of the same, and focusing attention on the Midterm Elections. For, the longer they can retain Governmental power, the more fully entrenched they become, and the more time they have to accomplish their goal of the complete dismantling of the Country.And the Country is weakening and dying a slow death on all major indices: socially, culturally, politically, geopolitically, and juridically.The pity of it is that it need not have been so. It has less to do with the fact of it and more that Americans have only themselves to blame for it. All too many of them continually vote into high Office the vilest, vicious, inept, contemptible creatures ever to have been spawned.And why is that? There is an answer. The answer is found in the Neo-Marxists' and Neoliberal Globalists' merciless attack on America’s Spirit and Will._____________________________________

THE NEO-MARXIST/NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST ATTACK ON AMERICANS’ VITAL SPIRIT FOCUSES ON FALSE NOTIONS OF “GUN CULTURE” AND “GUN VIOLENCE”

PART THREE

The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist propagandists’ success to date propagating falsehoods about a pervasive American “GUN CULTURE” and concomitantly an uncontrolled wave of “GUN VIOLENCE,” plaguing the Country, leading to a sense of profound hopelessness in the psyche of Americans, is no accident. It is all part and parcel of an intricate, well-designed, well-coordinated, well-executed and lengthy campaign to weaken the Nation’s heretofore historically strong spirit, will, intellect, and emotional toughness. The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists know that it is impossible to induce Americans to accept a completely alien and inherently outrageous vision of the world—one requiring the immolation of the American psyche and the dissolution of a sovereign, independent Nation-State and sovereign American people—unless they first severely weaken the American psyche. Apart from a few Americans who have a peculiar predilection toward acceptance of the tenets, precepts, and principles of  Collectivism, which eschews the sanctity and inviolability of the Human Soul, the vast majority of Americans would have long ago forsworn Neo-Marxism had not the seditious legacy Press and assorted propaganda arms of social media and internet effectively controlled the dissemination of news and information. But, broad swathes of the population don't know. The Press and private and public media outlets assiduously mask the aims and actions of these vicious, virulent, vile Neo-Marxist and Neo-liberal Globalist forces with massive, well-orchestrated campaigns of disinformation, misinformation, fluff, and pablum, while blanketing the Nation with a complete blackout of authentic, elucidative information. Hence, the American public must dig hard and deep to obtain the truth, upon which the public may draw informative inferences concerning the direction that the present Government is taking the Country.That so many Americans have no inkling of the deception played upon them by those servants of Government, it is understandable that so many Americans would have accepted the false projection playing out in front of them, and would become ever more the passive, apathetic observer of the nonsense so projected out to them. Even so, it is wondrous strange that so many members of the public appear increasingly amenable to the most outrageous, outlandish, ludicrous ideas and thought-forms imposed on their psyche—ridiculous even by the standards of Neo-Marxism itself.This says much of the propagandists’ success in inflicting mass psychosis on the target population. Many Americans—most, unfortunately—have dealt with the sheer idiocy of the word salads and viral memes floating through the newspapers and internet and airwaves by blotting much of it out. Many have seemingly mastered, if half-consciously, a form of self-hypnosis, inducing a state of mental and emotional stupor; a kind of waking somnolence. But whether internalizing the nonsense spouted by propagandists, accepting it as gospel, or filtering it out—by spacing out—either way is fine for the Spoilers of our Nation; for, either way, the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters accomplish their aims. Either way, an inattentive audience or one rapt by the garbage foisted on them, that American audience becomes a compliant, docile, mute flock of sheep.Americans either become acolytes of the new nonsense dogma, thereby looking forward to the realization of the nightmare Dystopia, or become resigned to it, having lost all will and vigor to resist the actualization of it.The truth is inescapable but the implacable horror of the future prospects for our Nation is so terrifying that most Americans won’t acknowledge it to themselves or breathe a word of it to others, even as some dim portion of their intellect compels them to accept the hard, cold, disturbing fact of it. Thus, Americans engage in psychopathological self-denial. And these are some of the signs of that malaise of Spirit, directed inward upon themselves:

• Changes in eating habits
• Changes in mood
• Excessive worry, anxiety, or fear
• Feelings of distress
• Inability to concentrate
• Irritability or anger
• Low energy or feelings of fatigue
• Sleep disruptions
• Thoughts of self-harm or suicide
• Trouble coping with daily life
• Withdrawal from activities and friends

See article in very well mind. To that, we might add the pathological suspicion of friends, family, and business associates, and worst of all, fear and suspicion over one’s own motives—doubt concerning one’s own abilities and the inviolability of one's sacred Self.As masters of psychological conditioning and brainwashing, the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist psychologists and psychiatrists have manipulated the public so thoroughly that many members of the public fail to think clearly and carefully through the implausibility of the nonsense continuously blasted out in the newspapers, on the cellphones, and over the airwaves at them. They simply fail to see what is in plain sight: the horrific monster looming in front, behind, and all around them.The propagandists blare out and emphasize, ad nauseum, the false idea that our Nation is immoral; ergo, the citizenry’s psyche is irremediably damaged, and that the only remedy for an immoral Nation and a damaged psyche is radical surgery: destroy the Nation, and lobotomize the psyche. But, the irony is that the citizenry's psyche was not/is not damaged but for the actions of the propagandists who would make it so.The cause of the Nation’s woes, Americans are told is this thing that the forces that crush refer to as a “GUN CULTURE” that permeates through the length, and depth, and breadth of the County, and that manifests in a plague of GUN VIOLENCE that has taken over the Country—and so the lackeys of the seditious legacy Press tells us.But this is all a fabrication, yet one carefully cultivated and nurtured. The Nation does not have a GUN CULTURE and never did.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF ‘CULTURE’

The word, ‘Culture,’ is not an easy word to grasp.The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘Culture,’ as, ‘the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time.’ Expanding on that, the website, Thought Company, explains the word this way:

“Culture is a term that refers to a large and diverse set of mostly intangible aspects of social life. According to sociologists, culture consists of the values, beliefs, systems of language, communication, and practices that people share in common and that can be used to define them as a collective. Culture also includes the material objects that are common to that group or society. Culture is distinct from social structure and economic aspects of society, but it is connected to them—both continuously informing them and being informed by them.

Culture is one of the most important concepts within sociology because sociologists recognize that it plays a crucial role in our social lives. It is important for shaping social relationships, maintaining and challenging social order, determining how we make sense of the world and our place in it, and in shaping our everyday actions and experiences in society. It is composed of both non-material and material things.”

If that definition isn't confusing, consider, this description of the word from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“The meaning of the term ‘culture’ has been highly contested, especially within anthropology. . . . The first highly influential definition came from Edward Tylor (1871, 1), who opens his seminal anthropology text with the stipulation that culture is, ‘that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.’ Subsequent authors have worried that Tylor's definition packs in too much, lumping together psychological items (e.g., belief) with external items (e.g., art). From a philosophical perspective, this would be especially problematic for those who hope that culture could be characterized as a natural kind, and thus as a proper subject for scientific inquiry. Other definitions often try to choose between the external and internal options in Tylor's definition.

On the external side, anthropologists have focused on both artifacts and behaviors. Herskovits (1948, 17) tells us that, ‘Culture is the man-made part of the environment,” and Meade (1953, 22) says culture “is the total shared, learned behavior of a society or a subgroup.’ These dimensions are combined in Malinowski's (1931, 623) formulation: ‘Culture is a well organized unity divided into two fundamental aspects—a body of artifacts and a system of customs.’ ”

‘Culture,’ is often tied to ‘Heritage.’ But that raises a host of questions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy goes on to say:

“Do members of cultural groups have special claims to own or control the products of the cultures to which they belong? Is there something morally wrong with employing artistic styles that are distinctive of a culture to which you do not belong? What is the relationship between cultural heritage and group identity? Is there a coherent and morally acceptable sense of cultural group membership in the first place? Is there a universal human heritage to which everyone has a claim?”The more elaborate and comprehensive the definition of, the more inscrutable it becomes. But the Nation's Spoilers don't thrust words and phrases onto the public to edify and enlighten Americans but to control them. The idea is to control the public by tugging on the public's emotional strings, not by appealing to the public's higher mental and judgmental faculties.

GETTING INSIDE THE HEADS OF AMERICANS———

But, targeting the public's emotions only goes so far in controlling the public. The goals of the Nation's spoilers are far more ambitious and frightening.Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist Propagandists love to play with words and language, with syntax, semantics, and structure, and they are great manipulators of it. They cleverly craft an ever-expanding array of new words and expressions and subtly devise novel meanings for old ones. They work hand-in-hand with specialists from diverse academic fields—neuropsychologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, linguists, and anthropologists—who dutifully, ruthlessly imprint, onto the psyche of the public, words, phrases, even nonsensical schizophrenic word salads. The main focus of psychological conditioning is to confuse, confound, and disrupt the American public's sense of time, place, and memory. The aim of the masters of brainwashing, on a nationwide scale, is to create in the mind of the American public an entirely new reality—a parallel world—one that is designed to slowly, inexorably replace the America that hearkens back to the dawning days of the Republic with one that draws the public into the embrace of a completely new political, social, economic, and cultural dynamic: a world-wide Collectivist organ, where the remains of the commonality are herded into special enclaves, dotted here and there around the world. The lives of the common folk will be devoid of meaning or purpose. They will live shallow lives; their minds occupied with generic, vacuous dross, played incessantly to vacant minds attuned to video monitors, and filled with soporifics to make them quiet, submissive, pliant. As little need there will be for unskilled and semi-skilled slave labor, in this brave new world, of the Collectivist future, as technology will fill much of that gap once filled by manual labor, most human beings will become superfluous, reduced to living in an essentially vegetative state.Compare that Marxist/Neo-liberal Globalist dystopian with the ideal of our present American Republic—that is, at best, but a vestige of its once greatness. The exemplars of America are unneeded commodities in the future world of neo-feudalism. In fact, in such a world as envisioned by the future Masters of the Earth, the exemplars of America are an outright liability.In the past——Nothing exemplified the American Spirit and Psyche more prominently, and emphatically than the notion of the indomitability, inviolability, and sacredness of the Human Soul. This sacred truth is itself inextricably tied to the sanctity of Selfhood. And the absolute sovereignty of the American people over Government serves as recognition of this fact. And that sole and exclusive sovereignty over Government is only maintained through the sacred right of the American people to keep and bear arms against the tyranny of Government that attempts to corrupt and profane, one's Self, and one's Spirit, and one's Soul.These notions do not exist independently but are inextricably tied to and bound up in a deep-seated, deeply-entrenched eternal Christian ethic, that itself is grounded on moral Truths, lovingly placed into the Soul of man by a Benevolent, Beneficient, and Morally Perfect Divine Creator.  A free Constitutional Republic and the idea of a free, sovereign people, borne of these sacred, unshakeable, and immortal Truths—nourished by them and, having derived their strength, success, and greatness from them—cannot long survive without them. In a free Constitutional Republic, there is an enduring need for a well-armed sovereign people. For it is only through a well-armed citizenry that a sovereign and free people can ever hope to effectively withstand the inevitable tendency of Government, and of the ruthless, insufferable Satanic forces in that Government, to destroy all that is Good, Right, and Proper.The Moral Perfection of the Divine Creator as the well-spring of America's Cultural Greatness, upon which the sovereignty of the American people and the inviolability and indomitability of the American spirit are firmly, indelibly impressed in mind and body and Spirit and  cannot be dislodged. These Truths can only be buried in memory, and replaced by false idols and that is what the Nation's Spoilers seek to do. But that is not so easily accomplished—not in a Country established on natural law rights, as only this Country, of all other countries or unions of countries, is.Thus, there exists—there has always existed—an enduring need for a well-armed citizenry to withstand the inevitable tendency of Government and of ruthless, insufferable Satanic forces, intent on destroying all that is Good, and Right, and Proper in America and in the world. The United States is truly the last bastion of hope both for the American people and, ultimately, for western civilization. And, therein one finds the salient reason why the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist forces both need and desire to destroy America and the indomitability of the American Soul and Spirit and Psyche.A one-world government, embracing billions of people, cannot exist without firm military/police control over those billions of people. And, when one western Nation-State—the most powerful and noble one the world has ever seen—effectively resists subjugation, those subjugated peoples around the world take notice. Rebellions here and there arise around the world; fracturing the well-oiled, well-humming titanic machine. The Neo-feudal Lords can have none of that. And that is why they are hard at work destroying every vestige of resistance: openly defying Constitution and Statute; seeding the Country with millions of ignorant, worthless, needy, malcontents, including outright psychopathic killers, rapists, child-molesters, drug traffickers, and sex traffickers; draining our Nation's resources, having no comprehension of or desire to learn of freedom and liberty and the responsibilities that come with it. And that is why the Neo-feudalistic Lords, through their corrupt and obsequious toadies in Government, academia, the Press, in business, in entertainment, and in social media are intent on undermining this Country at its root level. One sees them:

• Creating an entire religion and dogma out of victimhood
• Deifying the State/Government and blaspheming the one true God;
• Treating all manner of perversities and perversions as acceptable life choices;
• Denigrating our most sacred Christian beliefs;
• Emasculating our military;
• Denigrating our Nation’s Founders and Military heroes;
• Eradicating our History, Heritage, Culture, and Ethos;
• Dismantling our Public and Private Institutions
• Destroying the Doctrine of Federalism and the Doctrine of Checks and Balances among the Federal Government's three Co-equal Branches that underpin our system of Governance;
• Defying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
• Inverting our core, sacred values;
• Turning vices into virtues and virtues into vices; 
• Developing and implementing foreign and domestic and policy from alien UN and EU doctrine that irreparably weakens our Nation and are wholly inconsistent and incompatible with our Nation's Constitution, statutes, jurisprudence, historical and cultural underpinnings;  
• Making a mockery of our Nation by installing into public Office, the most inept, incompetent, corrupt, depraved and degenerate band of creatures to ever serve at one time in the Nation’s highest offices, thereby placing this Country and the world in the worst jeopardy of global thermonuclear annihilation since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962;
• Turning our Nation into a massive Surveillance State, and turning our Nation’s peoples into a collection of shoo-flies: neighbor spying on neighbor; police spying unlawfully on people and associations of Americans; teachers spying on children; children even spying on their own parents;
• Turning the massive power of Executive Branch police and intelligence apparatuses illegally on the American people;
• Reducing Congressional Democrats into a willing and compliant tool of the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters and Congressional Republicans into a passive, ineffectual, effete, and useless Governmental appendage;
• Transforming many State and Local Governments into docile toadies of Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters
• Treating American citizens as a perpetual subordinate, subservient underclass, while elevating millions of contemptible illegal alien pests, who have no respect for our Nation's laws and who are free from Government mandates and who are a bane on Americans, as the new preferred overclass.

Millions of Americans who are asleep, better awake from their slumber, before they drag down the rest of us. And those Americans who are alert, best stay vigilant and hold tight to their arms. Soon, it may be all they have to remind themselves that they once were sovereign rulers of their Land and that they still are the Nation's sole, sovereign, rulers.___________________________The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist language manipulators of thought, don't bother to define terminology that they thrust on the public psyche. They thrust terminology onto the psyche of the public, trusting—knowing, really—that emotional connotations of certain words the public is familiar with will do the hard work for the manipulators, adequately conveying to the target population's mind the images the language manipulators intend for those words to convey. And in that task, a reality is created in the mind of the target population. And, the public doesn't rationally perceive the idiocy inherent in that dubious reality, because emotion clouds the intellect.The words, ‘gun,’ ‘criminal,’ and  ‘violence,’ are all common words in the English language. Two of the words, historically, ‘criminal,’ and  ‘violence,’ have negative connotations, and understandably so. One, word, ‘gun,’ does not, historically, have an inherently negative connotation. And the reason why is plain. The word, ‘gun,’ is a tool. It is an object, not an agent. As a tool it can be utilized by an agent for good or ill. In our past, it was through the use of guns by American Patriots that a Nation was born; one unlike any other in the world before, or since. The Nation's Patriot-Founders conceived a Country conceived in Liberty, in accordance with the will of the Divine Creator God; a Country where the American people lived free and as sole sovereign, in control of their own lives and the destiny of their Country. And, that the Nation would ever remain so, the Patriot-Founders of our Nation codified in stone, a set of the most important of natural rights, bestowed on and in Man by the Divine Creator.The most basic of which, under which all the other Natural Rights are subsumed, is the Right of self-defense, i.e., self-defense against the predatory creature, the predatory man, and the predatory government.Armed self-defense is simply an aspect of self-defense, nothing more nor less. Armed self-defense implies man has the unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal right to use the best means available to defend Self and his Family against unlawful intrusion by beast, man-beast, and predatory, tyrannical Government. As a useful tool, as part of the inherent right of self-defense/survival, man has, through the centuries, come to use and to depend on the firearm to secure sustenance for Self and Family, and that tool eventually served the extended family and the greater community: one's clan, tribe, and eventually one's Nation.In times past, prior to the advent of the firearm, the most effective, efficient, personal, personnel tool for survival was the sword, which through the years andThrough man's technological prowess, that tool evolved into the firearm: matchlock, wheellock, flintlock, percussion cap, revolvers, semiautomatic firearms, selective-fire, and full-auto guns, the last few of which have, through the last century and into the 21st have become further and further refined. And in the refinement of the firearm for self-defense, the Destructors of our Nation came to abhor, loathe and fear the firearm in the hands of the armed citizen. For they know that the well-armed citizen need not long suffer tyranny if it should choose not to, and, in the ancestral mind of the American, the tyranny of Government will not long endure.The mainstay of our free Constitutional Republic is, today, as it has always been, the presence of a well-armed citizenry Not surprisingly, then, the idea of a gun in the hands of the citizen-soldier is absolutely anathema to the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Destructors of our Nation, of our Constitution, and of a free and sovereign people. It is not only inconsistent with and detrimental to the existence of a totalitarian world governmental regime, it is inconsistent with tyranny's absolute domination and dominion over the Spirit and Soul of man. And, in that rests, not only the perversity of the present Harris-Biden Administration and Pelosi-Schumer-McConnel-controlled Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government but, worst of all, the perversion of Divine Law. Our Nation is the only Nation on Earth that was created as a truly free Constitutional Republic and grounded in Christian ethics and morality in strict accordance with the Desire of the Divine Creator. And the fact that our Nation has persevered and prospered, where all others have fallen into ruin or are in danger of ruination, speaks of the Blessing bestowed on our Nation and its people by the Divine Creator. And, why, then, would any rational person or group seek to destroy that which has succeeded so well? But, then, it isn't reason and sanity that drive those forces to destroy our Nation and to destroy all nation-states. It is rabid jealousy and the avaricious and wrathful desires of ruthless men to rule over and control the lives of all men. That is what motivates them to destroy all that is Good and Right and Proper. And, they rely on the fear, lust, and desires of lesser men to do their bidding. And the corruption inherent in the souls of these corrupted souls is plain for all to see if they would but look.

IF ONE CAN SUCCESSFULLY MANIPULATE THE USE OF LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY, ONE CAN CONTROL THOUGHT AND THEREFORE THE BEHAVIOR OF THE TARGET POPULATION OF THAT SOCIETY

And the manipulators of language went to work to instill in the American psyche an irrational fear and loathing and abhorrence of the firearm to match the same fear and loathing and abhorrence these Destructors of a free Republic held toward the armed American citizen. The intent of these forces that crush was to create enmity, schizophrenia, between the citizen-soldier and that citizen's firearm.Consider the import of and the impact of the phrase, “GUN VIOLENCE,” vs. the phrase, “CRIMINAL VIOLENCE” on the public psyche. By tying the word, ‘gun’ to the word, ‘violence,’ in lieu of the word, ‘criminal,’ to the word, ‘violence,’ the mind associates guns with violence rather than criminal conduct to violence. This all by design. For, it isn't criminal acts that the Destroyers of our Nation seek to contain and constrain. The sociopathic and psychopathic agents of these criminal acts is precisely what the Destroyers of society want. It is rather, firearms in the hands of average, law-abiding, rational civilian citizens they seek to disarm. But, these Destroyers of our Nation and its institutions create the effective illusion that guns are inextricably tied to crime and that by getting rid of guns from the hands of tens of millions of average Americans will erase crime. But, it is guns in the possession of average, rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizens they seek to confiscate, and intend to eradicate. It is not guns in the hands of criminals. For it is guns in the hands of criminals they intend to preserve, as is clear from their actions, if not by their words, and it is sociopathic and psychopathic criminals and lunatics they embrace, for it is these elements that are doing the bidding of the Destroyers of America. These criminals and lunatics will continue to be released onto the streets so that their crimes and mayhem can continue unabated. Nation’s largest Cities—the Neo-Marxist controlled ones—as it so happens—is not “GUN VIOLENCE” but the plague of “CRIMINAL VIOLENCE.” Guns, knives, baseball bats, axes, bombs, motor vehicles, or hands and arms and legs and feet are merely some of the tools utilized in the acts of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE. Getting rid of guns from society won't end CRIMINAL VIOLENCE. It will only make it worse. And it is, after all, this pervasive thing, CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, around the Country that the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists want, and it is this pervasive CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, permeating all around and through our Nation's largest Neo-Marxist run urban areas that our Nation gets.Thus, criminal violence, not surprisingly, does befall major Neo-Marxist-controlled Cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, and New York City—just to name a few of these Cities. And these Cities just happen to have some of the Nation’s most restrictive gun laws. Yet the City and State leaders constantly cast blame on the problems plaguing their respective Cities, not on these jurisdictions' acquiescence to or outright enabling and facilitating of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE but on this thing—“GUN VIOLENCE” as if CRIMINAL VIOLENCE is grounded in and derives essentially from GUNS. That is absurd. But there it is, anyway. This is what the Radical Left newspapers, periodicals, radio and broadcast and cable news stations, and the Neoliberal Globalist social media and mega-internet companies continually harp about. And that is what these propaganda organs incessantly castigate gun manufacturers, and the so-called “GUN LOBBY,” and tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational members of the public, about: “Get rid of guns from everyone,” so they say, “and the problem of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE across the Land, will take care of itself.” Yea, sure!The expression “GUN VIOLENCE” is a misnomer but one carefully cultivated and scripted to be impressed on the psyche of the public. To be sure, there IS VIOLENCE in our society, of course. But, who is it that is generating all that violence? It certainly isn't the tens of millions of average, responsible law-abiding gun owners. It is VIOLENCE committed by sociopaths, common criminals, lunatics, and psychopathic criminal gang members, including illegal alien rapists, killers, and child molesters, whom various Marxist-controlled Cities and States, along with the Harris-Biden Administration that, perfunctorily, blatantly, even arrogantly disregard our Nation's immigration laws, welcoming into the Country and refusing to allow Federal ICE officers perform their lawful duties requiring them to deport this illegal riff-raff. Many of these innately dangerous elements happen to use guns in committing their criminal acts, sure, and they use many, many other weapons as well. And, as to gun-toting criminals, why is it that the Neo-Marxist Soros-elected prosecutors, judges, and Legislatures are routinely given a pass? This is common practice that goes back years. See, e.g., articles from the Chicago Reporter, the Charlotte Observer, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Heritage Foundation, News Nation, and Fox News.But if these Cities and States have draconian gun laws, most of which are directed to the public, and if these jurisdictions continued to treat the worst elements of society with kid gloves, pretending to be obsessed over criminals qua gun-toting criminals, then it is clear that the problems plaguing these Cities and States is less a function of guns and is more a function of the agents of crime—the criminals and lunatics themselves. But that fact does not serve the Neo-Marxist narrative. So, the Neo-Marxist deflects the obvious question by posing, to the public, another question that better serves their aims. The Neo-Marxist asks: where are these gun-toting criminals acquiring these guns? The answer, as with the question itself, has, of course, invariably been pre-rehearsed and preprepared by the Neo-Marxists. New York Mayor Eric Adams has made it a mainstay of his recently released “Blueprint to End Gun Violence.”  The Mayor raises the matter of gun trafficking—using that as a springboard to secure Federal Government involvement and action. The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists attempt to federalize everything. This is a clear violation of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights and Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and undercuts the long-standing doctrine of federalism that carves out powers between the Federal Government and the States.The American people are witnessing the inexorable erosion, through time, of what had heretofore existed as a well-defined barrier existent between Government and the people upon which the absolute sovereignty of the people over Government depends, and upon which that absolute sovereignty is enforced, i.e., through the continued presence of the well-armed citizenry. Getting the Federal Government involved in the regulation of firearms through the pretext of the makeweight of gun trafficking is merely one more surreptitious attempt by the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists to erode the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. Americans have seen this before. Recall the infamous “Fast and Furious Scheme,” hatched originally by the Bush Administration and further exploited by the Obama Administration. Neoliberal Globalists have, through time, tried other strategies to undermine the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. The failed UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is another example of a surreptitious end-run tactic of a treacherous lustful power-mad Federal Government to undercut the sovereignty of the American people. See article in The New American. Also see a 2019 Report conducted by the Anti-Second Amendment, The Brady Campaign To End Gun Violence, writing in part: “Current United States gun laws are dangerously weak in terms of curbing the supply of guns to the general public, preventing gun trafficking, and providing accountability mechanisms through tracing.While some states can and do mandate more stringent regulations overand above these federal laws - below is a list of some federal-level standards that often undermine the strongest state laws.” In the aforecited Report, the Report's drafters disingenuously argue that GUN VIOLENCE in Central American countries and in Mexico is the primary motivator for mass illegal migration into the United States. But is that true? One year later, it becomes apparent that the chief motivator for illegal transit into the United States is the prospects of a free lunch, made all the more enticing because the present Administration encourages it. Indeed it is tacit policy.Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from over 150 countries regularly pour into the U.S. from around the world in an unprecedented wave of migration. See, e.g., the article from The Trumpet. Someone or some entity/entities with a lot of money and a lot of organizational ability must be orchestrating this. The UN endorses this, and the present U.S. Administration adheres to it even though Congress never sanctioned it. Furthermore, illegal entry into the U.S. is a criminal act under U.S. immigration.And, now Neo-Marxists, like Mayor Eric Adams, are using GUN VIOLENCE in several major U.S. Cities as the pretext for imposing new restrictive gun laws, ostensibly going after the guns used in crime but actually targeting non-criminal gun owners. This goes hand-in-hand now with Federal Government-DOJ/FBI action that was already targeting exercise of the Second Amendment via Executive Department fiat, back in June of 2021, under the guise of curbing criminal GUN TRAFFICKING.Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, argue, once again, that GUN TRAFFICKING is the CAUSE of GUN VIOLENCE in the Nations' Cities. But this ploy is nothing new. See, e.g., the Report by Bloomberg Anti-Second Amendment group, Everytown for Gun Safety.They tell the American public that criminals acquire their guns out-of-state, from those jurisdictions that have “lax” gun laws. Fine, but if that is true, it doesn’t serve to explain, but rather begs the question, why it is that these other Non-Marxist-controlled States do not themselves have a “gun” problem. But, why aggravate the problem of violence in society? Yet, Neo-Marxist-controlled Governments deliberately aggravate violence by doing all they can to encourage sociopathic behavior.And so, instead of strict enforcement of laws, Americans see———

• Bail reform laws;
• Reduction in the number of police, and understandably disgruntled police who remain on City police forces;
• Massive prison closures;
• Early release of dangerous criminals from prison;
• Failure to place lunatics and drug addicts in hospitals for treatment

But the Neo-Marxists have an answer for that as well. Apart from the proverbial “BLAME VIOLENT CRIME ON GUNS” GAME, Americans are told that the problem of the rampant increase in violent crime is due to:

• POVERTY
• PEER PRESSURE
• DRUGS
• POLITICS
• RELIGION
• FAMILY CONDITIONS
• THE SOCIETY
• UNEMPLOYMENT
• DEPRIVATION
• UNFAIR JUDICIAL SYSTEM

See article in the Leftist site, Net News Ledger.Note that some of the items on this laundry list are merely Neo-Marxist pretexts—Neo-Marxist rationales for dismantling a free Constitutional Republic, DRUGS, UNFAIR JUDICIAL SYSTEM, UNEMPLOYMENT, and POVERTY. A few of the items are inherently inexplicable or are nonsensical or amount to facially overbroad generalizations: POLITICS, RELIGION, PEER PRESSURE, THE SOCIETY, DEPRIVATION. One item, in particular, involving the reformation of what Neo-Marxists perceive as the application of UNFAIR JUDICIAL SYSTEMS is itself the cause of VIOLENCE. In claiming that the Judicial System is unfair, the Neo-Marxists have implemented policies to ensure the perpetration of VIOLENCE and the perpetuation of it. Americans see this in defunding police; bail reform laws; failure to prosecute both petty and violent crimes; and release of dangerous criminals and lunatics from prisons or asylums. And by promoting drug use, and discouraging employment by encouraging sloth—these policies are, too, responsible for major increases in VIOLENCE. Thus, it is that—NEO-MARXISTS THEMSELVES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERY PROBLEM OF MASSIVE INCREASES IN VIOLENCE, YET DENY ALL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IT, PREFERRING TO INVOKE GUNS AS THE SALIENT REASON FOR VIOLENCE THAT CONTINUES TO PLAGUE SOCIETY AND THEY INCESSANTLY MANUFACTURE A HOST OF SEEMINGLY LESSER CAUSES FOR RAMPANT VIOLENCE AS WELL It isn't obtuseness that is responsible for the Neo-Marxist attitude. It is craftiness. You will note that when discussing GUN VIOLENCE in society, the Neo-Marxist downplays, CRIME, and emphasizes GUNS. It is all in style for them. And, to think through any of this, one sees the inherent absurdity in all of it. No wonder the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalists refrain from any sort of debate. They would rather simply posit their nonsense as self-evident, true. And, if someone should happen to protest, they simply proclaim their stance on the matter a little louder.The true cause of waves of CRIMINAL/SOCIETAL VIOLENCE is due, in substantial part, if not exclusively, to deliberately “lax” law enforcement, consistent with the Neo-Marxist aim to tear down America's institutions and to destroy an independent, sovereign Nation and free Constitutional Republic, thereby making way for a Collectivist transnational, Global Super-State, sans geographical borders, sans a U.S. Constitution and a Bill of Rights, and marked by the loss of any sense of National identity, National character, National history, and heritage, and Christian ethical system; and subjecting the remnants of the citizenry to a life of bare existence: one of repression, subjugation, uniformity of thought and action, and abject penury? But, what kind of American would choose to live in such a society? Very few Americans it turns out, as they become more and more attuned to the reality of the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist vision.The nonsensicalness and outlandishness of the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist vision for the Country and for the world are now apparent to even the most dull-witted among the American people. But these would-be Destroyers of the Country have come too far to back off now. They are compelled to push through and just hope that the psyche of the American people has been so damaged from decades of psychological conditioning and abuse and so weakened and demoralized from the ravages wrought by over two years of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus pandemic and from the inconsistent, duplicitous, messaging of the slimeballs Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky, that Americans cannot mount an effective resistance to the planned new world order.But there are few if any Americans left who are under any illusion that the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have had anything but contempt for both them and the Country. But the forces that crush never really denied that. Indeed their incessant attacks on America’s history, heritage, Christian faith, and culture have made that disdain clear as day. It says much of how far the technology and the techniques of mass brainwashing and massaging of the psyche have come that many, many Americans have so easily acquiesced to, or have capitulated to, the Neo-Marxist messaging through incessant bullying and demeaning without nary a protest, let alone a firm, forceful stand.Have most Americans had enough of this? We think so. But, we have yet to see how this will all play out.__________________________________

AMERICAN CULTURE IS GROUNDED IN FREEDOM—WON AND MAINTAINED BY DINT OF ARMS AND FORCE OF WILL TO RESIST TYRANNY

PART FOUR

People such as the new Governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, are turning things around for the State—finally—and for the better, after the horrible legacy left by the prior Governor Ralph Shearer Northam. Virginians can begin once again to live as true Americans, as the State begins its long return to sanity. And the Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, demonstrates how a State and Country should work. The formula is simple. Government must take heed: Place faith in and accede to the American citizenry. Recognize the Americans’ inherent sovereignty over the Government. Refrain from castigating, cajoling, controlling, threatening, and demoralizing them.Consider for a moment what would have befallen Virginia if the imbecilic and obsequious stooge Terry McAuliffe had defeated Youngkin in 2021 and what would have befallen Florida if the Neo-Marxist toady, Andrew Gillum, had defeated DeSantis in 2018. And consider a healthy, prosperous, and safe New York for a pleasant change. That would come to pass if Lee Zeldin is elected New York Governor during the mid-term elections of November 2022, displacing a Soros-sponsored Neo-Marxist puppet such as, e.g., Kathy Hochul. Juxtapose the two antithetical different visions for America.One vision holds true to a free Republic as bequeathed to the American citizenry through the AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776. The other vision seeks unabashedly to overturn the AMERICAN REVOLUTION through an unstated but very real NEO-MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION of the 21^st Century—one that has been well underway since the dawn of the new Century, apart from a temporary lull during the Trump tenure in Office.What frightens the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists is not a belief that Republican leadership in Virginia and Florida would fail. No! It is that they would succeed—are succeeding—TOO WELL! And the public is taking notice, everywhere. Consider how California would have turned the corner from the economic, social, and political horror that pervades it, had a majority of Californians had the courage to unseat the stooge, Gavin Newsome, and elect Larry Elder. But, habits die hard. No one in California can sensibly believe that Gavin Newsome has done such a wonderful job. His contempt for the citizenry is evident, painfully so. The crime problem, illicit drug problem, and homeless problem, in particular, are way out of control. Californians had a chance during the Recall effort to chase Newsome out of Office. But having been thoroughly habituated to the empty posturing and moralizing of Democrats, they reverted to form. Apparently, they would rather accept a life of continual anxiety, strife, and fear than allow themselves to conceive that they need not resign themselves to a life of desperation. And so the slow dissolution of California continues unabated. It is uncanny how so many Californian Americans consistently see that the politicians they continuously vote into Office work against the American peoples’ own best interests, and yet they continue to vote these same horrible creatures with their dismal records, into Office: Governor Gavin Newsome; Oakland Mayor, Libby Schaaf; San Francisco Mayor, London Breed; Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti; Los Angeles District Attorney, George Gascón; San Francisco District Attorney, Chesa Boudin—to name a few of the prominent elected officials remaking the State into a Neo-Marxist hell-hole.AND THE NEO-MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION CONTINUES ITS MARCH TO REVERSE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776—AT LEAST IN SEVERAL CITIES AND STATES AROUND THE COUNTRYThe NEO-MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION is at the moment, at least fortunately, a non-shooting war. That can change. But, if it comes, it will be commenced by the toadies of the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters, not by American Patriots. Are the would-be destroyers already preparing for this? See article posted on January 14, 2022 on BlabberBuzz, titled, “Military Prepping its Commandoes for Civil War.”  The very idea of this is probably grounded less on concern of that America's Patriots would actually commence taking up arms en masse against the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Federal Government than it is based on the hope that America's Patriots would do so. This would be in line with the Government's milking of the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol “riot.”  The Government hopes to bait the American citizenry into open confrontation. The Government would use that as a pretext to declare martial law, claiming a serious state of emergency. And that would result in an order immediately suspending the exercise of all fundamental rights, notably and especially the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Government would henceforth order the public to surrender all their firearms forthwith, on pain of immediate arrest and detention for failure to comply.Consider: “In April 1967, Greece's [a modern western democratic nation-state] new military government declared martial law, imprisoned citizens for their political views, dissolved political parties, and instituted widespread censorship, while suspending civil rights protected under the Greek Constitution.” “The Earth Alliance Constitution: International Human Rights Law And Babylon,”10 Fl. Coastal L. Rev. 33, Fall 2008, by Roy Balleste, Assistant Professor of law and Director of the Law Library at the David A. Clarke School of Law, University of the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C.But that couldn't happen here, in the United States, or could it? But hasn't it, in fact, already commenced, albeit in drips and drabs, slowly but methodically, and seemingly innocuously with the censoring of speech by the major social media and technology companies, sympathetic with the aims of Neo-Marxism/Neoliberal Globalism or otherwise cajoled into acting, consistent with Government dictates and wishes? Do we not see Government creating programs and new department agencies that specifically target Americans whose views do not cohere to that of the Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist game plan. But, what would justify the circumstances for outright suspension of all fundamental rights and a formal declaration of martial law——

• A legitimate Federal Government justifiably fearing domestic terrorism of American citizen insurgents and thereby operating on the perceived need to protect a free Republic from being overthrown by domestic insurgents? Or,

• A decidedly, incorrigibly illegitimate, rogue Federal Government i.e., a tyrannical Government, intent on persevering itself against a popular uprising of tens of millions of concerned Americans who, realizing the dire need to topple a rogue Government to secure and preserve a free Constitutional Republic takes up arms against that Government?

This raises the tantalizing question as to whether a charge of Treason—Treachery to the Citizenry—can apply to a rogue Government itself? See, e.g., the Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on October 1, 2021, titled, “If Tyranny is Treason, Only a Well-Armed Citizenry Can Effectively Resist It and Has the Duty To Do So.”Contrary to our supposition, scholars universally, or almost universally, maintain, that the crime of “treason” can only apply to individuals, not to the Federal Government itself, never to the Federal Government. But, if this is true, then a citizens’ revolt against a tyrannical government cannot ever be justified in law, even if it can, under some moral/ethical theory (e.g. normative deontological theories) be justified. But, if rebellion against the tyranny of Government is, at best, under our Constitution, only ever justified on moral grounds, but never on legal grounds, then the underlying legal imperative for the Second Amendment loses its impetus, i.e., “the right” of the people to revolt against tyranny has no legal basis even if there exists a moral basis to do so. Contrariwise, that tyrannical Government can argue its own legal imperative for repelling a popular uprising against that very tyranny, and would no doubt do so, harshly. Several legal scholars acknowledge this very point. They argue that the purport of the Second Amendment as an individual right of the citizenry to keep tyranny of Government in check is self-defeating and therefore deeply flawed. These scholars claim that the framers of the Constitution could not have intended for the Second Amendment to serve as a legal,  basis for dismantling the Federal Government, apart from whatever purely moral basis may happen to exist for doing so.Thus, taking this idea to its logical and morbid conclusion, this means that even if the Federal Government were to devolve into outright tyranny—usurping the sovereignty of the American people, followed by systematically subjugating them, clearly incurring the peoples’ wrath—the Second Amendment does not invite the people to resist that tyranny, under any legal theory or legal justification, whatever the moral imperative there might be for doing so.Unfortunately, this jurisprudential, philosophical problem is not relegated to mere academic contemplation. The Executive Branch of the Federal Government, under Joe Biden, its titular head—a corrupt, incompetent, debilitated and demented buffoon—and the Legislative Branch under the control of the equally corrupt and treacherous Pelosi-Schumer tag team have imposed tyranny on the American people. They really make no pretense of this, and openly defy the public’s justifiable acrimony. Something to ponder!____________________________________

WHERE SHALL AMERICANS FIND “TRUE DEMOCRACY” IF NOT IN THEIR THOUGHTS, THEIR ACTIONS, THEIR ARMS?

The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist stooges in Government and in the legacy Press and media constantly talk of “Democracy”— bantering endlessly that only the “Democrat Party” is intent on preserving it. Yet, they never bother to explain what they mean by it, even as they lavish attention on it. But what is really going on here? These stooges constantly claim they are all for “democracy,” and that they and they alone are the only protectors of it. And they dare anyone who might object to what surely comes across as mere pretension when they mention ‘democracy,’ and ask for explication of what they mean by it.Yet, think about what these imbeciles don’t say when they go on and on about “Democracy.” They never mention the word ‘freedom’ in association with it. They never mention ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ in the same breath. In fact, they don’t mention the word, ‘freedom’ at all. And why is that? Might it be that ‘freedom’ is not something they want; that it isn’t a thing they adhere to, and, by the same token, it’s not something they wish others to adhere to either. But why would these “Democrats” object to “freedom,” and why would they vigorously attempt to dissolve man’s natural bond to it? Indeed! Do you think this might have something to do with their concern over Americans’ exercise of their fundamental natural rights?In fact, “freedom” is tied up with and inextricably bound to natural law rights of the people—those that are enumerated in the first Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights, and those unenumerated rights as exemplified in the Ninth Amendment. Recall that the Antifederalists demanded that the U.S. Constitution provide explicit expression of the rights of the American people. The Federalists objected, concerned that, if a Bill of Rights delineated a set certain of specific rights, then a strong, centralized “federal” government might henceforth claim, one day, the natural rights of the American people must be limited to the rights specifically enumerated only, and they must ever refrain from asserting an unalienable right that has not been enumerated.But, the Antifederalists, for their part, knew that, if natural law rights of the people were not explicitly etched in stone, then a strong, centralized federal government could, and would, eventually, invariably, one day, deny, to the people, exercise of any right that government did not deign to bestow directly onto them. Tyranny is the natural state of Government. The history of the actions of governments, regimes, and empires against the populace, going back to antiquity, is laden with evidence of that. The very struggle of America’s colonists, the Nation’s first Patriots, attests to the tenacity, voraciousness, and virulence of Tyranny. It was only through a mighty struggle that America’s first Patriots, through strength of will and force of arms, were able to extricate themselves from the morass of tyranny. But having won their hard-fought freedom, the question remained how to preserve that freedom against tyranny that would, from time to time, invariably rear its ugly head.The Antifederalists’ concern has been shown to be entirely reasonable and justified. For, even as founders of a new Nation struggled to construct a Government that would be able to resist intrusion of future tyranny, they knew that tyranny would always sit at the doorstep to the Nation. They were well aware that the forces that they had defeated would soon resume the conflict and the Nation’s Patriots must have contemplated the next attempt to insinuate tyranny would be surreptitious and devious. Assisted from the outside, malevolent forces would subvert the will of the people from the inside. So, with great care and industry did the founders construct a Federal Government—a Government deemed necessary, but, paradoxically, dangerous to freedom and liberty. And, that prescient concern is now coming to fruition, over two centuries later. But even a carefully constructed Federal Government—one of limited powers and defined checks and balances—is of itself insufficient to prevent tyranny.The shadowy, sinister Destroyers of our Nation, operating through their obsequious toadies—those of an innately evil bent, or, those emotionally and spiritually weak, and, so, amenable to corrupting influences—have, through substantial effort in time, money, and organization, come close to exacting revenge against the Nation after suffering a disastrous defeat in the American Revolution of 1776.  The only hope for America to preserve the gain of freedom won through a Revolution fought more than two centuries ago, is to hold tight to their natural law rights—those rights that the would-be destroyers of our Nation, both inside and outside the Country, have struggled mightily to constrain. These forces know full well that, as long, as Americans have the capacity and will to exercise their natural God-given rights, the Nation cannot fall. And these forces that crush entire nations have made substantial inroads against in their effort to undercut and, in one case, even curtail exercise of some of those rights.The Antifederalists’ concern has been shown to be entirely reasonable and justified. For, even as founders of a new Nation struggled to construct a Government that would be able to resist intrusion of future tyranny, they knew that tyranny would always sit at the doorstep to the Nation. They understood the forces that they had defeated would soon resume the conflict. And the Nation’s Patriots must have contemplated the next attempt to insinuate tyranny would be surreptitious and devious. Assisted from the outside, they contemplated that malevolent forces would attempt to subvert the will of the people from the inside. The only hope for America to preserve the gain of freedom won through a Revolution fought more than two centuries ago, is to hold tight to their natural law rights—those rights that the would-be destroyers of our Nation, both inside and outside the Country, have struggled mightily to constrain. These forces know full well that, as long, as Americans have the capacity and will to exercise their natural God-given rights, the Nation cannot fall. Yet, these forces that crush entire nations have made substantial inroads against this Nation in their effort to undercut and, in one case, even curtail exercise of some of those natural law rights.Americans have all but lost the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The attack on the fundamental rights of free speech and the freedom of association (an attendant right of freedom of speech) are under siege, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, and has been, for decades, under vigorous assault. Had these rights not been explicitly delineated, the American people would have lost, long ago, any vestige of their once free Constitutional Republic. Those who presently control Congress and the vast and powerful police, military, and judicial apparatuses of the Executive Branch of Government do not accept the reality and legitimacy of natural law rights. They categorically reject any notion of laws that stand beyond their power to create, modify, and rescind at will. Thus, the Bill of Rights, a set of natural law rights, existent in man before the inception of Government, serves as a perpetual annoyance for them.The Antifederalists dealt with the thorny issue presented by the Federalists, among them—those who were against the creation of an express, but limited, set of natural law rights—by adding a Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment states, plainly and succinctly that,“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”The very presence of the Ninth Amendment buttresses the ineluctability of the first Eight. And the presence of the first Eight points to the illimitability and impenetrability of the essence of the Divine Creator. Through time, the Divine Creator will manifest through man further obligatory, eternal natural law rights that, at present rest, behind the veil of inscrutability that further elucidate the sanctity and inviolability of man’s Spirit and Soul.And what are the American people to make of the Tenth Amendment? The Tenth Amendment says,“‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ The Tenth Amendment is the principal expression of federalism, an assertion that the Federal Government shares power and authority with the States and the people. But it is also an expression of autonomy and sovereignty of the people over Government, both State and Federal. This idea, rarely mentioned, is, nonetheless, made explicit in Justice Clarence Thomas’ well-reasoned and amplified dissent in the case, United States Term Limits vs. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1994).The case involved whether the people of Arkansas can amend their State Constitution concerning the State’s electoral process. In a close decision, the majority opinion, penned by now retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, and joined by Associate Justices, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled the people of Arkansas do not have that right. Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Associate Justices Scalia, O’Connor, and Thomas vociferously disagreed. Discussing Justice Thomas’ reasoning, who penned the dissent, the author of the law review note writes, in pertinent part,The author of the law review note writes, of Thomas:“Thomas contends that all power stems from the people of the states and that ‘reserved’ powers therefore include all those not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution. . . . Justice Thomas reasons that the ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual state. Further, ‘because the people of the several States are the only true source of power . . . the Federal Government enjoys no authority beyond what the Constitution confers: the Federal Government's powers are limited and enumerated.’ The remainder of the people's powers not specifically granted to the federal government through the Constitution is therefore either delegated to state governments or retained by the people.” “Term Limits and the Tenth Amendment: The Popular Sovereignty Model of Reserved Powers, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Review 1163 (April 1996).Although this topic of elections and electoral process would seem abstruse as discussed in the above-referenced law review note, it is of paramount importance in the upcoming midterm elections in November 2022, and it has implications for the rights of the American people.It all boils down to this:The would-be Destroyers of the Nation realize that they need a few more years to complete their agenda—an agenda that involves further destabilization of society, dissolution of the Nation’s institutions, eradication of all memory of the Nation’s rich and vibrant history, heritage, culture and Christian ethical system, and the dismantling of the Republic for eventual inclusion of the remains of the Country into a supra-transnational governmental structure embracing the world. But these Destructors need time. And to obtain time, they must maintain firm control over the electoral process in the upcoming election. The liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court knows this to be true, as well, and their rulings in the Arkansas case suggests a desire to defeat the doctrine of Federalism, underlying the Tenth Amendment, and their rulings also underscore the liberal-wing’s contempt for any notion that the American people are, have been, and remain the sole true sovereign over all Government, State and Federal, and down to the municipal level.Anti-American forces have already stolen one U.S. Election, undermining the great strides made during the Trump years to impede the Clinton/Bush/Obama Globalist agenda that had severely weakened the security of the Nation and undermined the sovereignty of the American people.Americans must not allow these malignant forces to waylay the 2022 midterm elections, as well.___________________________________

THE PUPPET BIDEN CALLS AMERICANS THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES! IS THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CITIZENRY?

It is one thing to presuppose the need for undertaking stringent matters to protect the Nation and its citizenry against foreign terrorists, as for example, after the 9/11 Attacks by Islamic Terrorists—likely with a little help from collaborators on “the inside”—true. And likely they received a little help from collaborators on “the inside”—also true. Even so, it is quite another thing to contemplate a rogue, tyrannical Federal Government that would dare posit the presence of a far greater threat that the American citizenry poses to the well-being of the Nation. But, didn't, the swine, Joe Biden, do just that? Didn’t he make just an absurd claim? This is what he said——“White supremacist terrorism is the deadliest threat to the United States, President Joe Biden told lawmakers Wednesday night as he aimed to pivot from the country's post-9/11 foreign fights to one at home.‘Make no mistake. In 20 years, terrorism has metastasized. The threat has evolved beyond Afghanistan,’ Biden said, describing the lingering threats of the Islamic State and al Qaeda before warning of a new war in Americans' backyard.‘We won't ignore what our intelligence agencies have determined to be the most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland today: White supremacy is terrorism,’ Biden said. ‘We’re not going to ignore that either.’ See the  Washington Examiner article, titled, “White supremacy ‘most lethal’ threat to America, Biden says”, published on April 28, 2021. And, on that, score the decrepit, treacherous, demented Biden has acted true to word. The DOJ/FBI Attorney General lackey, Merrick Garland, has dutifully complied. In a later Washington Examiner follow-up article, titled, “Justice Department creates new domestic terrorism unit to target wave of violent extremists,” published very recently, on January 11, 2022,“A Justice Department official on Tuesday announced the formation of a specialized unit to combat domestic terrorism, saying investigations into violent extremism have skyrocketed.FBI investigations into domestic terrorism cases have more than doubled since March 2020, and the new unit will augment the department’s existing approach to prosecuting those crimes, said Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen, who leads the department’s National Security Division.‘This group of dedicated attorneys will focus on the domestic terrorism threat, helping to ensure these cases are handled properly and effectively coordinated across the Department of Justice and across the country,’ he said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.Justice officials said the new focus on domestic terrorism does not target groups based on their political leanings, but they identified one of the biggest threats coming from citizen militias.Tuesday’s hearing was part of a steady drumbeat in Washington raising concerns of a growing domestic terrorism threat in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack.‘The insurrection should be a wake-up call,’ said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat. ‘A reminder that America is still confronted with the age-old menace that’s taken on a new life in the 21st century: terror from White supremacists, militia members and other extremists who use violence to further their twisted agenda.’He echoed President Biden, who has vowed not to let right-wing extremists put ‘a dagger at the throat of democracy.’Over the summer, President Biden announced a sweeping strategy to deal with the threat, which the administration said largely ‘emerges from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and networks whose racial, ethnic, or religious hatred leads them towards violence.’The Department of Homeland Security deemed the threat of ‘racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists’ a ‘national threat priority.’ The FBI announced in November that it has 2,700 open investigations of domestic extremism.‘The threat posed by domestic terrorism is on the rise,’ Mr. Olsen told the Senate panel.”  The reader will note that even as “Justice officials [disingenuously quip that] the new focus on domestic terrorism does not target groups based on their political leanings, [yet, in the same breath they are quick to point out that the new special domestic terrorism unit has] identified one of the biggest threats coming from citizen militias.”  By ‘citizen militias’ the reader can be damn-well sure that the DOJ/FBI isn't planning on using its new domestic terrorism unit to investigate, hound, harass, and intimidate Radical Leftist Neo-Marxist and Anarchist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa and why should they. Those groups serve the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists: assisting in them, actively and avidly undermining the Nation’s institutions and in destabilizing society in furtherance of the penultimate goal of destroying a free Constitutional Republic so that the ultimate goal can be achieved: inserting the remains of a once great independent and sovereign nation-state into a Neo-Feudalistic post-nation-state super world empire structure.The use of the expression, ‘citizen militias’ is a dead giveaway. As for the Radical Marxist/Anarchist groups—these groups are given a pass, precisely because they assist, knowingly or not, the aim of the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters, to destabilize American society, to make way for a new post-nation-state transnational global world order. See the article in RationalWiki, on the Leftist ADL website, and on the rabid radical Left Southern Poverty Law Center website.The expressions ‘militia group’ and ‘militia movement’ are tied, traditionally, innocuously, non-pejoratively, to any group that happens to support the Bill of Rights and a free Constitutional Republic that the Founders bequeathed to us. They exemplify the right and the need for an armed citizenry to protect and preserve a free Republic.But, of late, these expressions—as played by the Federal Government, and by a compliant and sympathetic seditious Press, and by sympathetic cable and broadcast “news” and commentary stations and by sympathetic social media companies—carry pejorative connotations. The expressions ‘militia group’ and ‘militia movement’ allude to racism and bigotry, and to white supremacism. And, that explains the impetus for the rabid and rapacious attacks by the Neo-Marxist-Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Government, by the Legacy Press, by social media companies, by academia, and by various sundry Radical Left groups, against these“militia groups.”Even the seemingly centrist legacy newspaper, “The Wall Street Journal,”  in an article, published on October 10, 2020, titled, “What are Militias and are They Legal,”Even the seemingly centrist legacy newspaper, “The Wall Street Journal,” in an article, published on October 10, 2020, titled, “What are Militias and are They Legal,” demonstrates a proclivity for viewing America's militia groups in an altogether negative light, treating them as right-wing terror groups. In so doing the newspaper lends at least tacit support for the Government’s undertaking of unlawful, predatory assaults on American citizens' lawful exercise of their First and Second Amendment rights of speech, association, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Those groups recognize that a Free Constitutional Republic can only exist where the Sovereign American people can exercise their rights. And it is in the core exercise of the First and Second Amendment rights—the First Amendment directed to the fundamental, natural, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and absolute right of free discourse and free thought, and of free association with like-minded individuals, uninhibited and unrestrained and constrained by Government and by other men who might harbor discontent, wariness, and resentment toward the idea of the uninhibited, unrestrained and unconstrained expression of one's individual Selfhood that some individuals and the present Government happen to take exception to; and the Second Amendment directed to the uninhibited, unrestrained, unconstrained exercise of one's fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and absolute right of armed self-defense that enables one to effectively thwart any and all attempts by the predatory man, the predatory creature, or a predatory Government.The raison d’être of citizen militias is the protection and preservation of a free Constitutional Republic as understood and defined by the Founders of that Republic. And, it is in that fact, alone, that the interloper Harris-Biden puppet Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Administration and the puppet Pelosi/Schumer/McConnel Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Congress perceive an imminent threat to their survival; their tyranny. And, in a manner, this fraudulent Government is correct in that perception. The present Government is an abomination. It has usurped the sovereign power of the American people; pompously flaunts and flourishes illicitly gained powers, flagrantly and blatantly defies the dictates of U.S. Statute and the dictates of the U.S. Constitution; shamelessly lies to the American people. The economy is in disarray. This sham Government has cast the Southern Border wide open to hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken and sickly illegal aliens from over a hundred and fifty countries that pose a physical and economic threat to the security of the Nation. It wantonly left to Islamic Terrorists in Afghanistan, billions of dollars of state-of-the-art weaponry, and has brought thousands of unvetted alien savages into the interior of the Country. This sham Government has nakedly exploited the Communist Chinese Coronavirus to destroy small businesses, disrupt the education of our youth, and unlawfully exert control over the lives of individuals. And, most ominously, this sham Government has, now, of late, threatened Global Thermonuclear war against a massively powerful nuclear power, Russia, over an aberrant, corrupt Country that sits on Russia's border, the Ukraine, whose existence has absolutely no vital, strategic, national security interest to this Country.If this Country's myriad failed policies were due to gross, criminal incompetence alone, that fact alone would constitute reason enough to commence impeachment/treason proceedings against a myriad number of Government Administrative officials and to consider a complete revamping of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government. The sad fact is that this sham Government's policies have been specifically designed to destroy the political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical structure of the Country. And the extent of the treachery across the Government is so pervasive in scale and so devastating in its intensity as to defy any attempt by anyone to reasonably, seriously deny it.An incurious insouciance of this Harris-Biden Administration toward all of this debacle unmasks the truth. In one year this Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Government has opened this Country to catastrophe on all critical indices. This Government is nothing more than a tool of shadowy and powerful forces bent on destabilizing society and destroying the very foundations of a free Constitutional Republic. The Government has itself become the mechanism of the Nation’s own destruction—the vehicle for the dissolution of a free Republic and mortification of the American citizenry. The citizen militia movements know this. They hold fast to the sacred principle grounded in cherishing of the Right of Personal Selfhood—in sanctifying the Right of the Individual to be Individual in the face of a Tyrannical Government and of psychopathic predatory actors whom this Tyrant use. They have sworn an oath to their bestial gods to eradicate the very idea of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul and Spirit. The citizen militia movements know this. They hold fast to the sacred principle grounded in cherishing of the Right of Personal Selfhood—in sanctifying the Right of the Individual TO BE Individual in the face of a Tyrannical Government and of predatory men and predatory groups whose sworn purpose is to kill the idea of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul and Spirit. _______________________________

THE GOVERNMENT’S ATTACK ON CITIZEN MILITIAS IS AN OBLIQUE ATTACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

In treating citizen militia groups as domestic terrorist organizations, this tyrannical Government has created a false chimera to delude the public about these groups. This sham Government intends to springboard off its attack on militia groups to target tens of millions of gun owners. For it is indeed the armed citizenry—this citizen army—that does serve as a threat to a Tyrant, as well that citizen army should.The dire situation facing the Nation today is the inverse of one that prompted one legal scholar and military officer to write, over twenty years ago——“In 1998, Americans were exposed to the specter of martial law in the form of a hit movie, ‘The Siege.’ The movie vividly depicted the aftermath of a terrorist attack on New York City where the government declared martial law and rounded up thousands of Arab-Americans and put them in internment camps. Unfortunately, at some time in the future, life may imitate art and America's experience with martial law may extend outside the movie theater into reality. It seems obvious that a number of anti-American groups exist both within and without our borders that would not hesitate to employ terrorism and other tactics that could result in upheaval and, perhaps, anarchy within our country.  The circumstances that would prompt a declaration of martial law are so horrendous that they are almost beyond contemplation. But that dreadful eventuality should not translate into a lack of preparation, for if the nation is prepared, it is less likely to fear even the most awful possibilities. Those who worry about the profound legal, moral and social implications of declaring martial law must seriously contemplate Thomas Jefferson’s insightful words:‘A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means . . . The officer who is called to act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the Constitution, and his station makes it his duty to incur that risk . . . . The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer is bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.’” “The Imposition of Martial Law In The United States,” 49 A.F. L. Rev. 67, (2000), by Major Kirk L. Davies, Chief of Operations Law in the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, 16th Air Force, Aviano AB, Italy.Necessity and Self-Preservation inform Thomas Jefferson's consideration that, perhaps, the U.S. Constitution might, in theory, one day, need be suspended if the threat to the continued existence of the Country as a free Constitutional Republic were sufficiently severe. On that score, Jefferson is wrong. Under no circumstances ought, under a Deontological ethical theory of morality, suspension of the Constitution—which would, thus, mean, suspension of the Bill of Rights—ever be warranted. It is anathema because it is the sovereign authority of the people in whom the Country as a free Constitutional Republic exists. Suspension of the Nation's Bill of Rights is tantamount to the destruction of the very Republic that Thomas Jefferson, as cited by the author of the afore referenced article talks about preserving. Be that as it may, the dire situation facing the Nation today springs from a Government that operates contra to the Constitution and exists for no purpose other than to destroy a free Republic, i.e., to destroy a sovereign American people. Tyranny of Government=_dfTreason By Government.The American people have no duty to suffer a Government whose very existence is directed to the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic, ergo destruction of the sovereignty of the American people over Government. And in that regard and given the fact that the very presence of this imposter—a senile, corrupt, flaccid, incompetent placeholder of a hidden ruthless force—occupying the Executive Branch of Government, as Chief Executive, is the face of an immense, elaborate and diabolical fraud perpetrated on the American people, the American people have a right and the concomitant responsibility to voice vociferous objection to the inanity observed. But, no armed resistance should be effectuated against this Harris-Biden Administration until or unless the Administration itself initiates action against the American people. And what kind of action on the part of this sham Government against the people would amount to an act necessitating active resistance would be if the Administration were to issue a state of emergency culminating in the declaration of martial law suspending exercise of the fundamental, natural rights including most specifically, the suspension of the right of dissent against the Government coupled with the nationwide suspension of the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. Nothing like that has ever occurred in the history of the Country, not during world wars, nor even during the American Civil War, apart from Lincoln's declaration of suspension of Habeas Corpus, which was a radical and arguably illegal action on the part of Lincoln's Government. And that suspension of Habeas Corpus was rightfully criticized. Compare Lincoln's reprehensible action to the recent unlawful detention of American citizens ostensibly predicated on rioting at or in the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, including allegations of beatings of detainees during unlawful detention. See, e.g., May 2021 article on this in The American Spectator. And, nary a voice complains in the Press, or in Congress. Even Republicans have remained oddly and painfully silent. Is there not sound and valid evidence of violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S Constitution, and evidence of de facto suspension of Habeas Corpus here? Pelosi's January 6 Star Chamber Commission is ongoing. See article in The Spectator. Yet, Congressional Republicans haven't demanded investigations of numerous and serious allegations of violations of the Constitutional rights of American citizens apropos of the January 6, 2021 incident. In fact, for all the hoopla surrounding violations of American citizens' Constitutional Rights, Pelosi dismisses those deep concerns out-of-hand. And she demonstrates something palpably more than mere reluctance about sharing with the public all available and pertinent January 6 video evidence and emails—including, no doubt, her own emails—that would certainly shed more, and likely ALL, light, on what truly inspired events of that day. On February 2022, Judicial Watch pointed out, disconcertingly, albeit, unsurprisingly, as reported infra, Nancy Pelosi's unconscionable attempt to hide what can only be described as damning, and likely exculpatory, evidence that, if released would not only serve to exonerate the actions of the defendants but would serve to implicate herself and many of her cohorts. “Judicial Watch announced that it filed an opposition to the U.S. Capitol Police’s (USCP) effort to shut down Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit for January 6 videos and emails. Through its police department, Congress argues that the videos and emails are not public records, there is no public interest in their release, and that ‘sovereign immunity’ prevents citizens from suing for their release.Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit under the common law right of access after the Capitol Police refused to provide any records in response to a January 21, 2021, request (Judicial Watch v. United States Capitol Police (No. 1:21-cv-00401)). Judicial Watch asks for:

• Email communications between the U.S. Capitol Police Executive Team and the Capitol Police Board concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021 through January 10, 2021.

• Email communications of the Capitol Police Board with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerning the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The timeframe of this request is from January 1, 2021through January 10, 2021.

• All video footage from within the Capitol between 12 pm and 9 pm on January 6, 2021

Congress exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Judicial Watch, therefore, brought its lawsuit under the common law right of access to public records. In opposing the broad assertion of secrecy, Judicial Watch details Supreme Court and other precedents that upholds the public’s right to know what “their government is up to:”‘In ‘ “the courts of this country’— including the federal courts—the common law bestows upon the public a right of access to public records and documents” … “the Supreme Court was unequivocal in stating that there is a federal common law right of access ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents.’ ” . . . ‘[T]he general rule is that all three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are subject to the common law right.” The right of access is “a precious common law right . . . that predates the Constitution itself.’The Court of Appeals for this circuit has recognized that ‘openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government. . . .’ ‘Neither our elected nor our appointed representatives may abridge the free flow of information simply to protect their own activities from public scrutiny. An official policy of secrecy must be supported by some legitimate justification that serves the interest of the public office.’‘The Pelosi Congress (and its police department) is telling a federal court it is immune from all transparency under law and is trying to hide every second of its January 6 videos and countless emails,’ stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. ‘The hypocrisy is rich, as this is the same Congress that is trying to jail witnesses who, citing privileges, object to providing documents to the Pelosi rump January 6 committee.’In November 2021 Judicial Watch revealed multiple audio, visual photo records from the DC Metropolitan Police Department about the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Building.  The records include a cell phone video of the shooting and audio of a brief police interview of the shooter, Lt. Michael Byrd. In October, Judicial Watch released records, showing that multiple officers claimed they didn’t see a weapon in Babbitt’s hand before Byrd shot her, and that Byrd was visibly distraught afterward. One officer attested that he didn’t hear any verbal commands before Byrd shot Babbitt.Also in November, Judicial Watch filed a response in opposition to the Department of Justice’s effort to block Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit asking for records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and several financial institutions about the reported transfer of financial transaction records of people in DC, Maryland and Virginia on January 5 and January 6, 2021. Judicial Watch argues that Justice Department should not be allowed to shield ‘improper activity.’”Let us hope the Third Branch of our Federal Government has not been corrupted to the extent of the First and Second Branches, and that unethical conduct and outright crimes will be available to the public. It is only through complete disclosure and transparency of unethical and outright illegal conduct of Congressional Legislators and their staff, and of the unethical and illegal conduct of high-level Executive Department Officials and Officers, that these horrible people may yet be brought to account for their criminal behavior—that our Federal Government may yet be salvaged, for the sake of our Constitution and for the American citizenry.One would have to go back to the days prior to Nationhood when the British attempted to confiscate the colonists' arms. This may not have been the singular match that lit the powder keg starting the American War for Independence, but it certainly was one of the major reasons. See the article titled, “Gun Control and the American Revolution,” by the Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel, published on the website, Guns&Tactics. The article commences, thus——“This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: ‘That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.’ A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.”See also article in the Morning Call.The insidious thing about present-day events is that the shadowy forces that seek to destroy this Nation and, hence, the sovereignty of the American people, have deviously, surreptitiously attacked the Nation and its people and the Nation's Constitution from within. They have employed corrupt treacherous instruments of tyranny to betray the Nation. Under the pretense of serving the Country and its people by the very fact of being Office-holders, these characters have been betraying the Country and its people, implementing policies, prepared for them by outside, powerful, ruthless elements. All of these policies are aimed at destroying the Country. Some of these policies can be seen in U.N. compacts and position papers that Congress has never signed onto, such as the Open Borders policies. The policies are inconsistent with U.S. law. The Biden Administration has implemented them anyway. And then blatantly lies about such policies, claiming the Borders are closed. And, yet two million illegal aliens have skipped through our Borders since the Great Imposter, Joe Biden, took Office. And tens, even hundreds, of thousands more, are even now, making their way through Panama to the Southern Boundary of the U.S.The sole purpose of this Harris-Biden Administration is to serve as a convenient cover for the true powers, running the Government. It is they who feed their toady, Biden, and his Cabinet officers and other high-ranking Executive Branch officials with their marching orders—policies and initiatives designed to hobble and destroy a free Republic under the guise of serving it.But Americans still have a chance to salvage their Country and their sovereignty in whom a free Constitutional Republic resides. And many Americans are waking up to the possibility that all is not lost. Americans can still prevail if they do not allow themselves to be dissuaded by the plethora of false messaging, and continue to hold fast to their faith in themselves, and in the one True God, and in our Nation’s sacred history, heritage, and core Christian values.______________________________

AMERICAN CULTURE REQUIRES AN ARMED CITIZENRY TO GUARD AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT

It is our hope that the richness and vibrancy of our Nation—a free Republic, gained at great personal risk taken by and great personal sacrifice made by the Nation’s first Patriots, through the American Revolution Of 1776—will long be preserved. And it is our fervent hope that the blood spilled by American Patriots in the decades and centuries since, to keep our Nation strong and true to the words set in stone in our Nation’s founding documents, will not have been in vain.As in those decades and centuries past, Americans living today now see that they need not sit idly by, passively resigned to the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist world post-nation-state feudal empire, ruled by Communist China and those in the employ of the Rothschild Banking dynasty, such as George Soros. That nightmarish world need not come to pass. But, even the millions of “liberal-minded” Americans are beginning to realize that, for far too long, they have been played for fools. They are finally coming to their senses. They clearly see what is at stake. They have, at long last, awakened from their long slumber that all-encompassing, and thoroughly noxious psychological conditioning has coaxed them into. And the stirring of Americans en masse is not lost on the Nation’s would-be Destroyers. They know the jig is up, and it scares the hell out of them.Americans are beginning to realize that, for far too long, they have been played for fools. They are finally coming to their senses. They clearly see what is at stake. They are at long last awakening from the long slumber that the propagandists have coaxed them into. And that isn't lost on the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist would-be destroyers of the Nation either. They, too, are cognizant that the jig is up, and it scares the hell out of them.Of course, those in America’s militia movement were never fooled by the game plan of the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists; were never taken in by it. So, naturally, they were and are vigorously attacked for their opposition to it, and are treated as the primary instigators of it. The enemies of our Nation will not abide the militia movement; will have none of it; are dead-set against it, and are chastising those who happen to champion it.Back in 2020, the corrupting, malignant Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist forces constantly blared out that Trump is a threat to “liberal democracy.” The New York Times was and still is one of the primary pipe organs of the forces that crush. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/opinion/liberals-conservatives-trump-america.html. Yet, even with Trump out-of-office, which came about only through massive unethical and unlawful engineering of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, these malignant, malevolent forces are still at it, bemoaning the threat to “liberal democracy” by everyone and everything that pushes back against them. And the pushback is strong and enormous; for the aims of the corruptors of a free Constitutional Republic are crystalizing, becoming noticeable, too obvious for any American to rationally deny. And these Americans, of a liberal mindset, don’t like what they are seeing; don’t like what is taking shape before their eyes. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/world/americas/democracy-decline-worldwide.htm, Americans Do recognize that theirs is an “American Culture” to have and to hold. And Americans Do see that malevolent forces Do exist and Do intend to crush both it and them into submission. But what is this thing, ‘American Culture,’ that America’s enemies erroneously scorn and mock as a ‘Gun Culture?’ How is ‘American Culture,’ identified?It is identified by and exemplified through the Bill of Rights—a codification of elemental Natural law Rights and Liberties residing intrinsically in Man. The keystone and epitome of “American Culture” Is Freedom: Freedom Of Thought; Freedom Of Action; Freedom Of Will And Spirit; the Right of the Individual to be Individual, free from Government encroachment and coercion.American Culture takes as axiomatic—self-evident true—the existence of a body of Natural Law Rights and Liberties that emanate from an infinite benevolent and morally perfect Divine Creator. This means Natural Law Rights and Liberties exist intrinsically in man, bestowed on and in Man by the Divine Creator. These Rights and Liberties are not constructs created by Man through an operation of Government, and it is an error to think it so. The Nation’s Bill of Rights comprises a set of fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal Rights and Liberties. The laws laid down in the Bill of Rights are not all-inclusive, as the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights makes abundantly clear.Nonetheless, the salient Natural Rights and Liberties are explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights.These sacred Rights and Liberties serve as both a constant reminder and warning to those serving in Government that they are servants of the American people and that the Federal Government—as all Government—operates at the exclusive pleasure of the American people and exists for no purpose other than to serve the interests of the American people. Government is nothing more than a manmade contrivance, an artificial device that must cease to exist once it fails to recognize or fails to remember for whom it exists to serve.All Natural Rights are ultimately subsumed in and encapsulated in the Second Amendment Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms—a right that is absolute and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That Right is itself subsumed in the fundamental Right of self-defense—the cornerstone of the fundamental Right of Autonomy that exemplifies the sanctity and inviolability of the Soul—the seat of Man's Free Will.A Government of limited Power and Authority and a set of unlimited Rights and Liberties are the building blocks upon which true American Culture is built and in which it has, since the inception of the Republic, resided.Our Constitution is the blueprint for and the foundation for——

• A free Republic;
• An independent, sovereign Nation-State; and,
• A free, independent, sovereign people.

It is this Constitution which the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists both here and abroad contemptuously scorn and constantly deride through such pejorative descriptors as ‘old,’ ‘outmoded,’ ‘antiquated,’ ‘archaic,’ ‘anachronistic,’ ‘out of touch with international law and international norms,’ ‘inconsistent with the constitutions of other countries.’ In fact, our Constitution is unique and that is a good thing—it is the very thing that allowed this Nation to become the most prosperous, powerful Nation on Earth. So, then, why would the Neo-Marxists consider this to be such a bad thing?In truth, it is the very success of the United States on all important indices that Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists find frustratingly, extraordinarily difficult to attack in any convincing manner. So they create fiction, fairy tales, fanciful horror stories in their unconscionable attempt to convince Americans that the Country is inherently evil—that the Nation was conceived and constructed on the backs of African slaves and indigenous American Natives. By postulating that the Republic is inherently immoral, these ingrates attempt to convince Americans that the Nation ought not to continue to exist in its present form; that it never deserved to exist.The dogma thus created is nothing but a façade, a cloak, a disguise to mask the Neo-Marxists deep-seated antipathy toward, even loathing, of the very success of America for over 200 years of its existence as a free Constitutional Republic. But these Neo-Marxists are able to tap into an inexhaustible supply of money made available to them through over 200 George Soros-connected organizations and these Soros organizations have slowly, inexorably attacked the very underpinnings of America’s institutions. And, the more secretive Rothschild network lurks above the Soros organizations, unseen, but the Rothschild tentacles are vast. They are everywhere and their negative impact is felt deeply in the United States. See, e.g., articles in Stillness in the Storm, and American Patriot Contact Tracers.Major News Organizations that have not sold their souls to the Neo-Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalists need to be more outspoken about the threat these ruthless elements pose to the Nation. Some commentators, such as Tucker Carlson of Fox News, have demonstrated courage just to mention George Soros, by name, explicitly, as a singular danger to our free Constitutional Republic, which Soros is. News publications such as Epoch Times, the New York Post, and The Washington Times have done their part, but they need to do more.Soros, after all, isn’t operating in a vacuum. Both he and the major technology companies are working in concert through a much larger and shadowy network of destructive influences across the globe that are dead set on destroying the nation-state paradigm. More investigative work needs to be done. The fate of the western world hinges on the strength of the American people to remain true to their Constitution—and, especially, to their Bill of Rights and never doubt for a moment the absolute importance of keeping and bearing arms. For only through an armed citizenry can a free Republic and Sovereign people truly expect to survive. A transglobal world empire cannot be accomplished without the inclusion of the resources of the United States. It is for this reason the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have spent so much time, money, and organizational effort to undermine the Country. Americans must see to it that these ruthless forces do not succeed.While many of the forces behind the effort to destroy the Nation cannot be easily discerned, absent serious investigation, the negative effects, and impact of the assault and treachery on our Nation, the Constitution, and people cannot be reasonably, rationally denied. Consider:

• Release of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus into the Country

• Massive Electoral Fraud Perpetrated on the American people in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, and deceitfully, incessantly Denied by a Seditious Press

• Misapplication or Outright Dismissal of the Dictates of Law and Constitution by both the present Administration and by the Pelosi/Schumer run Congress

• Illegal Usurpation of the Sovereign Authority of the American Citizenry over the Federal Government

• Incessant and Blatant Lies and Deceit to Cover up the Emasculation of the Country’s Military

• Unlawful Commandeering of DOJ/FBI, Military, and Intelligence Apparatuses of the Nation by the Administrative Deep State to Target Innocent Americans

• Illegal Attempts by the puppet Harris-Biden Administration to Federalize State Electoral Systems; State Education Systems; and State and Local Police Forces

• Unlawful Commandeering of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Department and Department of Labor’s OSHA to implement an Authoritarian Regime over the American People in defiance of the Bill of Rights and in contradistinction to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Illegal Suspension of Habeas Corpus in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

• Treating Serious Gun Crimes committed by Common Criminals as misdemeanors (reported in the western journal) 

• Bombastic Threat of Global Thermonuclear War against Russia over the Ukraine, that sits on Russia’s border, see International Business Times but noticeably docile over China’s Geopolitical Ambitions

And, the list goes on——The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist stooges in Government constantly talk of “DEMOCRACY.” They constantly banter that only the “Democrat Party” is interested in preserving DEMOCRACY in the Country, without bothering to explain how any American would object to that or to them.But, think for a moment what it is that these stooges in Government don’t bother to mention when they continuously throw out the word ‘Democracy’ and claim that they are all for it and that they are the only protectors of it. They never mention the word ‘freedom.’ And why is that? Might it be that ‘freedom’ is, after all, associated with Natural Law:“THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE INDIVIDUAL.”Freedom is a function of the autonomy of the individual. It embodies the sanctity and inviolability of the Human Soul.Democracy as understood by the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal stooges has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy for these detestable creatures is just a word that sounds “good” and plays well to the target audience. What they are talking about is “Direct Democracy” as Majority Rule. The Majority Rule for these stooges is associated with Mob Rule. And what is Mob Rule? Mob Rule is predicated on the idea that people, as a group, tend to operate simplistically through emotion, and emotion is susceptible to easy manipulation. Mob Rule is ascendant in our Country, pushed by the Neo-Marxist Pelosi/Schumer-led Congress. The Government doesn't talk of Mob Rule though. The Government refers to something called ‘Direct Democracy,’ but this is simply a device that makes it easy for Tyrants to control the mob. And many there are in this mob of millions that accept control by Tyrants, even relish it, as long as their minimal physical needs are met. The mob is simply a vast collection of malcontents, and idiots—the dregs of society—and always looking for handouts, as are the millions of illegal aliens that the Obstructors and Destructors of our Country are intent on utilizing to assist in erasing a free Constitutional Republic. But the mob also includes otherwise intelligent people who give too little thought to the fact of the swindlers, grifters, and sociopaths in public office who are using hard-earned taxpayer dollars to line their pockets and those of special interests and couldn't care less about the interests of the American people. And many Americans seem not to mind or assume that there is nothing they can do about any of that anyway. So they would rather indulge themselves with the fluff available to them through the agency of mass entertainment—fluff carefully orchestrated to keep them from thinking about the fate of their life, and those of their Country and Countrymen, at all.And the Government stooges understanding the usefulness of mobs, are intent on loosening voting standards to give voting rights eventually to millions of convicted felons and to millions of illegal itinerant aliens who feel beholden to a Government that will provide them safe haven, free education for their kiddies, food, lodging—free everything—all the bare necessities that will allow them to live their lives as contented little sheep.The only thing these SHEEP won’t have will be “FREEDOM”—FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, OF ACTION, AND OF WILL.But with FREEDOM—TRUE FREEDOM—comes ATTENDANT DUTY AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Those individuals who are slothful by nature and who otherwise are encouraged by a Government willing to give them handouts for their vote, don't care about FREEDOM and the attendant duty and responsibility that comes with real FREEDOM. They would rather forsake the sanctity of Selfhood, the Right to be left alone. They would willingly forsake THE RIGHT TO DEMAND TO BE LEFT ALONE AS RIGHT TO BE ARMED OBLIGES, IF GRUDGINGLY, BY THOSE IN GOVERNMENT. They would give up all of it for a few crumbs and trinkets—dutiful little sheep, easily coddled.Sheep prefer to have Government take care of them. It is easier to allow the Government to care of them, of their basic needs, than to invest time and effort in themselves; to take responsibility for their own life. But then such sheep eventually end up in the slaughterhouse—all of them. Yet until the last moment, sheep never give a thought to that, and when that moment does come around, as it will, as it must, it will be too late to protest, much too late, as they are left with no tenable means to defend themselves. Indeed, many will go resignedly to their deaths anyway. It would be much easier to relent than to resist. That is what they have been trained to do; what they have been conditioned to do.Intensive investigative work on these destructive forces and influences on our Nation needs to be done. But, it rests upon the will strength, and tenacity, and courage of average Americans to do this work. Don't expect this work from the Press. And don't expect help from Congress. For most of Congress is “on the take” or otherwise impotent. And that demented fool hunkered down in the Executive Suite has no more control over the Executive Branch of Government than he likely has over his own bladder and bowels. Such is the state of our Nation. Had he any sense of pride of self and dignity over himself, he would have spared both himself and the Nation from making fools of both. Alas, he does not. But the shadowy and sinister puppet-masters who have orchestrated the creation of the EU and the UN and who are orchestrating the demise of our Country are not fools. They are as crafty and intelligent as they are evil and ruthless. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the policies they have crafted and implemented to destabilize the political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical structures and institutions of the U.S. go hand-in-hand with their desire to transform the very appearance of our Nation into burlesque. From Biden and Harris right on down the line, the creatures that the puppet-masters have selected to inhabit the highest Offices of the Federal  Government were not selected merely for their incompetence and for lack of any sense of personal integrity, and moral decency. No! They were carefully screened and selected to appear like the buffoons they are. A circus needs its troupe of harlequins. And, those marched out in front of the American people are calibrated to create an image on both the world stage as well as on the home front of a Nation that has devolved into a veritable “Punch and Judy” puppet show. And Americans are forced to watch this drivel and, more, to accept this shameful display to National pride as something to be emulated.From the CCP's unleashing of COVID upon the world (through the active assistance of or acquiescence of Government toadies) to the meticulously engineered creation of pseudo-English constructs and other crass and calculated strategies to induce confusion in one's thought processes; and through the investiture of a nonsense pseudo-ideology infecting the entirety of public and private U.S. institutions—this “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”—the United States and the rest of this so-called “free world” is all the verge of collapse. And it is all part of a grand, intricate, horrific design. But, the collapse of the U.S. and of western civilization is not a fait accompli. Much depends on the indomitability of the American will and spirit to resist this mental assault on the American psyche.The fate of the western world and of our own Country hinges on the strength of the American people to consciously remain true to themselves and to trust their inner moral guide; place faith in their history, heritage, and core Christian values; and remain steadfast to the tenets and precepts and principles of Individualism upon which our Constitution rests—and remain especially true to the most important component of our Constitution: the Bill of Rights.Take as a categorical imperative, the right, the need, and, yes, dare we say, duty of the patriotic American citizen, to always keep and bear arms. For only in the exercise of that Right can a free Republic and Sovereign people truly expect to survive and prevail against the forces that crush.A transglobal world empire cannot be accomplished without the inclusion of the resources of the United States. It is for this reason the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have spent exorbitant amounts of time, money, and organizational effort to undermine a Free Republic. But the Country is not Theirs. It is Ours. Remember that!_____________________________________________

THE PHRASES “GUN CULTURE” AND “GUN VIOLENCE” ARE NOTHING MORE THAN PROPAGANDA TOOLS TO DISTRACT AND CONFUSE THE UNWARY

PART FIVE

Anti-American propagandists have coined the expression ‘Gun Culture’ just as they have coined the phrase, ‘Gun Violence’ as propaganda devices.Malevolent, malignant forces use these coined phrases in tandem, in a deceitful attempt to generate, in the minds of suggestive members of the American public, an abhorrence of and phobia of firearms.There is a problem of “Violence,” in America, surely, but there is “Violence” in every country throughout the world.The insidious thing about violence existent in America is that it is compounded, multifold, by the fact Marxists in the Federal and State and Local Governments not only tolerate violence but actively encourage it; even commend and celebrate it. This accounts for the recent development of entirely new kinds of violence. One such is called the “smash and grab” operation. It has become so prevalent in Marxist-run Cities that it has become institutionalized. How is this possible? Take a look at this article in “The Republican Daily” for one.Neo-Marxists rationalize, even attempt to justify this imbecilic “Smash and Grab” violence. They see it as an acceptable vehicle to provide “Reparation Payments” to Blacks because Congress won’t enact laws to give tax-payer money to black Americans. But why should they? See the article in “Fleeting Freedom.”In allowing for this, Government makes fools of those blacks who take part in it.Many, if not all of these blacks, are nothing more than common criminals who, not surprisingly, have realized the great opportunity given to them by the Neo-Marxist-controlled Government. And, these people are just the sort to vote into office Neo-Marxists—as long as voting is made easy enough for them. That helps explain the Neo-Marxists' urgency to pass comprehensive voting-made-simple legislation for citizens and non-citizens alike, the latter of which shouldn't be voting anyway—but, hell, who would know if there is no mechanism to ensure the integrity of the voting process?Neo-Marxists are encouraging the worst elements of society to engage in the worst conduct. It is all part of their grand design to destabilize the Country, thus ushering in their new world order regime.Neo-Marxists have already decriminalized violence in many parts of the Country and have given meager arguments at best to support it. Perpetrators of these crimes apparently don’t realize—or otherwise are so giddy of being encouraged to engage in felonious criminal misconduct unimpeded—that they don’t care that Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist “white” elites are playing them for dupes. But there is a price tag for this behavior; a price to be paid; a day of reckoning is around the corner. If these Corruptors of America do take over the Country, they will subjugate all Americans, regardless of their race or ethnicity. to a state of abject penury, surveillance, and control.This explains why Neo-Marxists and fabulously wealthy Neoliberal Globalists, alike, are not interested in dealing with the true cause of pathological criminal violence. It is in their interest to promote such violence, consistent with their aims to tear down a free Republic, thus making way for a transformational Collectivist regime in America. And they are following through with their plan to pervert the Nation’s youth. Marxism has gone mainstream. The Destructors of society are absolutely shameless.The corrupt, alien, thoroughly detestable Black Lives Movement is actively, avidly proselytizing around the Country. And Government—our Government—celebrates it. Parents are justifiably alarmed and outraged at the presumptuousness and audaciousness at these efforts to corrupt even the most innocent of Americans—our children. Parents Defending Education are fighting back. See their web article, titled, “‘Black Lives Matter at School’ in K-12 Classrooms Nationwide in 2022.”  And see Article on the same website, titled, “Denver Elementary School announces plans to instruct kindergartners and 1st graders about why it’s important to disrupt the nuclear family and be trans and queer affirming; they host racially segregated playground nights too.” These articles draw attention to the calumny of the highest order—defamation of our entire way of life.The forces that aim to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic have orchestrated, implemented, and are exploiting the violence occurring across the Country that they deliberately enabled. Their aim is to induce a rapid breakdown of law and order, in public schools, in the greater social community, in houses of worship in business, in entertainment, in Government, even down to the individual family. No area of civic or personal life is to be left untouched by the forces that desire to crush this Nation. Every sector of the economy and every institution is to be affected, thus demoralizing and destabilizing society. These malignant forces intend to scorch and burn to ashes the entirety of our Nation down to the minutest detail.Had Trump not been denied a second term in Office, this breakdown of law and order would not have occurred. It would have been stopped in its tracks, all of it; and the serious fractures and the gaping ruptures in our Nation would be repaired and the Country could commence the long healing process to both the physical body politic and the Nation's psyche. Americans would have seen a re-stabilization of society and the revival of a booming economy to replace the present stagnant disintegrating one. The free Constitutional Republic would be conserved and preserved intact. It would be the incorrigible lunatics, psychopaths, common criminal elements, and tens of millions of itinerant illegal aliens and rabid transnational criminal gangs that have been allowed to gain a foothold in our Nation that would lose out. And to that list, we could add malevolent, malignant, and rabid Neo-Marxist and Anarchist gangs and similar assorted riff-raff that would lose out.And, too, the Mega-Billionaire and Trillionaire Neoliberal Globalists would also lose out. They would be compelled to rethink and recalibrate their goal of creating a mammoth neo-feudalistic post-nation-state, transnational world empire. Thus their goal of a new world order, sans the United States, would have to wait decades or a century longer. They would not be pleased.But Trump is not in Office. Still, the desperation of the Neo-Marxists and Neo-Liberal Globalists is palpable. The public, seeing what one year of the puppet Biden has wrought, is signaling that, maybe, some voters, made a huge mistake in voting for the senile, corrupt stooge, Biden.The forces that aim to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic have orchestrated, implemented, and are exploiting the violence occurring across the Country that they deliberately enabled. Their aim is to induce a rapid breakdown of law and order, and thereby demoralize and destabilize society.The fear is readily apparent in recent articles of their propaganda tool, The New York Times. The articles have become increasingly strident, demonstrating how frantic the Neo-Marxist Democrats are to get their voting package through Congress. And it doesn't look like that is going to happen.In the most recent articles, the Times has argued how critical it is that the Senate approve the combined voting rights package that passed the house. That won’t happen unless the Senate changes its filibuster Rule. But that isn’t going to happen either. The New York Post explains:“Congressional Democrats will begin a futile bid to jam sweeping election reform through the Senate and alter its 60-vote legislative filibuster later Thursday when the House votes on a bill merging two separate voting measures.The complex effort is certain to fail due to opposition by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) to changing the filibuster rule — and a new memo from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) suggests a promised showdown vote may not happen at all.Democrats have opted to use an unrelated bill extending NASA’s property leasing authority as the vehicle to send both the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act to the Senate.The newly constructed measure cleared two procedural votes in the House along party lines late Wednesday and a vote on final passage is expected at midmorning Thursday.Because the original bill was already passed by the House and Senate, Schumer does not need 60 votes to open debate on the election proposals. Republicans repeatedly blocked debate in the 50-50 Senate on both the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act last year and none are expected to support cloture when Schumer moves to end debate.”The mega-Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters successfully seated their senile, corrupt, physically and emotionally wreck of a man in the Executive Branch of Government, having successfully carried out their quiet coup of the Government, these shadowy forces that crush have urged Americans to accept the explanation for and acquiesce to all of the imbecilic foreign and domestic policy blunders and failures. Many or all of these policy failures weren’t really failures at all. They were deliberately designed to weaken and destabilize the Nation, and they have.Some Americans have acquiesced to and are resigned to the loss of their Nation, or—among the most ignorant or lazy among Americans—have bought into the nonsense with little prodding. Most Americans who have originally voted for the Biden, have, though, come around to their senses, realizing they have been played for jackasses, taken in by the claim, as broadcast by the many propaganda arms in the Press and Social Media that Biden is a “Political Moderate” and will unify the Country. Never mind that the guy never campaigned even though he, as the U.S. Presidential contender, would have certainly been expected to do so. But, then, the man is a blithering idiot, his mind addled by years of dementia. Better it was to let the idiot’s many stand-ins do his campaigning for him.And, as many people were so brainwashed to fear a second term from Trump—even though they couldn’t think of anything the man did that was ever wrong for the Country, or for them personally—they mindlessly allowed themselves to be taken in by the propagandists.But most Americans who accepted a Biden Presidency as preferable to Trump, are beginning to push back, realizing their error—realizing that real autocracy lay with the Harris-Biden Administration, not with the Trump Administration. The idea that Trump was/is the Autocrat was another bit of fiction that all too many American were all too ready to believe even though a few minutes of contemplative thought would have made clear how ridiculous the notion.And many Americans are beginning to push back hard even as a few holdouts, having been early and completely seduced into accepting the Neo-Marxist propaganda, are, psychologically, too far gone to return to sanity. They have turned irrevocably into brain-damaged acolytes of the incessant nonsense propagated by the Press and the media. But is it too late, then, for the Country?The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalists know that, when the screws tighten slowly, inexorably, the public becomes more inured to the pain and anguish. But there is a line in the sand the Government and its many friends and agents in the Press, in social media, in business and finance, in academia, and in entertainment do not yet feel confident to cross. Yet, at some point, in time, they will definitely try, as they must. And that day may be coming sooner than most Americans think. And, with the midterms rapidly approaching, and with the unlikelihood that they will get their voting package passed, without which the forces that would destroy the Country will definitely lose control of Congress in November 2022, they must go for broke.The Government must engage in the attempt at mass gun confiscation very soon. But, how will that play out? Authoritarianism has already taken root—in a way that has never existed before.Still, most Americans believe that however appalling and heinous the Government’s actions have been since Biden took Office, they will never see a day when the Government would dare demand mass confiscation of guns, let alone would the Government actually be able to accomplish it.But, then, consider: How inconceivable would the actions of the toadies in the Federal Government, and of the other assorted grovelers and lackeys operating on Government’s behalf, seem to Americans even thirty years ago if they were to imagine the breadth and depth to which authoritarianism has taken firm root in our Country today, and as it marches toward outright totalitarianism tomorrow? Americans would think it all well-nigh impossible.Much of America is in denial and has been so for many years. But that will surely change. It is changing. It must change.For, if an attitude of placid acceptance to Federal Government control over our life, or quiet acquiescence to it, or blunt obsequious groveling in the face of it, does not change, the United States, as a free Constitutional Republic, will cease to exist. The Nation will become nothing more than a small and forgotten footnote of history; not a vestige of its prior greatness would remain.And America’s descendants will never know they were once a free and powerful people, destined—through tenacity and a hard-fought war for independence from tyranny—to live and thrive in a free Constitutional Republic as sovereign rulers over Government.__________________________________________

THE NEO-MARXIST AGENDA REVOLVES AROUND CONVINCING AMERICANS TO ACKNOWLEDGE AMERICA’S “GUN CULTURE” AND TO RENOUNCE IT

PART SIX

It must be reiterated. There IS NO AMERICAN “GUN CULTURE.” That notion is merely a fiction, and a makeweight into which Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have cast everything they abhor about a free Constitutional Republic. “Gun Culture” becomes a descriptor for other fictions: “White Supremacism;” “Police Brutality;” “Systemic Racism;” “Toxic Masculinity;” and so on and so forth—all fictions, created and thrust on the American public to deceive them into accepting a new and perpetual Neo-Marxist reign.The phrase ‘Gun Culture’ has also become a stand-in and general descriptor for other false claims, including such claims that America is inherently:

• RACIST
• XENOPHOBIC
• NATIVIST
• JINGOISTIC
• CHAUVINISTIC
• PAROCHIAL, PROVINCIAL, UNSOPHISTICATED
• OBSTINANT, RECALCITRANT, INTRANSIGENT, IGNORANT

Radical Left elements blame it all on the Second Amendment. They ultimately pin the wrap on America’s “Gun Culture,” i.e., on everything they perceive as wrong about America. They see this false notion of American “Gun Culture” as emanating from average Americans desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. What the Radical Left doesn’t accept or even acknowledge is that the desire to exercise the right to acquire, own, and possess firearms is grounded on the God-given right of self-defense against predatory creature and predatory Government.Yet, Marxists don’t even accept the notion of a rational basis for the right of self-defense, let alone a right of armed self-defense.The Arbalest Quarrel has discussed this idea in depth. See, e.g., the recent AQ article titled, “Tyranny, Fundamental Rights, and the Armed Citizen,” posted on December 2, 2021. But, if anything at all is to be sensibly made of the idea of a purported “Gun Culture” in America, it is nothing more than the manifestation of the Neo-Marxists’ own tolerance of, even encouragement of, criminal use of guns to prey on innocent Americans, whether black or white. But that is hardly something the Neo-Marxists would care to acknowledge.Nonetheless, if there is anything to be made of this notion it is that “Gun Culture” equates with the Neo-Marxist tolerance of, even encouragement of “Criminal Violence” of which “Gun Violence” is merely an aspect of such violence. Thus, “guns” as used in crime are not a “cause” of violence. Firearms are merely one of many tools used in the commission of violent criminal acts, according to FBI statistics.Read how one Leftist-leaning academician spouts his contempt for America’s “Gun Culture” and the imbecilic assertions he makes, attacking both the police and the natural right of self-defense. The below article appears in the Leftist publication, Boston Review:“On August 25, 2020, in my hometown of Kenosha, Wisconsin, seventeen-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse joined several other white vigilantes with AR-15-style rifles. They came purportedly to defend businesses from people protesting the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a twenty-nine-year-old Black man. A few days earlier, a police officer had shot Blake seven times in the back outside of his car, while his sons were in the backseat.Despite violating a city curfew, Rittenhouse and other vigilantes were given bottles of water by the police, who told them, ‘We appreciate you guys, we really do.’ Within hours, Rittenhouse had shot three protestors, killing two of them. Overnight he became a hero among the far right, which enabled him to crowdsource his $2 million bail. Rittenhouse’s actions, acquittal, and celebrity status are the culmination of a tactical turn in U.S. gun culture, which began in the late twentieth century. Tactical clothing, training, weaponry, and language have now become commonplace among private gun owners and law enforcement, rendering both nearly indistinguishable from soldiers. Individual gun owners are increasingly seeing themselves as de facto militia members regardless of whether they engage in paramilitary training or formally associate with an organization. Even law enforcement officers who don’t serve in tactical units are now ‘armed, dressed, trained, and conditioned like soldiers,’ writes Radley Balko in Rise of the Warrior Cop (2014). . . . The freedom they defended was, indeed, not intended for everyone and the purpose of an armed segment of the population, as U.S. history has consistently demonstrated, was to enforce its exclusivity: an armed white citizenry, working in tandem with law enforcement, has for centuries sustained white rule in the United States through legal and extralegal violence. Violence is necessary to maintain what Martin Luther King, Jr., called ‘a democracy for white Americans but simultaneously a dictatorship over Black Americans.’ As for those ‘otherwise intelligent Americans’ . . . the history of white supremacy is replete with those who speak about universal rights yet doggedly pursue a white-dominated racial order. . . .In the late twentieth century, what had been . . . still only a subculture with disproportionate influence rose to the level of popular culture. At the same time, the forms of white supremacist rule it has historically supported now face legal challenge on par with what they faced during the classic civil rights era and Reconstruction. Though the story of this tactical development in U.S. gun culture is complex, I focus in this essay on a few particularly crucial components. The first is that border enforcement has been increasingly militarized since the 1970s and diffused deeper into the interior of the country. This has blurred the boundary between domestic and foreign conflict, brought the use of exceptional police powers into nearly every U.S. town, and turned militarized ‘border security’ into a ubiquitous mechanism of racialization. This has also corresponded with the militarization of local police forces, which was certainly worsened by the War on Terror, but which historian Elizabeth Hinton has identified as having deeper roots in the Johnson administration’s War on Crime. Like the nationalization of ‘border security,’ it turned the nation’s city streets into sites of militarized racial enforcement.Second, individuals once arming themselves for self-defense—often out of racial fears or a perceived threat to their masculinity—are now frequently claiming to do so in defense of the Constitution and freedom itself. The NRA has played an outsize role in this vigilante reframing by promulgating the myth that gun ownership has always been an individual, constitutional right and oriented toward a nativist vision of self-defense. This vigilantism operates in conjunction with the extralegal violence of law enforcement officers and is fueled by an individualist notion of sovereignty more dangerous than any military-grade weaponry. It rejects the freedom of others as equal to one’s own and views any attempt to support such equality as tyranny. Most importantly, this sovereignty is assumed to grant the individual the power to take life (vitae necisque potestas) in defense not of law, but of particular social and racial orders.”There is a lot to unpack here, but it is worth an analysis because the author’s sophistry encapsulates, better than many such articles, a true Neo-Marxist internationalist/Neoliberal Globalist contemptuousness toward Americans and toward the very precepts, tenets, and principles of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded.Preliminarily, we point out that the article came out fairly recently, December 17, 2021, and aptly describes, in an academic format, a definitive Neo-Marxist Anti-Second Amendment sentiment toward American gun ownership and possession. The article is also demonstrative of the extent to which Neo-Marxists design and construct elaborate fairy tales around that sentiment.The author of the article, Chad Kautzer, is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Lehigh University. Kautzer’s article appearing on the website, Boston Review, encapsulates the Neo-Marxist contemptuousness of America’s heritage and core values.Kautzer’s all-encompassing and obviously virulent disdain for America is detailed in his book, “Radical Philosophy.” Routledge Books published it, a few years ago, in 2015. Routledge is a major publisher of professional and academic books.A short review of the book makes clear the extent to which Kautzer extols the virtues of Marxism, Feminism, and something called “Queer Theory,” a thing concocted by Marxist Sociologists. See also, article in IU Libraries. This all goes to the glorification of victimhood, the Neo-Marxists mantra and new religious dogma, suffusing itself throughout the landscape of American society, perverting and polluting and corrupting the psyche of Americans.Most Americans are waking up to this fact, and the puppet-masters and their Government toadies know this and they are not too happy about it, but there isn’t much they can do to quell the rapidly rising resentment welling in the American people. _________________________________

THE PLAN FOR WHOLESALE GUN CONFISCATION  IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER

PART SEVEN

Chad Kautzer, the Neo-Marxist American philosopher, associates the idea of an American “Gun Culture” with notions of ‘white supremacism,’ ‘militias,’ and ‘police brutality toward blacks.’ See the article in Truth About Guns, by Dan Zimmerman, on Chad Kautzer’s nihilist philosophy, for another perspective on Kautzer.Everything negative about America in the mind of Neo-Marxists eventually circles back to America’s purported “Gun Culture”—more specifically, America’s purported “White Man’s Gun Culture.”America’s so-called “Gun Culture” is encapsulated in the primary premise upon which Neo-Marxists promulgate and propagate their deep-seated abhorrence of America: in what Kautzer refers to as “the myth that gun ownership has always been an individual, constitutional right and oriented toward a nativist vision of self-defense.”But the individual, constitutional right of armed self-defense against predatory animal, predatory man, and predatory Government isn’t myth at all. It is a God-given natural, unalienable right. It is a basic, inherent, axiomatic Truth. And, we are the only Nation on Earth that recognizes that fact. Small wonder, then, that those who envision a totalitarian new world order would seek to destroy, once and for all time, the sacred salient underpinning of that one remaining absolutely free Nation on Earth, and the one remaining truly sovereign people—all maintained and preserved forever by the one essential and incommensurable Right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. And, with that, the Neo-Marxists intend to destroy the very notion of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul and Spirit.How are the forces that crush going about this demanding task? Below is their game-plan

• Desecrate the very notion of the ‘armed citizenry.’
• Instill, in the mind of the polity, a phobia toward guns and a general animus toward those Americans who adamantly insist on owning them and bearing them
• Instigate a breakdown of public order
• Demoralize and generate fear and anxiety in the American people
• Declare a State of Emergency, necessitating the surrendering of all civilian-owned firearms to the appropriate authorities
• Engage in a mopping-up operation of those remaining Americans who fail to comply with the National Surrendering and Laying Down of Arms Emergency Order

Do you see what is going on here? Do you understand the Neo-Marxist game plan?Taking away exercise of the Second Amendment Right is well-nigh difficult, perhaps impossible. They know this to be difficult. They also know it to be necessary for the would-be Destroyers of America. For, if they can accomplish that, everything else becomes easy.

THERE IS NO AMERICAN “GUN CULTURE”: THAT IS A NEO-MARXIST PLOY TO ATTACK THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The American Neo-Marxist Kautzer uses the notion of an American “Gun Culture” as a strawman argument. Having created the fiction of it, and as it comes across as an inherently negative idea, as it is intended to do, Marxists suggest, and at times boldly assert that this idea of an American “Gun Culture” is inextricably linked to the Right codified in the Second Amendment.The tacit inference that the Marxist urges one to draw is that, since the notion of a society embroiled in a “Gun Culture” is a terrible society, that society can be only rectified by eliminating the salient cause of the troubles inherent in it. In other words, American society can begin to be regenerated as a psychologically healthy society if the right of the people to keep and bear arms is erased. And that is what people like Kautzer aim to do.In attacking the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Kautzer consciously and unabashedly attacks the American Soul—the very heart of the American psyche.This doesn’t bother people like Kautzer because he has inculcated his very being to envision the creation of a Marxist Collectivist America. But that goal is impossible to realize as long as the right embodied in the Second Amendment continues to exist.Having tied the sacred, natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms to this nonsensical “wild west” “Gun Culture,” strawman creation of the Radical Left, he sees the civilian gun ownership and possession as morally bankrupt and innately corrupt. So he has no compunctions in denouncing both. He and many other academics do so with relish. And a sympathetic Press and Social Media circuit heralds their works as major achievements.Kautzer also points to a so-called “Whiteness Problem,” in America. But, instead of proving the existence of such a thing, he takes aim against it. He treats it as self-evident, true, and runs with it. Kautzer invokes it as a real phenomenon, and not a myth—but this idea of a so-called “Whiteness Problem,” in America, is, as well really nothing but fiction. It is a thing deliberately carefully constructed and generated by, and cultivated and fostered by America’s Neo-Marxist movement. It is all part and parcel of an overall campaign strategy to destabilize American society.Race, though, if one should stop to think about it, has nothing to do with classical Marxism and never did.Classical Marxism divides the world’s classes neatly by income, not by race. Karl Marx saw the world as a dichotomy of Rich Capitalists versus Poor Laborers and not, as America’s Neo-Marxists portray it as one of elect white people versus damned colored people, that is to say, Privileged White People contrasted against “Preterite Damned  People, regardless of income status. The latter notion is more ridiculous than anything Karl Marx ever dreamed up. It suggests that people like the Obamas, Oprah Winfrey, and Lebron James—deca-millionaires or billionaires, all, suffer the pains of Sisyphus, while white Appalachian miners and oil refinery workers, who have always had a difficult life made all the worse by the Neo-Marxists’ “Green New Deal” nonsense, live the life of Riley. It is all absolute nonsense. But so the Neo-Marxists propagate it and proselytize,  this rubbish, endlessly, to the masses.But to argue this is to maintain that the color of one’s skin trumps the money in one’s bank. Indeed, if these fabulously wealthy colored people truly suffered because of their race, then a society that is fundamentally racist as the Neo-Marxists pretend, would never have enabled the Obama clan, Winfrey, James, and many other successful colored people to succeed.Classical Marxism doesn’t easily fit into the program orchestrated by and this paradigm promulgated by America’s would-be Destroyers of our Nation. So America's Neo-Marxists deny Classical Marxism out-of-hand, constructing their own simulacrum out of it and from it, even going so far as to attack adherents of Classical Marxism, suffering no resistance to their own contrived orthodoxy.America’s Neo-Marxists—predicating warfare not on the basis of wealth, i.e., economic class, but on race, irrespective of monetary wealth—deliberately instigate a rabid animus between and among Americans, and they do this to create and then to exploit tension between and among Americans. For, if Americans are warring among themselves, they will be too busy to notice that the Nation's Destructors are machinating the destruction of society to completely reengineer it. Adherence to the tenets and precepts and principles of Classical Marxism doesn't lend itself well to the destabilization of American society as quickly and as thoroughly as they want it to occur.Thus, America’s Neo-Marxists must do more than simply give little thought to Classical Marxism, they must actively denounce Classical Marxism along with anything else that contravenes or contradicts their belief systems. Fancy that! See the article in The New York Times on the topic.Modern Neo-Marxist internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists manufacture social and political contrivances and jargon to undermine the social, political, economic, cultural, and even juridical fabric and framework of the Country, grounded on one unique attribute upon which America’s greatness over all the other nations on Earth depends: the native ability of the American citizenry to keep the power of the Federal Government ever in check through the exercise of the natural God-given of armed self-defense. These fictions, postulated by Marxist academics, like Chad Kautzer, Ibram X. Kendi, Nicole Hanna Jones, and others, are disseminated by and reiterated ad nauseum by the legacy Press, by social media, and by Neo-Marxist commentators. They are unconscionably treated as gospel in the Nation’s colleges and universities, and they are even taught to many if not most of the 50,000 children attending over 130,000 public and charter schools. And these and other noxious curricula, are likely taught in many private schools as well. See article in Education Week, and article in the New York Post.America's Neo-Marxist educators proselytize this rabid nonsense to our children. The Harris Biden Administration flunkies then shape and mold these malodorous fictions into political initiatives and political actions to be shoved down the throats of the adult population as well. It is one more tool utilized by Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists to destabilize the Country and to ready it for inclusion in a mammoth multicultural, neo-transformational, post-nation-state neo-feudalistic world.These fictions permeating through society and perpetuated in the Nation's public and charter schools, colleges, social media, the Press, and in the Federal Government itself, are conceived as and operate as useful indoctrination tools for undercutting and overriding the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism upon which the Nation’s Constitution is grounded and upon which a free Constitutional Republic depends for its perpetuation. Take that away, and the Republic falters and falls. That is the intention of the Neo-Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalists._____________________________________________

THE CORE OF AMERICA’S FREE REPUBLIC RESTS ON RKBA

PART EIGHT

Adherence to natural law is not only the core of American culture, it is THE basis of America’s foundational structure as a free Republic and it is the essential predicate for it. Natural law is grounded on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul.This idea is in constant tension with the Government that, by its own nature, seeks to inhibit free expression, as it must. The Government does not ask for but demands obeisance, subordination of the Self, submission of personal autonomy, and subordination of independence of spirit and will to the power of Government.Thus, the sovereignty of the American people over Government must, at all costs, be sanctified in law if that sovereignty over Government is to be preserved against that Government. And sovereignty over Government can only be preserved if the American people have the tenable means to do so.The Framers of the Constitution knew this full well. And the natural law right of self-defense over predatory animal, predatory man, and predatory Government was thereby enshrined in the Nation's Bill of Rights through the codification of the Right of the people to own, keep, and bear firearms. Neo-Marxists don’t deny the historical rationale for this. In fact, they are well aware of it even though they don't accept the truth of it. It is the predatory Government that Neo-Marxists seek to install—the antithesis of what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended, and what they fervently abhorred. That is why the Marxists see the need to eradicate the armed citizenry and they intend to do so. That is their ultimate order of business.Marxists know that as long as the idea of the inherent sovereignty of the American people over Government remains p, pervasive, and persuasive in the psyche of Americans, the Marxist-envisioned and Neo-Marxist-engineered society cannot exist. And they know the idea of the inherent sovereignty of the American people over Government is part and parcel of the physical fact of firearms in the hands of the citizenry.Get rid of the latter, so say the Marxists, and the former notion of the sovereignty of the American people over Government falls away of its own accord, for there is nothing tangible left to maintain it. Free Speech—the right of the people to dissent and to make certain that their voices are heard—means nothing, comes to nothing, in the absence of the means to require Government to listen and to cohere to the demands of the true and sole ruler over Government: the armed American citizenry.The Sovereignty of the American people only continues to exist and function through exercise of the natural, indelible, immutable, unalienable Right to acquire, keep, and bear firearms.This is the predicate basis of the Nation’s strength and singular greatness and it is the foundation of the citizenry’s sovereignty over Government.It is the salient basis of and also proof of the inference that the framers’ understood and intended for the American people to be and to remain sole sovereign over Government, for all time. And only through the exercise of force of arms will the people retain the ability to check the power of Government, and thereby have the certain means to assert their sovereignty over Government if such becomes necessary. And it may well come to that from what we see transpiring today since the Great Pretender—Joe Biden took Office.American Neo-Marxists accept as axiomatic—no less so than do America’s Patriots—that the sovereignty of the American people over the Federal Government is a function of the citizenry’s ability to acquire, keep, and bear firearms. But, the Neo-Marxists adamantly reject the notion of a natural, God-given Right of the people to keep and bear arms, even as the Right is clearly, categorically, concisely, unequivocally codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Neo-Marxists reject the very idea of natural law rights that precede the construction of Government, that exist independent of Government and of man-made law, that exist intrinsically, eternally in man, bestowed in man by the Divine Creator.As the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the bedrock principle upon which the Country came to exist as a free Republic, it can only ever continue to exist as a free Republic, and remain as a free Republic, exactly as the founders of the Republic intended, so long as the people remain armed.The Neo-Marxist and the American Patriot both know that American identity is tied inextricably to natural law which, at the primal level, is wrapped up in the intrinsic right of self-defense, of which armed self-defense remains the one true capable means of self-defense. If that goes, the Nation goes with it as there is nothing left of value to be salvaged in America. The Neo-Marxist doesn’t pretend otherwise. For the Neo-Marxist all of America must be destroyed, and that idea is exemplified in Neo-Marxist depredation and degradation of America’s history and heritage and core values; its despoiling of America’s statues and monuments to its leaders and heroes; its unapologetic denunciation and denigration of America’s Founders.And this unmitigated, unrelenting Neo-Marxist attack on the Nation is taken up by the Corporatist Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists, too, as they also seek to destroy America for their own ends.The Neoliberal Globalist doesn’t buy into Neo-Marxist claptrap, but as they both desire to demolish America as an independent, sovereign Nation-State, they have entered into an unlikely truce, at least for the moment.For the Neo-Marxists, the aim is to create what they perceive to be a pure, stateless Communist-run world Government, where Government provides for every person’s minimum wants and needs. And, with the Government in absolute control of all political, social, and economic rulemaking and planning, they believe that an orderly world is possible, and a relatively contented one, for billions of people. The fact that the life of the individual is meaningless in such a world where all thought and conduct is rigorously controlled is of no consequence to the Neo-Marxist internationalist. For him, the notion of the sanctity of the individual and the notion of the importance of human purpose are, at best, nostalgic, but essentially archaic, empty concepts—both devoid of meaning. The Neo-Marxist perceives the idea of the sanctity of the individual as a concept as devoid of functional import and purport as are the notions of ‘independent, sovereign nation-state,’ ‘citizen of a nation-state,’ ‘national identity,’ and ‘national spirit;’ and as archaic and anachronistic as are  ideas of ‘freedom,’ ‘personal autonomy,’ ‘free Constitutional Republic,’ and as senseless and dangerous, as is the notion of ‘a people reigning as supreme sovereign over Government.’The Neo-Marxist scoffs at the idea of man having an immortal Soul, and denies out-of-hand the truth of natural, fundamental, unalienable, illimitable, immutable, God-given Rights, bestowed on Man and in Man by a benevolent and infinite Divine Creator.Obviously, there can be no meeting of minds, no negotiation. The basic principles and precepts, along with the goals and aims of the Neo-Marxist are wholly incompatible with the principles and precepts of human worth, dignity, of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, and of a free Constitutional Republic and of a free Sovereign people. And what is one to make of the thought processes of the mega-billionaire Neoliberal Globalist financiers and corporatists? What is one to make of their goals and aspirations?For the Neoliberal Globalist, the aim is to control rapidly diminishing resources and contain a wildly growing world population. The world they aim to create is structured on ancient feudalism. It is a world where a few mega-rich, i.e., they, themselves, can live in regal splendor, and billions of others can be safely and securely corralled in various massive containment centers, dotted here and there around the world, where the bare necessities of life—food, water, shelter, clothing, and medical care—are doled out sparingly, minimally. It is to be expected that, eventually, a few billion people will die through natural attrition: plague, the elements of nature, and malnutrition. And that is perceived as a good thing, as it will place less stress on the life and well-being, and enjoyment of the elite leisure ruling-class and of scarce natural resources.Since automation and technology will make fewer demands on the need for unskilled and minimally skilled labor in the future, as is rapidly becoming apparent today, the need for such labor as was once necessary in an industrial-based society, as in the world of the 20th Century, will be de minimis. Thus, the value of the average person is de minimis. Some minimal human labor will be needed of course. And substantial numbers of paramilitary police and military will be necessary to maintain public order and to provide protection for the ruling elite from the occasionally expected revolts of the millions of downtrodden Hoi Polloi.People both in this Country and abroad are already beginning to see the inklings of this “Brave New World” to Come. And it isn’t a pretty sight.If the Nation as the founders of a free Constitutional Republic envisioned it is perceived by the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists as one outdated, and archaic, hopelessly out of touch with the rest of the world, then so be it. Better it would be that Americans happily maintain their archaic island of resistance in the futurist neo-feudal transglobal world gone mad._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

THE LIBERAL WING OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OPERATES MORE AS AN ADVOCATE FOR GOVERNMENT POWER THAN AS A PROTECTOR OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

On January 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case Biden vs. Missouri. The formal issue before the High Court in that case as set forth on SCOTUSblog was “whether the Supreme Court should issue a stay of the injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri blocking a federal rule that requires all health care workers at facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they are eligible for a medical or religious exemption.”Missouri and other States filed a direct challenge to the autocratic Harris-Biden Administration’s demand that all Health care workers—22 million as of April 5, 2021, whose medical facilities participate in Government funded Medicare and Medicaid programs, according to the Government census report—accede to Government demands that health care workers obtain COVID-19 vaccinations.The States contested this broad Government mandate against liberty and the rule of law. Missouri, in its Brief, stated at the outset, that the “Secretary of Health and Human Services’ sweeping and unprecedented vaccine mandate for healthcare workers threatens to create a crisis in healthcare facilities in rural America. The mandate would force millions of workers to choose between losing their jobs or complying with an unlawful federal mandate. But for the district court’s preliminary injunction, last year’s healthcare heroes would have become this year’s unemployed.” The Government for its part, argued that its mandate is a response to “an unprecedented pandemic that has killed 800,000 Americans.”The Government retorted that “the Secretary of Health and Human Services exercised his express statutory authority to protect the health and safety of Medicare and Medicaid patients by requiring healthcare facilities that choose to participate in those programs to ensure that their staff are vaccinated (subject to medical and religious exemptions).”Does the Government have this broad legal authority? Is the exercise of that authority consistent with the Constitution, or is it a direct infringement of it? Is the Administration truly concerned about the health of Americans or is it using the Pandemic merely as a convenient pretext to take control of the States and the people?The unstated but underlying issue, in this case, is whether the Harris-Biden Administration is engaging in an unprecedented power grab to exert control over the States and the American people.One expects this from an autocratic Government and an autocratic Congress, controlled by the Pelosi and Schumer stooges.That leaves the American people with one Branch of Government to place constraints on unlawful moves of Congress and the Executive Branch. And that Third Branch of Government is the U.S. Supreme Court.Unfortunately, the High Court consists of a few people, who don’t seem to concern themselves with defending the Nation and its people from the throes of autocracy and, hence, tyranny. One such person is Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. For whatever reason, Justice Sotomayor asserted—didn’t ask the attorneys for the Government or for the State of Missouri—during oral argument, that 100,000 children have been hospitalized and are on ventilators.As reported in the National Review, Sotomayor claimed that“‘We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.’” This was a grossly inflated figure. In the same article, the National Review pointed out that,“The current number of confirmed pediatric hospitalizations with Covid in the U.S. is 3,342, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services released on Friday. The average number of children admitted to the hospital per day with Covid was 776 as of Tuesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”Why did Justice Sotomayor make such a spurious claim during oral argument? She must have known that a straightforward declarative assertion could be and would be fact-checked as, in fact, it was. The legacy Press itself jumped on this falsehood. Fox News points out that even the Washington Post said the claim deserved “four Pinocchios” for the “absurdly high” figure.We suspect that Justice Sotomayor knew that her remark was unsupported, and that she was not acting as a neutral Justice, attempting to elicit comment from the Advocate for the Government and the advocate for Missouri, but was herself operating as an Advocate for the Government.This behavior on the part of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is not only shameful, it is dangerous to the well-being of the Republic and the Constitution. A decision in this case will be forthcoming, but there are other High Court decisions expected  in the weeks and months ahead.Any decision of the High Court involving an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution has major repercussions for the Nation. No decision is more important to the well-being of the Republic than those involving the Bill of Rights.A decision in the Bruen case is expected in early Summer if not sooner. The Bruen case is the most important case on the Second Amendment since the Heller case of 2008 and the McDonald case of 2010. Given the nature of the issue before the Court, constricted and restricted as the Roberts’ Court made it, the Bruen case is unlikely to have an impact beyond the jurisdiction of New York. Nonetheless, the American people can expect that Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor will take the opportunity to draft opinions that hearken back to the Stevens and Breyer dissenting opinions in Heller, in a shameless attempt not only to denigrate Bruen, but to weaken Heller.Likely the outcome of Bruen will be supportive of the Second Amendment, but it won’t be as far-reaching as it could have been in support of the Second Amendment—as far-reaching as the issue in Petitioner’s Brief sought: whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends beyond the domain of one’s home.The three Liberal-wing Justices will likely reassert their false argument that the right codified in the Second Amendment is always subject to Government restraint and constraint and that, notwithstanding Heller and McDonald, the Government has the lawful authority to place stringent checks on the exercise of the right as it sees fit. For Justices like Sonia Sotomayor and others, the American citizen’s ownership, possession, and utilization of the right codified in the Second Amendment is more akin to a glorified “privilege,” than a fundamental, immutable, unalienable right._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

THE UNITED STATES SHALL SURVIVE AS A FREE REPUBLIC IN THE 21ST CENTURY ONLY IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REMAIN VIGILANT AND ARMED

PART ONE

A MESSAGE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR 2022

“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” ~John Adams, from “A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765”Through time immemorial all great nations and empires have had to struggle with stressors, and the United States is no different.Strong nations capably resist hostile outside influences bent on destroying them.The United States has since its inception as a free Constitutional Republic ably weathered all attempts by hostile nations and other antipathetic foreign entities that sought the Nation’s destruction. And the reason for our Nation’s uncommon ability to thwart such attacks is grounded on its exceptional strength, resilience, and fortitude.These essential qualities derive from our Nation’s philosophical, jurisprudential, political, social, and ethical underpinnings, all of which are reflected in its unique Constitution—the foundation of our Nation’s fundamental governing principles. That says much of our Country’s inherent greatness as well as its formidable power.A nation’s governing documents are, after all, the best indices of its health and vitality. A nation’s governing documents are the barometer of a modern nation-state’s ability to weather adversity and to grow ever stronger and more resilient in having overcome adversity.The United States has, since its inception, become the most powerful, resourceful Nation-State on Earth: militarily, economically, financially, technologically, and geopolitically. It has excelled on all indices of National health, well-being, and vigor. It did so through recognition that the strength of the Country ultimately derives from the strength of its citizens: a free, sovereign, independent, and armed people.Our Nation did not see an easy birth, shackled as it was to a powerful empire. Yet, against all odds, it threw off the yoke of tyranny. And it did so, not through wizardry, but through determination, selflessness, resourcefulness, an abundance of courage, firm conviction, and an indomitable will to prevail over oppression and tyranny: the armed American!Yet, the most dangerous perils to impact the continued well-being of an otherwise strong nation, such as the U.S., are those perils emanating inside its geographical boundaries, not outside them—by forces that seek to confuse, cow, frighten, and disarm the American citizenry. A new tyranny is on the rise. And this tyranny is in our midst.Countries sicken and die more often through an inability to deal effectively with attendant institutional weaknesses and treacherous machinations of heinous and loathsome elements residing within them than by antagonistic forces marshaled against them from the outside.The traps and snares that emerge within the nation itself are the most dangerous to a nation’s continued existence because these traps and snares are often masked and cloaked and, so, they go unrecognized. Remaining hidden and unseen, they remain unchallenged, until too late.Destructive forces have seeded their viral plague into our Nation centuries ago. And these forces have bided their time, for they know it takes time to destroy a strong, resilient Nation from within. And these destructive forces and influences existent within the Country supported by and in collusion with formidable forces and influences outside the Country have exhibited infinite patience.They have, through recent years and decades, and with the rapid advances in the technology and the art of social conditioning, slowly, inexorably, surreptitiously, and ever so quietly insinuated themselves into the public psyche, manipulating the thought processes of the American people—creating confusion, anxiety, fear, and a sense of profound hopelessness in the polity. Thus the Destructive forces of a free Constitutional Republic have effectively “softened” the willpower and the spirit of many Americans even as many other Americans remain resolute, able to see through the ruse, and therefore able to contain it.In the last decade of the 20^th Century and at the turn of the 21^st Century, these Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist forces—implacable, intractable foes of Americans—have been bent on transforming the whole of western civilization into a unified transnational globalist empire, sans nation-states and national borders. And they have felt confident enough in their control over Americans and, particularly, over the American psyche, to eventually merge the United States, as their ultimate prize, into their new world order scheme. And, in the first one and a half decades of the 21st Century, they have speeded up their timetable for the dissolution of the United States.Through the sinister machinations of their toadies—Clinton, Bush, and Obama—the citizenry’s ties to their history, heritage, ethos, culture, ethical foundation, and fundamental Christian grounding began to loosen, to fracture.The American belief system founded, first and foremost, on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual has through time been systematically, surreptitiously, and assiduously replaced with an altogether new and alien, fabricated and sinister, belief system.The forces that crush have concocted their false belief system to divide the American people, to prevent them from forming a durable, imperishable defense against the forces amassed against them. These malevolent forces have designed their false belief system to attack the Nation’s traditional belief structures at an elemental, subconscious level. They have designed their counterfeit belief system to engulf and destroy the core precepts, principles, and tenets of a free Republic, predicated as they are on fundamental, unalienable, God-given rights and liberties.Unseen but axiomatic, the sanctity and inviolability of the individual soul rest at the core of this Nation’s strength. The inherent and absolute sovereignty of the American people is grounded on this sacred notion of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual soul. This is the predicate basis of the citizenry's sovereignty over their Government. And the citizenry's sovereignty over Government isn't maintained by blind faith that the Federal Government will abide by the immutable authority of the American citizenry over that Federal Government, but by the fact that the citizenry is armed and will ever remain so.The citizenry’s sovereignty over Government depends on the fact that the citizenry remains armed. Under no situation or circumstance is the Government permitted lawfully to constrain, restrain, abrogate or suspend the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is a core Truth, and the forces that seek this Nation’s destruction know this.The eternal enemies of the American people know that this core Truth is detrimental and altogether antithetical to the goal of realizing a one-world governmental regime. With cold, callous, calculated determination, these Neo-Marxist internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists have designed and have thrust into the American psyche an entirely new, alien, and fabricated belief system. This system is calibrated to undercut the core sacred Truth upon which the Country absolutely depends for its existence as a free Republic: the nobility and autonomy and sanctity and inviolability of the Individual Soul.______________________________

SEVER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM THEIR OWN PAST AND THEY WILL READILY SURRENDER THEIR WITS, THEIR ARMS, THEIR SOUL

PART TWO

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” ~George OrwellA goodly portion of America’s citizenry ably sees through the actions of Neo-Marxist Internationalism and Neoliberal Globalism a design to disembowel the United States. Most Americans see a diabolical design to loosen their ancestral ties and bonds to the Nation and to each other, even if some are oblivious to this,Americans see the breakdown of the family unit. They see the assault on Christianity. They see the attempt to corrupt their Soul and to weaken their faith in the Divine Creator. In 2016, Americans voted into Office a man that promised to set things aright.Not that Donald Trump is worthy of emulation for his personality, but whatever his personal character flaws and motivations, he immediately instituted changes to the Clinton/Bush/Obama Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist agenda. And that panicked the Nation’s would-be destroyers. Their agenda came to a screeching halt.They pulled out all the stops. They amassed the power of the Press and social media, academia, business and finance, and the Government itself, which they control, to waylay Trump and the tens of millions of Americans who supported the Country and who celebrate the American Revolution of 1776, each July 4^th, that this successful Revolution gave them.In one final act of desperation, in an attempt to secure the success of their own Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist Counterrevolution, these Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist forces took control over the electoral process and prevented Trump from serving a second term in Office.Through their vast stores of money, influence, organizational ability, and sheer ruthlessness, these monsters succeeded in placing a physically and emotionally effete, corrupt, compliant, decadent, indolent, and senile toady in the highest Office of the Land. Hands down, Joe Biden is the most inept and embarrassing “Chief Executive” the Nation has ever had cause to suffer.Joe Biden serves as an untended but perfect symbol of the disdain and contempt the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters hold for the Nation and for its people.Biden is nothing but an errand and messenger boy, and in that he fails, as one painfully sees in his mumbling, bumbling, rambling remarks. But the puppet-masters can control him and that is what matters to them. That is all that matters to them.The puppet-masters feel confident that, with their firm control over the Government, the Press and media, business, academia, and finance, the public is powerless to demand a proper accounting; is powerless to remove this pathetic figure that belongs more properly in a nursing home but that inhabits the Oval Office.Both Biden and those other unprincipled lackeys, seeded throughout the Federal Government and through the depth and breadth of local and State Governments across the Land, are the tools upon which and through which the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists intend to destroy a free Constitutional Republic, merging its remains into a transnational world totalitarian empire.These malevolent forces have coerced through bribes, threats, and intimidation, many other prominent and wealthy individuals holding important positions in business, finance, industry, technology, academia, entertainment, media, and the Press, compelling them to do their bidding if they are not otherwise sympathetic to the new world order agenda. But, unfortunately, all too many of them are.But for all the duplicity and chicanery, the forces that crush may yet fail in their endeavors, and they realize this. Their concern is demonstrated through obviously desperate attempts to frighten, seduce, and deceive the American public.But why should it be so difficult for the puppet-masters to destroy our Republic?That goal is a difficult one for them to achieve because our Nation is unlike no other nation on Earth.Our Nation is grounded on governing principles derived from natural law.The framers of our Constitution recognized that the strength and resilience of the Country and its people rest, ultimately, not in the carefully structured framework of the Federal Government as set forth in the Constitution’s Articles, but rather in the American people themselves: in the firm, clear recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of the human soul.“On June 21, 1788, the Constitution became the official framework of the government of the United States of America when New Hampshire became the ninth of 13 states to ratify.” See article in National Constitution Center. But, the foundation of a free Republic didn’t end at that point because the Constitution wasn’t complete.The defining moment for the Country came with the ratification of the Bill of Rights, on December 15, 1791. See Article in Landmark Events. The Nation’s Bill of Rights, consisting of a set of unconditional, illimitable, immutable, and eternal rights of man, are no mere collection of noble sentiments, set down into law by man.The Bill of Rights isn’t manmade law at all. This Document is a codification of Divine Law and, as such, it is understood to be beyond the power of the Federal Government to modify, amend, dismiss, rescind, suspend, abrogate, or ignore.Natural Law is fundamental, unalienable, and absolute.The Nation’s Bill of Rights serves at once as a constant reminder to the servants of Government that the American people are and always remain the one, true, sole, supreme sovereign over Government. It is an emphatic notice of that fact. The Nation’s servants—those serving in Government—serve at the pleasure of and at the behest of the American people; not the other way around.It is the American people who are and remain the masters over their own life and over their Government and over the destiny of their Nation. And the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists to ensure the American people will forever remain master and sovereign over this Government and their Dominion. Let the American people never forget that, lest they lose their Country, their Spirit, and their very Soul._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES CONTINUE THEIR PUSH TO ERODE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

NEW JERSEY SENATE BILL S. 3757 IS ONE MORE SLAP-IN-THE-FACE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND HELLER

PART ONE

The Arbalest Quarrel read with interest the NRA-ILA alert concerning New Jersey Senate Bill S. 3757 “that would force gun owners to store their guns and ammo under lock and key or face felony-level penalties.” We also read with interest and agree with Scott Bach’s well-written explication of the bill. Scott points out, “this ill-conceived bill imposes an absurd, one-size-fits-all totalitarian mandate to keep guns unloaded and locked up inside the home and to keep ammunition separately locked up inside the home, except when ‘in use’ – an utterly undefined term that will surely be interpreted to exclude everything except target practice.”As Scott notes, the New Jersey gun bill is absurd. And it is idiotic on logical grounds alone.But there is also a legal matter attendant to the bill. The bill flaunts and raises a disconcerting matter about the law that needs to be addressed.Just how broadly or narrowly is Heller to be read? This idea is not as simple as it may seem.Apart from the clear and categorical holding that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia—ostensibly knocking down once and for all time the erroneous idea often still propounded by some that the Second Amendment refers to a “collective right”—the Court addressed another matter that directly impacts the New Jersey Senate bill.The Heller Court said——“In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” Does the New Jersey Senate bill square with the Heller holding? And, if it doesn’t, what is the impetus for the New Jersey Legislature drafting the thing at all?Let’s take a closer look at the bill as written.A preliminary “Statement” of intent, in the bill, reads in pertinent part as follows:“This bill, titled the ‘New Jersey Safe Storage of Firearms Act,’ establishes penalties for improper storage of a firearm that results in access of the firearm; requires a warning to be issued to firearms purchasers; and requires the Attorney General to establish a public awareness campaign regarding the risk associated with improper storage of a firearm. The bill also repeals the provisions of current law that establish penalties only for a minor's access of an improperly stored firearm, and makes an appropriation.Under current law, there are storage requirements and penalties imposed if a minor accesses a loaded firearm that is not in use. However, there currently are no general requirements for storing firearms when they are not in use.This bill requires a legal owner of a firearm to: (1) store or secure a firearm that is not in use at a premises under the owner's control unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container; and (2) store ammunition, separately, in a securely locked box or container.Under the bill, if the owner of a firearm fails to store the firearm properly as required under the bill, the owner will, for a first offense, be sentenced to period of community service of not less than 10 hours and not more than 40 hours. For a second or subsequent offense, the owner is guilty of a disorderly persons offense. If an improperly stored firearm is accessed by another person, and the access results in serious bodily injury to or the death of the person who accesses the firearm or another person, the owner is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. A disorderly persons offense is punishable by up to six months' imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. A crime of the fourth degree is punishable by up to 18 months' imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.”The language of the bill, proper, says in pertinent part:A legal owner of a firearm shall:

• store or secure a firearm that is not in use at a premises under the owner's control, unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container; and
• store ammunition, separately, in a securely locked box or container.

The bill also imposes requirements on the firearms dealer: The Superintendent of State Police, in conjunction with the Attorney General, shall adopt guidelines in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to require each licensed retail firearms dealer in the State, or the retail dealer's employee, to provide to any person who receives, possesses, carries, or uses a firearm, a written warning printed on eight and one-half inches by 11 inches in size paper in not less than 14 point bold point type letters which shall state:“NEW JERSEY STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT ALL FIREARMS MUST BE STORED, UNLOADED, IN A SECURELY LOCKED GUN SAFE OR LOCKED CONTAINER, AND ALL AMMUNITION MUST BE STORED IN A SEPARATE, SECURELY LOCKED GUN SAFE OR LOCKED CONTAINER. FAILURE TO DO SO IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW AND COULD RESULT IN FINES AND IMPRISONMENT.” The written warning provided pursuant to subsection a. of this section shall include the requirements and penalties imposed pursuant to P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill).The superintendent shall provide each licensed retail firearms dealer with a sign to be displayed prominently at a conspicuous place on the dealer's business premises at each purchase counter. The sign shall contain the statutory reference to section 3 of P.L., c. (C.). . . .”Left unsaid in the bill, is how the New Jersey Government is to know whether or how a person stores a firearm in his house.Is a New Jersey police officer to be given carte blanche authority to check on this? If so, would this not violate an individual’s Fourth Amendment Right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?But the more pressing issue is whether NJ S.B. 3757 is, on its face, patently illegal. Is the bill inconsistent with the Heller holding pertaining to one’s right of immediate access to a firearm in the home for the purpose of self-defense? It would seem so. But there is a problem.Just how broadly, in regard to immediate access to a firearm in one’s home, is Heller to be taken? We look at this in the next segment, and consider the ramifications of Heller, for Bruen.__________________________________________

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT JURISDICTIONS ROUTINELY AND BLATANTLY IGNORE HELLER AND MCDONALD PRECEDENTS

PART TWO

To both proponents of the Second Amendment and its detractors, Heller is known for its salient holding: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. No one has any doubt about that holding whether one accepts the truth of it or not.It is the central holding of Heller and it is a broad ruling; no question about it. This is as it was always meant to be, and the Heller majority opinion says this clearly, succinctly, and categorically. And the Court meant for this holding to have universal application—applicable to every jurisdiction in the Country.Moreover, contrary to what some say or wish to believe, this central holding of Heller is consonant and consistent with the plain meaning of the language of the Second Amendment. The language of the Amendment does nothing more than codify a fundamental, unalienable, illimitable, immutable, natural right that exists intrinsically in every person. The one odd thing about the Heller case is that the High Court would have to point this out at all.Even so—All too many Courts blithely ignore Heller’s holding notwithstanding they are all dutybound to be mindful of and rigorously adhere to the import of it when reviewing government actions that target it. The implication of Heller cuts across and into all government actions directed against the application of the right embodied in the Second Amendment.These Anti-Second Amendment Courts merely rubberstamp unconstitutional government actions when they should be striking down government actions that, on their face, infringe the core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.But there are other holdings in Heller that Anti-Second Amendment proponents and other “neutral” Americans miss.Unlike Heller’s paramount and broad holding pertaining to the universal nature of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as an individual rather than as a mere collective right, there are other seeming “narrow” holdings in Heller.These additional holdings address the District of Columbia’s actions concerning handguns and the right of the people to have immediate access to them in one’s own home, for the purpose of self-defense.The New Jersey gun bill, S. 3757, if enacted, would preclude a gun owner’s immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in the gun owner’s own home. On its face, NJ S.B. 3757 mirrors the major import and purport of the D.C. law that the Heller Court struck down as unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said this:“In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” But is this seeming narrow holding, directed as it is to the District of Columbia, truly meant to be confined only to the District? Or, is it a broad-based, universal holding, applicable across the board, to every jurisdiction in the Land even as the High Court addressed the language of a law enacted by the District of Columbia that could only apply to the District?Assume for purpose of argument that this holding is meant to be confined to D.C. This isn’t to suggest that, if the New Jersey’s gun bill were enacted and someone were to challenge its constitutionality on appeal, the High Court would find the New Jersey law to be constitutional when the District’s law wasn’t.With the conservative wing in the majority, New Jersey’s gun bill, if enacted, would be summarily struck down, as patently illegal. No question about it.But who knows if the High Court would ever hear the case? Likely it wouldn’t, presumably because the New Jersey gun bill is similar to the D.C. law that was struck down. The New Jersey Legislature knows this. Very few cases make it to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.The New Jersey bill, as law, would be inconsistent with the D.C. gun bill but would be enforced by New Jersey anyway, unless or until it was struck down.Consider longstanding unconstitutional gun laws such as New York’s notorious “Safe Act”—which, itself, merely expands on unconstitutional laws going back decades. And the New York Legislature still expands upon the “Safe Act” slowly and inexorably engulfing and dissolving the whole of the Second Amendment.The “Safe Act” is, as we have expressly said, not the finalization of the work of Anti-Second Amendment zealots, but a work in progress, building upon the notorious, discriminatory Sullivan Act, enacted over one hundred and ten years ago.And while there have been challenges to New York’s gun laws through the century, following upon enactment of the Sullivan Act of 1911, look how long it took for the U.S. Supreme Court to accept review of a major challenge to New York’s firearms’ licensing scheme. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners vs. City Of New York, commonly referred to and known as the New York City Gun Transport case. That case was decided in 2020, and it did not meet expectations.The liberal wing of the Court, along with the ostensibly conservative wing Chief Justice John Roberts—who, it seems, cajoled the Trump nominee Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh to go along with him, adding a crucial fifth vote—emasculated the Gun Transport case. Justices Thomas and Alito were justifiably outraged.The High Court majority refused to review the case on the merits, thus allowing the massive, bloated, convoluted, confusing gun licensing edifice to remain intact.How much more damage can Anti-Second jurisdictions and the Harris-Biden Administration do to the Second Amendment before a decision in Bruen is published? Even today, we can see the stirrings of unrest among the anti-Second Amendment proponents.Using propaganda to focus the public’s attention anew on guns, the corrupt and senile messenger boy for the Marxists and Globalists is attempting to drum up public support for new assaults on the Second Amendment. Resurrecting the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident, Biden said, as reported by The Hill:“‘As a nation, we owe all these families more than our prayers. We owe them action,’ Biden said in a video message released by the White House.He said the Senate needed to quickly pass three House-passed bills, one to extend background checks, another to keep guns out of the hands of abusers and his Build Back Better act that includes a $5 billion investment in community violence prevention and intervention.‘I know our politics are frustrating and can be frustrating and it’s particularly frustrating now. But we can’t give up hope, we can’t stop,’ Biden said.The president mentioned the school shootings in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 and in Oxford, Mich., last week, adding that similar shootings occur in Black and brown communities every day. The White House unveiled a fact sheet on Tuesday on the work the administration has done to combat gun violence, touting executive orders from the president to reduce the proliferation of ghost guns, which are untraceable guns assembled using parts bought online; regulate stabilizing braces used on firearms and help states enact red flag legislation, among other things. It also noted that local governments have used funding from the American Rescue Plan, which Biden signed into law in March, towards community violence intervention and hiring more law enforcement officers.When asked if there are any conversations about a filibuster carve-out to pursue gun legislation, a senior White House official didn’t comment directly.‘I think the president and the direct to camera really speaks to this issue in an impactful way. He shares in the frustration with gun safety advocates regarding the lack of progress made in Congress, and he also talks about the progress made in the past,’ a senior White House official said, referring to the video released on Tuesday. In the video, the president called Sandy Hook, which occurred during the Obama administration when he was vice president, ‘one of the saddest days we were in office. . . . We have to keep up the pressure.’”This is more than just a veiled threat. The Harris-Biden Administration is preparing a major assault on the Second Amendment, in part to deflect attention from Biden’s dismal poll numbers—hoping that most Americans will support a campaign to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But it is a dangerous gamble that can backfire. The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalists know this but figure they have no choice given the 2022 Midterm elections that they must prepare for. The economy is in tatters. Foreign and Domestic policy is in complete disarray. Geopolitically, militarily, economically, socially, politically, the Country is in the throes of chaos. This is just as the Destructors of the Marxist/Globalist agenda intend, but they must convince the American public that the Nation is on the right path, “to build back better.”One must wonder who dreamed up that imbecilic slogan. It sounds oddly like the slogan in the old Burger King commercial: “the bigger the burger the better the burger. . . .” And that is what the Destructors of our Nation and their puppets are doing: grinding our Country and its people into hamburger meat._____________________________________

REGARDLESS OF THE IMPACT OF THE BRUEN RULINGS IN NEW YORK, WHAT IMPACT WOULD BRUEN LIKELY HAVE ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS?

PART THREE

A ruling on Bruen likely won’t be handed down until next summer, keeping many New York gun owners and applicants for concealed handgun carry licenses in limbo for months. And it will be months longer still for the State and the New York City Licensing Division to redraft its concealed handgun carry license Rules, assuming a Bruen ruling requires that to happen.And what would be the impact of a ruling on Bruen in all other “may issue” jurisdictions?Would those jurisdictions construe the rulings in Bruen narrowly or broadly: applicable to those jurisdictions as well, or as having no impact on them?Given what we have seen to date, many jurisdictions blatantly ignore Heller whether the Heller holdings and reasoning are construed broadly or not.So, why then would or should one expect other “may issue” jurisdictions to give Bruen any credence?They ought to, of course. The right of armed self-defense, as a natural right, is not to be taken lightly in the United States, even as it goes unrecognized in other western nations, including the Commonwealth Nations and countries of the EU. And it is unrecognized by the UN, as we pointed out in prior articles.The breadth and depth of High Court rulings is not to be considered a matter of academic interest to legal scholars and legal historians only—as rulings to be adhered to or not, or as stringently or not, as this or that lower Federal and State Court wishes.U.S. Supreme Court holdings often do have or should have, real impact on our Nation even as many jurisdictions routinely misconstrue them. But is this inadvertent or not? Do these jurisdictions deliberately twist, contort and distort Second Amendment Heller and McDonald holdings and reasoning they don’t like?Do these jurisdictions alter Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning to suit their personal fancy about guns and gun possession, thus allowing Anti-Second Amendment agendas can continue to be pursued, unimpeded? It would seem so.And, this, is, unfortunately, a disturbingly familiar occurrence we see with those government actions that infringe the core of the Second Amendment.

ON THE MATTER OF “NARROW” AND “BROAD” U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS

But what constitutes a narrow or broad U.S. Supreme Court holding, really? What does the expression “narrowly tailored ruling” mean?This often perplexes the Federal Appellate Courts.See, e.g., United States vs. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010). The Seventh Circuit opined,“We do not think it profitable to parse [all the] passages of Heller as if they contained an answer to [all] the question[s] [of what] is valid. They are precautionary language. Instead of resolving questions such as the one we must confront, the Justices have told us that the matters have been left open. The language we have quoted warns readers not to treat Heller as containing broader holdings than the Court set out to establish: thatthe Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates, and what regulations legislatures may establish, were left open. The opinion is not a comprehensive code; it is just an explanation for the Court's disposition. Judicial opinions must not be confused with statutes, and general expressions must be read in light of the subject under consideration.”So, if the issue of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in the home is, as the 7th Circuit says, meant to be broadly construed—then why is it that some jurisdictions routinely choose to ignore Heller?The answer is plain: because they can and because they want to.NJ S.B. 3757 is a blatant example of this practice. The language of this bill is, in its import, essentially a rehash of the original D.C. handgun bill that the High Court struck down as unconstitutional.Many jurisdictions across the Country loathe the Second Amendment. And it is apparent that, given this loathing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they pretend Heller and McDonald don’t exist. This blatant dismissal of these two seminal cases enrages Justices Thomas and Alito to no end, and justifiably so.But the U.S. Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism to see to it that its Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning are adhered to.Lower Courts are required to adhere to precedential rulings of higher Courts in their jurisdiction. And all Courts, State and Federal, are required to adhere to U.S. Supreme Court rulings. They are obligated to but often do not.Courts, in a very real sense, are merely on the honor system in this regard. They may be roundly chastised for failing to adhere to higher Court rulings, and should be, but, really, the worst that happens is these Court holdings are, simply, overturned on appeal.Jurists who flagrantly fail to adhere to precedential rulings get a pass. They have absolute immunity from liability.And, as we have heretofore pointed out, even if the High Court rulings were truly expansive, it is unlikely that Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions will pay heed to those rulings. They will attempt to find ways around them just as they have done with the rulings in Heller and McDonald; treating them with the same disdain and incredulity; rendering opinions that serve merely to torture and obfuscate the rulings and reasoning of the High Court. Nothing is likely to change as long as the citizenry keeps voting into Office individuals who support the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist agenda.Anti-Second Amendment State legislatures that enact laws that violate the core of the Second Amendment continue the practice because they know their Courts will uphold the constitutionality of illegal laws if challenged. Thus, plaintiffs who might otherwise challenge the constitutionality of gun laws that flagrantly defy the Second Amendment and blithely ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent must think twice before doing so. They know they have an uphill battle.The attendant time wasted for plaintiffs, who challenge unconstitutional government gun regulations, and the attendant monetary costs associated with bringing such actions, are significant, and will usually amount to wasted effort.State and local Governments know this as do Anti-Second Amendment members of Congress.One must appeal to the next higher Court to obtain relief from adverse lower Court decisions. And Appellate Courts will often just rubber-stamp decisions of the Trial Courts. And, appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court for review is, especially, no easy task. It is time-consuming and extremely expensive. And the High Court grants review in a pitifully small number of cases.It would be nice if the High Court could issue orders sua sponte, enjoining Governments from enacting laws that blithely ignore its Second Amendment Heller and McDonald rulings. But the Court cannot do this.Indeed, it would require a separate office within the Court just to keep tabs on all the unconstitutional actions of the State and Federal Governments and of the erroneous rulings coming out of lower Courts.But the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority even to efficiently monitor unconstitutional actions of government and erroneous rulings of lower Courts that negatively impact the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even if it had the wherewithal and resources to keep tabs on unconstitutional gun laws.And within the High Court itself, several of the Justices all too often interpose their own philosophical prejudices and biases on the Second Amendment issues to be decided. And those prejudices and biases come into play even in the very construction of the legal issues.This has disturbing implications for Bruen. We discuss this matter in the next segment and in future articles._______________________________________________

THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT WITH THE HELP OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONSTRAINS BRUEN

PART FOUR

It is a rather curious thing, when one stops to think about it, that the broad right of self-defense, and the narrower fundamental right contained in it and inextricably bound to it—the fundamental, natural, and unalienable right of armed self-defense—would have to come up for review by the U.S. Supreme at all. After all, the right of self-defense/the right of self-preservation and the concomitant natural right of armed self-defense are axiomatic; self-evident true.One would think that, a Country such as ours, with a rich heritage of cherishing natural rights, would not have to suffer enactment of laws that place so many hurdles in the path of citizens who wish nothing more than to be able to exercise the rights the Bill of Rights guarantees them. The Second Amendment, though, is treated by those jurisdictions, controlled by Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists as an outlier, even an outcast—a thing inconsistent with international norms and, so, something to be mercilessly attacked and eventually abrogated. Will this change?Many people, both proponents of the natural right of armed self-defense and its detractors, expect a decision in Bruen, when handed down next summer, will be expansive and all-encompassing and resurrect the Second Amendment’s status as a cherished right—a right absolutely essential to the maintenance of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic and for the preservation of the Nation in the form of a free Republic for centuries to come.But, even with an expected Conservative wing majority, a positive decision will likely not be as broad-based and all-encompassing as proponents of the Second Amendment yearn for and expect and as the Amendment’s opponents anticipate and dread.Assume, for purpose of argument, that the High Court does strike down New York City’s notoriously oppressive and repressive “may issue” requirements involving the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses outright. How will this impact similar statutes in other “may issue” jurisdictions? The answer is clear.The Bruen ruling won’t affect other “may-issue” jurisdictions. It won’t affect the prerogative of State and Local Governments in these other jurisdictions that have, in place, their own may-issue procedures. The Chief Justice and the liberal wing of the Court have seen to that in having reframed the issue, as we explain below.A ruling for Plaintiff Petitioner would probably, at best, only serve to strike down unconstitutional procedures established by the City’s gun Licensing Division. Such a ruling would not logically or legally entail the dissolution of “may issue” regulations. It would just impact the particular procedures the City presently employs when rendering its decision.In order for a Bruen majority opinion ruling to be compelling, it would have to be all-encompassing. This means the Court would have to rule that the very notion of “may issue” concealed handgun carry licenses, instead of “shall issue” concealed handgun carry licenses—in the absence of major failings in a person, including, for example, a felony conviction, a dishonorable discharge from the military, mental incompetence, or illegal alien residency in the Country—are logically inconsistent with the import of the right codified in the Second Amendment regardless of procedures utilized. See, 18 USCS § 922(g).And the Court should render a ruling on this because geographical constraints on the exercise of armed self-defense are absurd.For, if a law-abiding, rational, responsible person has the right to preserve his or her life and safety with a firearm, being no threat to another innocent person, how is one’s life and safety to be adduced more valuable in one locale—one’s home say—but not in another locale, i.e., outside one’s home.The Court should respond to this but won’t do that, and the reason is plain: Built-in constraints due to the framing of the issue before the Court preclude a decisive ruling on the exercise of armed self-defense outside one’s home.That is not to say all the Justices would be pleased by this, for the idea behind “may issue” impacts and infringes the very core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. “May issue” is an affront to the Second Amendment and logically contradicts the very import and purport of the sacred right.From their writings and musings on the Second Amendment, Justices Alito and Thomas would, if they could, strike down “may issue” gun regulations across the board, both as utilized in the City of New York and around the Country. But they can’t. Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court have seen to this.Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court were keenly aware of the ramifications of a major ruling on New York City’s “may issue” regimen if “may issue” were on the table. These Justices abhor other profound rulings as in Heller and McDonald. The entire legality of “may issue” should have been on the table. It should have been on the table, but it isn’t.Roberts and the liberal wing had thought very carefully through this, and they made sure that “may issue” gun licenses would not be targeted, even as Plaintiff Petitioner brought the very issue of “may issue” to the fore, as the question goes to the heart of whether, or to what extent, there should be limitations on where the right of armed self-defense is to be exercised.There should be no geographical parameters defined apropos of one’s exercise of the right of armed self-defense but there will be.____________________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT DIDN’T LIKE THE ISSUE AS PETITIONERS PRESENTED IT IN BRUEN

PART FIVE

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE LIBERAL WING DEMANDED THE ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED, BE RECAST, TO MAKE IT PALATABLE TO THEM

The question for review, succinctly but broadly presented by Petitioner in his Brief in Corlett(recaptioned Bruen) was,“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”This is a broad-based issue that questions the legality/constitutionality of may issue/atypicality requirements, on any conceivable interpretation.The issue as presented to the Court is meant to question the constitutionality of “may issue” concealed handgun carry regimes not only in New York City but in every jurisdiction in the Land. And that is precisely what Petitioners set out to do.The Bruen Petitioners clearly and concisely challenged the idea of Anti-Second Amendment proponents that an unassailable right of armed self-defense does not extend beyond the doorstep of one’s home.Recall that the Heller Court confined its ruling on the geographical perimeters of armed self-defense to the issue at hand: whether an individual has a right of immediate access to a handgun for self-defense inside one’s home.In answering that question, many jurisdictions interpreted the ruling as applying only to the District of Columbia, when the Court never stated or implied that the ruling on the right of immediate access to a firearm inside one’s home is directed to the District of Columbia gun codes and doesn’t implicate similar gun codes or laws in other jurisdictions. In fact, the implication is that the right of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in one’s home does apply to all jurisdictions.Many State Governments and State and Federal Courts also interpreted the Heller decision as suggesting that a right of armed self-defense doesn’t extend beyond the doorstep to one’s home, regardless of the jurisdiction, but is to be confined—if there is to be such a recognized right at all—only to one’s home.But that idea is simply wrong. The High Court’s silence on the issue meant only that the issue was not before the Court. So, nothing further was to be presumed or deduced from that ruling.New Jersey’s bill, S. 3757, requiring disassembly of firearms in one’s home erroneously presumes the Heller ruling was meant to apply very narrowly only to the District of Columbia. Either that or the New Jersey Legislature didn’t care if the Heller ruling was meant to apply to other jurisdictions, figuring that, if wrong about its application to other jurisdictions, it didn’t matter. The Legislature knew that, if S. 3757 were enacted, a gun owner, unhappy with the law, would have to challenge its constitutionality in Court to obtain recourse—a time-consuming and expensive ordeal.Yet, one’s right of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in one’s home is not to be presumed to be locale-specific. The ruling applies to all jurisdictions, albeit tacitly, but still unmistakably, by logical implication. Still, the Heller Court ruling didn’t expressly assert the universality of the ruling. It should have done so. The Court should have articulated clearly and categorically that its ruling on one’s Constitutional right of immediate access to a handgun inside the home, for purpose of self-defense—although directed to the D.C. gun codes—was meant to apply, as a general holding, throughout the Country. But the Court didn’t do that.Likely Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito wanted to make the ruling unambiguous on that score but could not do so if they were to gain a majority. That would require positive votes from Chief Justice Roberts and from Justice Kennedy, and those Justices wanted the ruling to remain narrow and nebulous as to its application in other jurisdictions. The only clearly broad-based holding in Heller is that where the Heller Court held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one’s service in a militia.As to the impact of specific rulings on the D.C. gun codes on other jurisdictions, for one to infer or assume that the rulings on the D.C. gun code rulings do not apply and were not meant to apply outside the District is implausible, but theoretically possible—hence the draft legislation in New Jersey:S. 3757. And that follows from the fact that the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kennedy wanted to make clear that the Heller ruling was not intended to constrain the right of States to regulate the citizen’s access to guns. That message came out loud and clear and Justice Scalia was compelled to make that assertion explicit, assertingAnd this takes us back to Bruen.On granting the writ for certiorari in Bruen, on April 26, 2021, the Court recast the salient issue very narrowly: “Granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of Petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court “gamed the system,” even though some legal scholars don’t wish to acknowledge this and some patently deny it.Amy Howe, for one, erstwhile preeminent editor and reporter of SCOTUSblog, who regularly covers U.S. Supreme Court cases, and who ostensibly has an inside track on the musings of the High Court, made light of the Court’s recasting of the issue. Howewrites, in part, “After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall with a decision expected sometime next year.” But will Bruen lead to a landmark ruling? Is this recasting of the issue in Bruen a big deal? Amy Howe, apparently, doesn’t think it is, or at least, won’t admit it if she harbors any reservation about it. But we do believe the matter is a big deal and are not reticent about asserting this. If this recasting of the issue in Bruen amounted truly to a slightly narrower question, as Amy Howe asserts, then why would the Court bother to reconfigure the issue at all? The answer to this question is alluded in Heller, as we explain in the next segment.____________________________________

WHY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT INSISTED ON RECASTING THE LEGAL ISSUE IN BRUEN

PART SIX

To understand why Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court were adamant that the Bruen issue be recast narrowly and in the form that it was, it is necessary to go back to the reasoning in Heller. It is pertinent to the matter at hand to understand why the Court dealt with the paramount issue of whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one’s service in a militia because that wasn’t an issue in the case, as framed. In the opening sentences of Heller case, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said:“We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns.  It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited [citations omitted]. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods [citations omitted]. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, ‘unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device’ unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities [citation omitted].”The Heller majority opined that the District of Columbia’s total ban on handgun possession in the home along with the requirement of disassembly of all firearms in the home hit at the very heart of the Second Amendment, as the D.C. Government did intend for it to do.But, Justice Scalia, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, knew quite well, that it was impossible logically to rule against the District of Columbia’s draconian gun law without ruling on the ultimate issue—tantalizingly kept at bay since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791:Does the right of the people to keep and bear arms constitute an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia” or only a collective right, contingent on one’s service in a militia?Of course, to anyone with even a smidgeon of understanding of law and logic, and who is intellectually honest, knows that the import of the right as codified in the Second Amendment is clear on its face.But many academicians and many jurists, too, have for decades, erroneously treated the right as a “collective right” only. And they still maintain that, even after Heller made categorical and irrefutable what was already clear from the plain meaning of the Second Amendment’s language.One’s philosophical or emotional bent often gets in the way of one’s intellectual reasoning faculty.If proponents of the collective right thesis were correct, then any government regulation on gun ownership and possession must be construed as lawful and constitutional so long as a “rational basis” for the government action existed.This means that, while a collective right of the militia to keep and bear arms must be construed as a fundamental right and an action infringing that right would require stringent review of the government’s action, an individual’s right to keep and bear arms would not require such scrutiny. That is bizarre, to be sure, but that is consistent with the “collective right to keep and bear arms” thesis.Taking that thesis as true, arguendo, then an individual challenging the legality of government action, arguing an infringement of his right to keep and bear arms would not invoke stringent court review of the constitutionality of the Court action. A reviewing Court would only have to determine whether the government action bore a reasonable connection to achieving a legitimate State or Federal objective, nothing more. And That is an easy test to meet.Thus, if the Heller Court had not dealt with the underlying issue at the heart of the case—the case would have been decided much differently. The District of Columbia’s total ban on handguns would be ruled legal and Constitutional, as would the government’s requirement that all firearms be disassembled and not available for immediate self-defense use, even in the confines of one’s home. This is tantamount to denying a right to armed self-defense—period.Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito determined that they would not let the opportunity to decide the paramount Second Amendment issue pass. And, given the indomitability of Scalia’s will, and through the power and tenacity of his spirit, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, reluctantly went along. And, so, the Court majority ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia.But Justice Scalia is no longer with us. Can Justices Thomas and Alito take up the slack? Bruen likely won’t be the next blockbuster case supporting the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the extent that Heller is. And, a decision on the merits, unlike the New York Gun Transport case, will be forthcoming. The New York Government cannot amend the gun licensing scheme in a manner that would keep the entire structure intact as it did in the Gun Transport case.For “may issue” is really at the heart of New York’s licensing regime. If “may issue” goes, the entire New York handgun licensing structure comes crashing down._________________________________________

WHY ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES ABHOR AND FEAR HELLER

PART SEVEN

The U.S. Supreme Court, knows that the driving mechanism of the right of the people to keep and bear arms rests on the assumption, taken as axiomatic, self-evident true, that the right is grounded on the natural, fundamental right of armed self-defense that itself is inextricably bound to the basic right of self-preservation and personal selfhood, i.e., personal autonomy. The right exists inherently in each person as an individual Soul, as the Divine Creator intended.If the Second Amendment were to be treated as a “collective right,” that is tantamount to saying there is no right at all. The right would be nugatory, because  right would belong solely to the State, not to the person.The framers of the Constitution couldn’t have meant that. They didn’t put pen to paper just to waste ink. Moreover, such an interpretation would conflict with the very import of the Bill of Rights, essentially deflating the import of the entirety of it. For, without a personal right of armed self-defense, man is vulnerable to attack from predatory beast, which is bad; and from predatory man, which is worse; and  from the predatory government, which is worst of all.So, in Heller, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito took that opportunity—when it finally came around—to pointedly and decisively hold that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. This of, course, is plain from the text of the Second Amendment but since many courts and scholars choose to ignore it, pretending that the language of the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says, the High Court made the point clear, so that no one can conveniently obfuscate the meaning of the language.Note: the issue as to the meaning of the nature of the right of the people to keep and bear arms was never before the Heller Court. The only two issues before the Court were whether:“the total ban on handguns under D.C. Code §§ 7-2501.01(12), 7-2502.01(a), 7-2502.02(a)(4), as well as the requirement under D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 that firearms be kept nonfunctional, violated exercise of the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.”But, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito knew that striking down these Statutes would do little to constrain a government that abhors civilian citizen exercise of the Second Amendment right, unless the High Court made clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and not a privilege to be bestowed on a person by government prior to exercising the right.The District of Columbia would continue to enact new laws that did much the same thing as the old laws. Anti-Second Amendment Governments would have to exercise more discretion and creativity in denying Americans their God-given right.Once the right is understood clearly, succinctly, and unambiguously, to be an individual natural right, rather than a Government bestowed privilege, it is easy for reviewing courts to ascertain whether government action constrain exercise of the core individual right.Of course that should happen but didn’t happen. The recent New Jersey bill, for one, is evidence of  rabid disdain of many in Government toward the Second Amendment. It also demonstrates the tenacity of Anti-Second Amendment in continuing to drum up more and more unconstitutional codes, regulations, ordinances, and statutes despite of and in spite of the clear pronouncement in Heller. Resistance to Heller is obdurate.Still, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito had held out the hope that a clear and categorical pronouncement on the import of the Second Amendment would constrain resistant vocal forces in Government. And, in fact Anti-Second Amendment Courts cannot dismiss the salient holding of Heller out-of-hand, but must remark on it, even as they strain to uphold unconstitutional gun laws, as they continually do.Be that as it may—At least in Heller, with the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a collective right now, finally, laid to rest—and not to be denied out-of-hand the Heller Court could deal effectively with the issue at bar in Heller. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said,“We turn finally to the law at issue here.  As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.” But, the impact of Heller on Bruen may be minimal. Even if the High Court finds the New York City Rule to be unconstitutional and strikes it down, this only amounts to a finding simply that the decision on the Plaintiff Petitioners’ applications for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license was unconstitutional. An answer to the “narrow question” as reframed, only requires that; nothing more.At best, the High Court can, consistent with the rephrasing of the question on review, find the City’s procedures for determining whether an applicant meets the stringent requirements of ‘atypicality’ to be inadequate.If that is to happen, a remand of the case to the trial court would require the trial court to strike down the procedures now in place in New York City, and instruct the Government to promulgate new procedures for handling the licensing of concealed handgun carry licenses. This, unsurprisingly, is what the Respondents have requested. It would be a satisfactory win for them. For the constitutionality of atypicality would go unanswered: The handgun licensing structure of New York would remain intact; and the core issue the Petitioners wanted decided—an unqualified right of armed self-defense outside the home—would remain unresolved.And the redrafting of New York City’s “may issue” procedures would likely be no better than the ones currently in place, because the NYPD License Division would still retain authority to grant or reject applications: an inherently subjective judgment call.Moreover, the ramifications of “may issue” procedures only impact New York—consistent with the issue as restated. Other “may issue” jurisdictions can proceed as they always have.Anyone who questions “may issue” procedures in other jurisdictions would have to file their own challenges. This would necessitate another appeal, by another petitioner, to the High Court, requesting review of another “may issue” procedure of that other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdiction, assuming relief from a lower court is not forthcoming.The ensuing problems for Americans who simply seek to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms are endless and intractable. And the Court is not likely to take up a similar issue, leaving forever open the right of armed self-defense.But the most critical point to be made is one that no one else, to our knowledge has even considered. It is  that—The right of the people to keep and bear arms tacitly embraces the right of self-defense which entails the right of personal autonomy——the quintessential right upon which the sanctity and inviolability of one’s own Soul depends.The framers of the Constitution took that most basic of natural rights to be self-evident true. They took this fact to be so obvious that express mention of it was deemed unnecessary—even by the Antifederalist framers who demanded that several of the salient natural rights be codified.Thus, the Second Amendment expressly asserts and emphasizes only the need for the people to always be armed and at the ready to secure a free State, against incursion of tyranny of Government. It is for this reason that the people remain armed that the sanctity of their Selfhood can be free from Government intrusion and free from Government impediment: untouched, unsoiled, untrampled, undiminished.Having successfully fought off one tyrannical government, the founders of the Republic had dire concerns of any strong centralized government. Even with the checks and balances of the Federal Government they constructed, they knew that this Government, too, had within the seeds of it, the danger of tyranny—an unavoidable fact of the worst of human nature. An armed citizenry was the ultimate preventive medicine against that.But, if armed defense is contained and constrained within the confines of one’s home, then the implicit message is that no American has the unalienable right to employ defensive arms against tyranny of Government, for the structures of Government power exist outside one’s home.And containment of the Second Amendment and the panoply of other Rights of the Bill of Rights is just how Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists presently running the show in Government and throughout the Country intend to keep it at least for the time being, until such time as they consolidate enough control and power to erase all of it.___________________________________

DON’T EXPECT BRUEN TO BE THE DECISIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ONE’S SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT AS HELLER AND MCDONALD PROVIDED

PART EIGHT

The issue before the High Court, as reformulated, in Bruen, requires the Court only to determine whether the City’s rules for granting concealed carry handgun licenses are arbitrary and capricious.The Court thus leaves undecided the principal issue that the Petitioner wanted the Court to review, namely whether the right of armed self-defense extends beyond the confines of one’s home, making clear what the Heller Court didn’t rule on: the expansiveness of armed self-defense—beyond the confines of the home—as the founders of a free Republic understood the natural right.After all, what is one to make of saying a person has a right to armed self-defense in some places but not others, other than to reaffirm the right of Government to continue to place unconstitutional restrictions the on exercise of the right of armed self-defense. The idea is absurd on its face, and negatively implicates the very notion of self-defense, armed or otherwise.Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could write concurring opinions taking the Court to task for not ruling on the most important issue, whether armed self-defense extends everywhere; and probably will do this if one or the other Justice is not assigned to draft the majority opinion. But a concurrence would amount to dicta only, not a Court ruling.The High Court will most likely confine its ruling, or rulings, to addressing New York City’s “may issue” procedure, which is the way Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court had the issue restructured and that is what the Respondents wanted.This smacks of a “cop-out.” And we have seen this before, in the Court’s handling of the previous New York City Gun Transport case. That is what the Respondent City had in fact requested in oral argument. If the City gets that much, then they essentially win, and anti-Second Amendment advocates will breathe a collective sigh of relief. For, the salient issue, as to whether the right of the people to carry firearms for self-defense outside one’s home, which Heller didn’t address and, in fact, painfully avoided—as Roberts and Kennedy likely insisted upon—remained unexamined.And, this would be just as Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court would want to continue to leave it, as this would keep the perceived “damage” ofHeller and McDonald within rigid, narrowly defined contours.Anti-Second Amendment Courts and governments will continue operating as they have been operating all along: pretending Heller and McDonald never existed, and continually pressing for more and more repugnant, restrictive, repressive firearms' laws. And as those seminal Second Amendment cases have routinely been ignored, now one would add Bruen.This must have vexed Justice Scalia. The Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, compelled Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito to soften the impact of Heller, which, at its core made clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms rests well beyond the lawful ability of Government to abrogate. But tension would remain between the categorical natural right of the people to own and possess firearms and the desire of State Governments to exercise their own police powers to constrain and restrict the right to the point that the right would cease to exist. And, the Federal Government, for its part, would have its own reason to erase the idea of a right of the people to keep and bear arms that rests beyond the lawful power of that Federal Government to erase, modify, abrogate, dismiss, or simply ignore. For an armed citizenry would, in its very existence threaten tyranny. And that is something the Federal Government has always been uneasy with, and all the more so now, with Counterrevolutionary Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists hell-bent on disassembling a free Constitutional Republic and independent, sovereign nation-state that it may be successfully merged into a supra-national, transnational governmental construct.Did the late Justice Antonin Scalia surmise this? Did he see this coming? Did he attempt to prevent it? And did powerful, ruthless forces, beholding to no nation and to no set of laws recognize this, and initiate plans to prevent anyone and anything that might thwart their plans for a new political, social, economic, financial, cultural, and juridical governmental construct: a new world order. In such a scheme the concept of the nation-state is archaic, serving no functional purpose. And the idea of a people as sole sovereign ruling body over Government is particularly dangerous and abhorrent. _________________________________

THE HELLER CASE ILLUSTRATES THE TENSION AT WORK TODAY IN AMERICA, BETWEEN TRUE PATRIOTS WHO WISH TO PRESERVE THE NATION AS A FREE REPUBLIC AND THE TRAITORS INTENT ON DEMOLISHING ALL OF IT

PART NINE

In the last paragraph of the Heller majority opinion, one sees the results of the demand placed on Justice Scalia. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy compelled Scalia to expressly assert the right of States to exert control over the right of the people to keep and bear arms.There is manifest tension here between the right and of the individual to retain sole and absolute possession and control over and enjoyment of use in his firearms as his personal property and the State's opposition to the individual's absolute authority over his personal property rights in his firearms. The State insists on placing constraints on the exercise of the citizen's control over his own firearms, and the citizen insists on repulsing the State. Scalia was forced to make allowance for Government to constrain what is an irrefutable, absolute right. He was compelled to throw a bone to the Anti-Second Amendment Marxists and Globalists by making explicit the reference to “gun violence, they insisted on.But one also sees Scalia’s intention to have the last word, both alluding to and denying that the Second Amendment will not be made extinct—at least not on Scalia’s watch. The pity that this eminent, jurist, who had demonstrated true reverence for our Nation’s Bill of Rights would have no hand in penning an opinion in Bruen. That Justice Scalia is no longer with us, Americans are all the worst without him.For the danger of tyranny of Government is most acute today, and there is no greater need for an armed citizenry today, to thwart tyranny. And Justice Scalia knew this well. He ended the Heller majority opinion with these words: “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.  The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns [citation omitted]. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.  These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.  That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”Unfortunately for us Americans, the Second Amendment could very well go extinct given the current unhealthy climate in this Country, deliberately worsened through Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist provocation, driving the Country to a Civil War.Retired Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Stephen Breyer responded directly to Justice Scalia’s closing remarks in Heller. They caustically remonstrated against him, provoking him by asserting erroneously and absurdly that, to call the right of the people to keep and bear arms an individual right, is to have the Court create a right that doesn’t exist in the Bill of Rights. Really?And, Stevens and Breyer further insulted the late Justice by remarking that it is for Government to define the rights that the people have through the policy choices that Government makes. Justice Stevens and Breyer invoked the tired erroneous claim that whatever right to keep and bear arms exists in the Second Amendment,that right is a collective right, which is to say, a Government sanctioned privilege. In so saying they rebuked Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito, casually dismissing out-of-hand, the salient, paramount holding of Heller.In their joined Dissent, Stevens and Breyer write,“Untiltoday, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia.  The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations.  Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a ‘law-abiding, responsible citize[n]’ the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is ‘off the table.’    Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.”“I do not know whether today's decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the ‘breaking point’ envisioned by Justice Cardozo, but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.” Note, that Breyer, who still serves on the High Court, asserts his fear, in Heller, that the Court might actually proclaim that armed self-defense does exist outside the realm of one’s home.If Justice Scalia were still alive and serving on the Court, he would indeed make clear, in Bruen, that the right of armed self-defense outside the home is within the core meaning of the language of the Second Amendment. But, with Scalia gone, the Bruen case—that would have become the third seminal Second Amendment case—creating a triumphant Second Amendment Triumvirate of seminal cases, sanctifying the Bill of Rights, will not be.The Destroyers, Destructors, and Defilers of our Republic will continue pressing to wear down the American psyche and spirit.The Bruen rulings will likely amount to little more than a bee sting to the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, having little negative impact on New York, and no impact on Anti-Second Amendment Governments across the Nation and no discernible impact on Anti-Second Amendment forces in the Federal Government.The “atypicality” requirement will remain. Just the procedures in granting concealed handgun carry licenses in New York City would change.And nothing would change for other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions as they will retain their own “atypicality” requirements unless those procedures are successfully challenged in their own Courts of competent jurisdiction.All the problems attendant to the Federal and State Governments’ refusal to recognize the sanctity and inviolability of the right of the people to keep and bear arms will remain unscathed.And, from what we gather coming out of Biden’s maw and that of the illustrious Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, of late, the seeming impenetrable castle walls assiduously built by the Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning, remain under siege, and in danger of successful breach at the first opportunity._____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE WAS ON TRIAL IN THE RITTENHOUSE CASE; AND THIS TIME WE THE PEOPLE, WON!

A couple of days prior to the jury’s decision in the Rittenhouse case, the New York Times posted an editorial, titled, “The Truth About Kyle Rittenhouse’s Gun,” by Times Opinion Columnist, Farhad Manjoo. In part, the Columnist said this,“I’ve spent the past couple of weeks riveted by the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the white teenager who shot and killed two people and injured a third during a night of Black Lives Matter protests and civil unrest in Kenosha, Wis., last year.It was a turbulent case. For many days the prosecution was on the ropes — some of the state’s witnesses seemed to bolster the defense’s case that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. But on Monday, the lead prosecutor, Thomas Binger, offered a meticulously documented closing argument that deftly summarized all the ways Rittenhouse acted unlawfully. That’s because it cleverly unraveled some of the foundational tenets of gun advocacy: That guns are effective and necessary weapons of self-defense. That without them, lawlessness and tyranny would prevail. And that in the right hands — in the hands of the “good guys” — guns promote public safety rather than destroy it.In the Rittenhouse case, none of that was true. At every turn that night, Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle made things worse, ratcheting up danger rather than quelling it. The gun transformed situations that might have ended in black eyes and broken bones into ones that ended with corpses in the street. And Rittenhouse’s gun was not just a danger to rival protesters. According to his own defense, the gun posed a grave threat to Rittenhouse himself — he said he feared being overpowered and then shot with his own weapon.This is self-defense as circular reasoning: Rittenhouse says he carried a rifle in order to guarantee his safety during a violent protest. He was forced to shoot at four people when his life and the lives of other people were threatened, he says. What was he protecting everyone from? The gun strapped to his own body, the one he’d brought to keep everyone safe.” ~ Portions of an article from an Editorial appearing in The New York Times, on November 17, 2021, titled “The Truth About Kyle Rittenhouse’s Gun,” by Times Opinion Columnist, Farhad Manjoo.Well, the jury in the Rittenhouse case just blew this absurd New York Times editorial out of the water.At the core of the Second Amendment rests the right of self-defense. This isn’t a supposition. This isn’t theory. This isn’t opinion. And it certainly isn’t a mere fervent wish. Self-defense is at the heart of the inviolability of personhood; the sanctity of mind, body, and spirit.No other Nation on Earth, but the United States, talks about the Right of self-defense as a fundamental, unalienable, natural law right, and truly means it; has etched it in stone in its Constitution.What does the International Community have to say about this? Read all the documents you will, disseminated by the UN and the EU. They all go on about human dignity and the right to life, sure. But you will struggle to find one that even mentions the right of “self-defense.”You won’t see it. You won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. But, then, are not the words, “right to life” and “human dignity” vacuous in the absence of the inherent, natural, God-given right of self-defense to secure one’s life? And isn’t individual responsibility an important component in that equation?The Right of self-defense is embedded in the right of the people to keep and bear arms.A firearm is the best means of self-protection and has, for centuries, been thus.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is merely a reiteration of and reminder to Government that the Right of the people to keep and bear arms means the Right of self-defense, be it employment of self-defense against attack by beast, person, or the tyranny of Government.Make no mistake—the most cherished right of every human being was on trial in the Rittenhouse case: The right of self-defense.The seditious Press will play the outcome of this case as it has from the outset; as the aforementioned splice from The New York Times editorial presents—that the Rittenhouse case is about guns and the need to place further constraints on the Right to keep and bear them.That has been the messaging droning on, all along: guns promote lawlessness; guns threaten public safety and order; guns don’t belong in a civilized society; guns aggrandize vigilantism; and so on and so forth.But the Rittenhouse case isn’t really about guns. It never was.The case is about the inherent, natural, immutable, God-given Right of Self-Defense. And as the case proved, armed self-defense works damn well. Kyle Rittenhouse would have suffered serious injury and probable death had he not been armed. No question about it. No one seriously doubts it.A brave, young man, looking for neither glory nor condemnation, went to Kenosha, to protect the city of his father from destruction. He did that because the police couldn’t because an effete State Government wouldn’t let the police fulfill its main function; its official mandate: to protect the community it serves.The people themselves would have to step up, and one young man did.Many journalists and commentators will say, in the days, weeks, and months to follow, that the jury came to the wrong conclusions in each of the counts against Kyle Rittenhouse. Some, though, will admit that the case was a weak one from the start. The seditious Press will rant and rave, fume, and make excuses, and will issue dire warnings of what the outcome of this case portends for society, which undoubtedly the Press will, wittingly or not, foment.But the truth of the matter is that the case against Kyle was, from the start, not only weak, it was absurd.Video evidence alone demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that an angry mob, out for blood, intended to seriously injure or kill Kyle Rittenhouse. The mob was chasing after Kyle. Kyle wasn't chasing after them. Kyle did his level best to avoid confrontation. And that is a critical point where a person claims self-defense.The State’s case against Kyle was nonsensical from start to finish. It was an oblique attack on the inherent right of self-defense. But it was also a direct assault on civilian ownership and possession of firearms.The prosecution argued that, if a person has a right to self-defense, Kyle certainly didn’t because he didn’t play fair: he brought a gun to a knife fight, notwithstanding that one of the attackers did bring and did point a loaded handgun at Kyle.But the prosecutors never charged that third attacker, Grosskreutz, for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon. Strange that.The prosecutors created a story that Kyle, by carrying a rifle that night in Kenosha, was looking for trouble. The State constantly used a buzzword, “active shooter” to describe Kyle.The prosecutors employed rhetoric instead of reason to entice, seduce, and mislead the jury. It didn’t work. The jury saw through the sham. They were never taken in by it.And, fortunately, justice was served. The jury obeyed the instructions as given them by the Judge. The jury wasn’t deluded by Biden’s insulting and ludicrous and false assertion that Kyle is a “white supremacist” or by claims that the Rittenhouse case is all about vigilantism—as if any of that would or should have bearing on the case, anyway.But let’s cut to the chase. This case was and is about one thing: the right of self-defense, and whether the employment of it was reasonable under the circumstances. Wisconsin law is clear about this:

• Wis. Stat. § 939.48 Self-defense and defense of others, says this:

“A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.”The jury found that, on all Counts, Kyle Rittenhouse complied with the Wisconsin law of self-defense. He never shot to kill. He shot to stop aggressive attacks on life, and when the threat passed, Kyle stopped. And one should take careful note:Wisconsin law doesn’t assert or imply a limitation on the use of firearms for self-defense.On the contrary, the State Supreme Court of Wisconsin reiterated the right of armed self-defense.In the recent case, State vs. Roundtree, 395 Wis. 2d 94, 952 N.W.2d 765 (2021) the Court opined that “the core right identified in Heller, is ‘the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense. . . .’”See also State vs. Christen, 396 Wis. 2d. 705, 958 N.W.2d 746 (Wis. 2021), and note, once the defendant successfully raises the self-defense privilege, the State has the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. And that standard is a difficult one for the State to overcome. Moreover, if the State cannot meet the standard of proof, then the privilege automatically applies to any crime based on the conduct directed to the criminal charges.  “Wisconsin has codified the privilege of self-defense. § 939.48(1) (‘A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person.’). This self-defense privilege extends further in the context of the home where the privilege may include the presumptive right to use deadly force. See § 939.48(1m)(ar). When a defendant successfully raises the self-defense privilege, the State has the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, ¶106, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413. If the State cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the defendant did not act in self-defense then the self-defense privilege serves as ‘a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.’ § 939.45.” The jury, in the Rittenhouse case, obviously determined the prosecution failed to overcome the self-defense privilege in each of the charges brought against Kyle Rittenhouse involving the use of his weapon for self-defense. Hence, all the charges related to the use of his weapon for self-defense automatically drop.The Press will, no doubt, have a field day with this turn of events. Let us hope the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen, will recognize and make abundantly clear the right of armed self-defense doesn’t stop at the doorstep of one’s home.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.   

NEW YORK TIMES UNLEASHES ATTACK DOGS IN OP-ED ON EVE OF ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN BRUEN

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument today on the  Second Amendment case NYSRPA vs. Bruen (previously captioned NYSRPA vs. Corlett).This is the first major case to come before the High Court after Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joining the Liberal wing of the Court, punted on last year’s New York City Gun Transport case. Let’s hope the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kavanaugh don’t get cold feet this time.But there are enough Anti-Second Amendment fanatics, including, unfortunately, jurists and attorneys, waiting in the wings, to castigate the Justices if they should—horror of horrors—actually strike down unconstitutional laws.One can perhaps understand the “walking dead” among the living who pay too much attention to the nonsense spouted by jackasses in the Government, in the Press, in social media, and in Hollywood—allowing others to do their thinking for them. And the message is always the same:“Surrender your firearms and peace will rain down upon you from the heavens.” And “the walking dead” nod their heads in mindless, senseless bovine agreement.At one time the fiction might have been somewhat believable, even though patently untrue. That was in the day when communities actually had well-funded police departments to provide at least a modicum of security. Now, however, police departments in major cities are underfunded, defunded, and emasculated, or are on the verge of extinction.One is left to ask, plaintively: “who will protect me if there are no police around and I’m not permitted a handgun to protect myself?” And, one is left befuddled at the reply given him from the vacant-eyed cultists: “That’s your white privilege talking.”But, when some jurists and attorneys claim a person’s right to defend him or herself with a firearm must stop at the doorstep of one’s house, such an assertion is untenable and unconscionable.Yet, that is what the public gets.In an Op-Ed titled, “Prominent Conservatives Back Letting States Limit Guns in Public,” published in The New York Times, on November 2, 2021, one day before the oral hearing in Bruen, J. Michael Luttig, a former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, and Richard D. Bernstein, an appellate lawyer, make clear their disdain for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”They demonstrate their abhorrence of the unfettered Constitutional Right of Americans “to carry loaded concealed weapons in public and in public places, wherever and whenever they believe they might need their guns for self-defense.”They assert, “The announcement of such an absolute and unfettered right would be shocking and disquieting to most Americans. . . .” The appropriate, if curt, reply to this ridiculous remark is, “so what!”Since when is a decision on a fundamental, natural law Right to be treated like a Beauty Pageant—as a matter for popular acclaim?These two ostensible legal experts, continue:“The Supreme Court is not constitutionally empowered to make these decisions, and it is ill-suited to make them. For the justices to begin deciding for the people exactly where and when a person has a right to carry a handgun in public would be to establish the court as essentially a National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations, precisely the kind of constitutional commandeering of the democratic process that conservatives and conservative jurists have long lamented in other areas of the law, such as abortion. It would be hypocritical for this conservative court to assume what essentially would be a legislative oversight role over public-carry rights, when conservatives on and off the court have for almost 50 years roundly criticized the court for assuming that same role over abortion rights.”Former Judge Luttig and Attorney Bernstein simply construct a strawman to unceremoniously knockdown.The U.S. Supreme Court isn’t operating as a “National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations,” when deciding matters of Constitutional law. That IS precisely their Article 3 duty.Apparently, these learned gentlemen have forgotten what they came across during their first-year Constitutional law class: Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”This function and the sacred obligation of the Judiciary do not fall to Congress. It doesn’t fall to the U.S. President. It doesn’t fall to State and Local Governments. And it sure as hell doesn’t fall to an uninformed, angry mob.It is the duty solely of the U.S. Supreme Court, to interpret the law—to say what the law is.Yet, Luttig and Bernstein would dare deny the Court its Constitutional function. They don’t just suggest this. They blurt it out,“Conservatives, textualists and originalists believe — or should — that the Second Amendment ought not be interpreted to take from the people and their legislatures the historical and traditional authority they have had for centuries to decide where handguns may be carried in public and in public places.”They continue,“Historically and traditionally, legislatures have restricted the public carry of guns, from medieval England to colonial times, through the founding and to the present day. In fact, many of those early laws were more draconian than our own, banning the carry of guns in public places generally, without offering any exceptions like those New York provides for people who can demonstrate an actual need to defend themselves. Those restrictions extended far beyond public locations with a large and continuous armed police presence, such as government buildings and courthouses, to almost any public place — fairs, markets and indeed wherever a person would ‘go armed.’”Reliance on historical anecdote—and Luttig and Bernstein do not offer support for any of this—has limited prudential value at best. That is why originalists do not place much stock in it, and should not.In the first instance and in the final analysis, one should go to the written language of the law:The Second Amendment says,“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”Where in the language of the Second Amendment is there any statement of limitation on the exercise of the Right?The danger of overbearing Government action is most acute where fundamental rights are involved. Governments must act circumspectly. They rarely do. Government justification for infringing a fundamental right on the pretext of pragmatic expediency must be scrutinized by the Courts.New York gun legislation is a case study of heavy-handed action by the Government. The Second Amendment Right is converted into mere privilege and one that the Government rarely grants to the American citizen.Luttig and Bernstein apparently aren’t even aware that, in blindly defending the New York City handgun licensing scheme—requiring the applicant to show actual need before obtaining a concealed handgun license—they fail to see the inherent absurdity of it.Why should a person be forced to proffer a reason to a Government official that one’s life is worth defending with the best means available for doing so—a handgun? It presupposes one’s life isn’t really important. And, the entire exercise comes down to an arbitrary, perfunctory, and often futile and expensive ordeal for the citizen; one inviting corruption and unfair dealing of which the NYPD Licensing Division is notorious.Lastly, Luttig and Bernstein have the audacity to give advice to Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, attempting to thrust her own words back upon her. They assert,“Two years ago, then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett called English and founding era statutes ‘the best historical support for a legislative power’ to restrict firearms.”The case Luttig and Bernstein refer to is Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019).But, what Justice Barrett said, in her dissenting opinion, apropos of that passage, in full, is that:“The best historical support for a legislative power to permanently dispossess all felons would be founding-era laws explicitly imposing—or explicitly authorizing the legislature to impose—such a ban. But at least thus far, scholars have not been able to identify any such laws. The only evidence coming remotely close lies in proposals made in the New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania ratifying conventions.”Justice Barrett wasn’t advocating for use of historical support for legislative power to curb the exercise of one’s Second Amendment right. On the contrary, she was claiming the jurist should be wary of relying on it.In the case before the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett argued for the reinstatement of Plaintiff Kanter’s right to own and possess a firearm; not to dispossess him of it. She concluded her dissent, saying,“Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,’ and he is ‘employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond  with lower rates of recidivism.’ Absent evidence that Kanter would pose a risk to the public safety if he possessed a gun, the governments cannot permanently deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms.”Luttig and Bernstein should have given proper context to Justice Barrett’s dissenting opinion in Kanter, or have shown her the courtesy to refrain from quoting her at all.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.            

AMERICA: “A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC—IF YOU CAN KEEP IT!”

PART ONE

DO NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS AND NEO-MARXISTS HONESTLY BELIEVE AMERICANS WILL MEEKLY SURRENDER THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES?

“‘The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’”  ~quotation from an article by John F. McManus, published on November 6, 2000, in The New American, referencing an “exchange . . . recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review.”Benjamin Franklin’s seemingly droll, yet, at once, sagacious response to Mrs. Powel’s query as to the salient nature of our new independent sovereign Nation, “A Republic If You Can Keep It,” echoes down from the ages to this precarious moment in our Nation’s history.While most Americans do fervently wish to retain our Nation in the form the founding fathers bequeathed to us, a free Constitutional Republic, some there are who do not. Their hostility toward the Nation’s continued existence as a free Constitutional Republic is both intense and blatant; and disturbingly, they control the Government, the legacy Press, social media, our educational system, and our financial system; and, most importantly, many of the “TOP BRASS” of the military.These would-be Destructors and Obstructors of our free Republic are ruthless, even rabid in their condemnation of our Country’s history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethic. They intend to destroy all of it. To date, they have undermined much of it, and they have corrupted the minds of many Americans: youth, adolescents, and adults alike.They have corrupted innocent, impressionable school-age children, who are unable to comprehend the poisoning of their young minds. They have corrupted undergraduate university youth, who—so enthralled with and enraptured by a Marxist college professor’s pretentious, false erudition—are unable to recognize and therefore appreciate the difference between a cogent, logical, sound argument on the one hand, and what amounts to elaborate, artful sophistry, on the other. And they have corrupted tens of millions of adults—those too simple-minded to notice, or too gullible to accept the mounting evidence before them; or those who feel too intimidated or threatened to voice an objection, or simply too jaded to care.Yet there are many Americans who do see the Nation transforming into a disgusting, leprous monstrosity. There are Americans who have taken notice of the dire threat to the Republic and cannot and will not deny the truth. They do care, and this is what they see: Two mutually exclusive, antagonistic visions for America; the one in open conflict with the other. Only one WILL prevail. Only one CAN prevail—One pure and sanctified by the Lord; the other a product of the Beast, the defilement of nature, the poisoning of all that is good and proper in America.See the Arbalest Quarrel articles, detailing the distinguishing features of INDIVIDUALISM and COLLECTIVISM in “The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies;” posted on October 6, 2018; and our prescient article on the dismantling of the Nation, “In the Throes of America’s Modern-Day Civil War,” posted on October 28, 2018.One vision holds true to the Declaration of Independence and to the United States Constitution. That vision preserves the Nation in the form the founders gave to us and intended for us: an independent sovereign nation-state and free Republic, grounded on the tenets and precepts and principles of INDIVIDUALISM, sanctified by the Divine Creator.The other vision looks to the Communist Manifesto for guidance. That vision portends the end of a free Constitutional Republic and, further, the end of the very concept of a nation-state and true morality. The political, social, and economic scheme envisioned is diametrically opposed to that of a free Republic and a sovereign people, a vision of America grounded on the tenets and precepts of COLLECTIVISM; the needs, wishes, and concerns of the individual not only denigrated but denied.The Collectivist vision eschews individual needs, wants, and desires as irrelevant and antithetical to the goals of COLLECTIVISM. It is a vision of America that denies and rejects the Divine Creator outright, and worships, instead, such false gods as Satan, Mammon, and Asmodeus: the gods of wrath, greed, and lust.The architects of this new model for America view people as little more than cattle. People are herded into groups. Uniformity and conformity of thought and conduct are engineered into society to better effectuate control. The enslavement of mankind is the result. The subjugation of man’s will and spirit is the end goal.George Orwell, in his epochal work, “1984”, published in 1949, showed the FACE of the BEAST; and Taylor Caldwell displayed the BEAST’S UNDERBELLY, in her monumental work, “Captains and the Kings,” published in 1972.One cannot but wonder that some Americans would willingly surrender their Fundamental Rights and Liberties and forsake the sanctity and inviolability of the individual spirit for a life of servitude and perpetual misery under transnational alien rule—all for a few crumbs doled out by a Nanny State guilefully intent on keeping the polity indolent, somnolent, and dependent. It is happening even now.Is it not true the United States became the wealthiest, most productive, and most powerful Nation on Earth—the veritable envy of the world—through the foresight of the Nation’s founders, who fashioned a Country, unlike any other then existent or presently existent on Earth?The founders fashioned A TRULY FREE REPUBLIC, WHERE THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE SOVEREIGN, NOT TYRANTS. They were of one mind against the construction of a MONARCHY, DIARCHY, TRIARCHY, OLIGARCHY or other AUTOCRATIC, DICTATORIAL “—ARCHY,” composed of plutocrats or monarchists who would, through those systems, systematically and brutally oppress, repress, and suppress the human will and spirit—all ostensibly, as they would no doubt tell themselves—for the well-being of a proper, well-ordered, well-engineered, society, operating in a perpetual, albeit meaningless, vacuous stasis.Prime examples of the sort of governmental schemes the framers of the Constitution would abhor include the LENINIST/STALINIST REGIME imposed on the people of Russia, and the MAOIST DICTATORSHIP imposed on the people of China.How well did these seemingly harmonious societal constructs pan out? How well are they working out now? How are the TOTALITARIAN regimes of Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries across the globe doing?How is it that those who viciously condemn our Nation’s history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethic, can explain away the fact that so many people in countries around the world seek to come to ours if our Nation is such a terrible place to anchor as the haters of our Country proclaim? The answer is: they cannot do so, and they do not even try. Rather, they simply create false narratives of America as a racist Nation; an ignoble Nation; a Nation that lacks, in their words, proper “DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION.” Yet, what DO THEY REALLY MEAN by those words, in practice, that they plaster all over the place? We have a pretty good clue given what we have seen. It is all a façade:

• ‘DIVERSITY’ REALLY MEANS ‘NON-ASSIMILATION’ AND ‘SOCIETAL CHAOS’

• ‘EQUITY’ REALLY MEANS ‘INEQUITY,’ ‘INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY,’ AND ‘SOCIETAL IMBALANCE’

• ‘INCLUSION’ REALLY MEANS ‘EXCLUSION’ AND ‘REJECTION’

We, as a Nation, have come full circle, from 1776 to 2021: from the inception of our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic to the possible collapse of it.Are Americans witnessing the death throes of a free CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, and doing so in REAL-TIME?Just as Americans now seek to preserve a Republic from those who seek to wrest it from our grasp, back then there were colonists who sought to sever ties with Great Britain and there were those who sought to retain those ties. See the article on the website revolutionary-war.net.“The Revolution is usually portrayed as a conflict between the Patriots and the British. But there is another narrative: the bloody fighting between Americans, a civil war whose savagery shocked even battle-hardened Redcoats and Hessians. As debate and protests evolved into war, mudslinging and rhetorical arguments between Rebels and Tories evolved into tar-and-feathering, house-burning, and lynching.The colonists themselves were divided. Tories were colonists who helped and even fought with the British during the American Revolutionary War. Also known as Loyalists for their loyalty to the British crown, their contention with the Whigs (Patriots) was so intense that their savage fighting can justly be called America’s first civil war.By one process or another, those who were to be citizens of the new republic were separated from those who preferred to be subjects of King George. Just what proportion of the Americans favored independence and what share remained loyal to the British monarchy there is no way of knowing. The question of revolution was not submitted to popular vote, and on the point of numbers we have conflicting evidence. On the patriot side, there is the testimony of a careful and informed observer, John Adams, who asserted that two-thirds of the people were for the American cause and not more than one-third opposed the Revolution at all stages.”And, now today, there are Americans, most of us, who wish to preserve the Republic. They are the true Patriots, true to the vision of the founders of the Republic, true to the tenets and precepts of INDIVIDUALISM the blueprint of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, and its Bill of Rights. And, then there are those, the Collectivists; those who intend to unwind the Republic and to rend the Constitution as the Constitution is wholly inconsistent with the tenets and precepts of COLLECTIVISM.Among those who seek to destroy a free Republic and independent sovereign Nation-State, there are various factions. They include, inter alia, Neoliberal Globalists, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, and Maoists, Leninists, Stalinists, and Trotskyites—all bound by a common desire to bring to a close the era of a free Republic forged in steel on THAT FATEFUL DAY of JULY 4, 1776, that ushered in the AMERICAN REVOLUTION and the Birth of a new Nation, conceived in LIBERTY. But, the Collectivists of the 21^st Century in America disparage it; want none of it; are bent on destroying all of it.The COLLECTIVISTS are a selfish lot. The COLLECTIVIST MEGA-BILLIONAIRE NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST FINANCIERS AND CORPORATISTS, never sated, want to control ALL copper, gold, silver, platinum coinage, and, by flooding the market with worthless paper, i.e., “Federal Reserve Notes,” reduce the American polity to a state of abject poverty, penury, indigence, and misery, and despair, completely dependent on Government largess for basic survival.And the POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTIONIST COLLECTIVISTS look forward to a day when they can lower the American Flag one last time; celebrate the fall of the Republic; and observe the remains of the United States, “ONE NATION, UNDER GOD,” at long last merged into a mammoth global political, social, economic, transnational Governmental scheme—a new regime; one devoid of the very concept of an American citizenry, and of an American ethos, and of an American psyche, and of a Nation sanctified by the Divine Creator.Unfortunately, many Americans, while definitely loath to sacrifice a free Constitutional Republic, feel helpless to prevent its demise and, so, have resigned themselves to accept defeat. Still, there are those Americans who will fight, as the Patriots of old, to protect their birthright.THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776 PRESERVED versus THE NEO-MARXIST INTERNATIONALISTS’ COUNTERREVOLUTION OF 2021 ATTEMPT AT REVERSALDo Americans retain and maintain their Republic as founded or allow it to be extinguished, erased, abandoned? WHICH SHALL IT BE?____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

“THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS”: STEPHEN HALBROOK’S NEW BOOK IS A MUST-READ!

By Stephen L. D’Andrilli, President,Arbalest Group LLC.The title of Stephen P. Halbrook’s new book is the very question at issue in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, which the United States Supreme Court recently decided it would hear in its next term. The timing and importance of both the book and this case couldn’t have been better! See Arbalest Quarrel article on the Corlett case, titled, “Supreme Court to Take Up New York Second Amendment Case At Last!” In Corlett, the applicant for a concealed carry handgun license was denied a license for lacking “good cause” – a purely subjective requirement established by New York State’s highly discretional firearms licensing scheme. The decision, in this case, could strike down, as unconstitutional, Government infringement on a fundamental right – both in New York and in other “may-issue” states throughout the Country where similar practices prevail. What happened in Corlett could happen to you, too!It has been over a decade since the High Court ruled on a major Second Amendment case.In 2008, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, “held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”The judicial interpretative methodology used by the Court’s majority was based on “text, history, and tradition” and the Court’s majority rejected the judge-empowering interest-balancing inquiry, too often used by liberals, which defers to legislatures to decide if various interests outweigh recognition of a Constitutional right.Two years later, in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, “the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and that the Second Amendment was fully applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court also made clear that this right is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition.The High Court rejected out-of-hand the City’s argument that the Court, “in effect . . . treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class [“watered down”] right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. The Court also, as it did in Heller, “expressly rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment right should be determined by judicial interest balancing.”It’s mind-boggling that some federal and state courts resist these Supreme Court holdings and render conflicting decisions, dismissing fundamental rights that are plainly stated in the Constitution, while inventing others that do not exist in the Constitution.Halbrook’s book serves as a literary weapon in support of our Second Amendment right by clearly identifying what the Second Amendment means and requires.The Corlett case and Halbrook’s book comes to us at a time when the Bill of Rights in its entirety – all ten of them – are on trial!The very soul of our Nation and the meaning of what it is to be “an American” is constantly and relentlessly challenged by well-organized and well-funded Progressive Left-Wing and outright Marxist and Anarchist groups such as BLM and Antifa.These groups promulgate and agitate for “Wokeness” and “Cancel Culture.” They demand the Nation’s institutions implement fictional doctrines such as “Critical Race Theory,” and “the 1619 Project.” They attack dissenting viewpoints with insulting claims of “White Extremism” and “White Supremacy.” They create “Defund the Police” and “Dismantle Police” campaigns. They have gone as far as infiltrating our military with their “patriot extremism.” This threatens our Country. If they weaken our military, we are undone. And they deliberately sow discord and suspicion among Americans to weaken the Country to further their Radical Left agenda.Crime is not only on the rise and has reached historical proportions in major cities across our Country. True as that is, Americans were always mistaken in their belief that they can rely on the police to protect them. The police have no duty to provide protection for individuals, except in rare circumstances.The salient function of the police is to provide general protection for the communities they serve, not to guarantee the safety of individuals within the community. They aren’t personal bodyguards for average Americans.See the following three Arbalest Quarrel articles on the role of the police and the role of the citizen on the matter of personal safety, published on Ammoland Shooting Sports News:“Can We, As Individuals, Rely On The Police To Protect Us,” referencing an article co-authored by Stephen L. D’Andrilli and David Kopel B. Kopel, titled, “Personal Safety: Individual Responsibility,” that is as relevant today as it was when it appeared over thirty years ago, in the May 1989 issue of “Women and Guns;” and, two,“Police Have No Duty To Secure The Life Of Americans From Threat Of Physical Harm;” and, three,“The Government Cannot Protect You! You Must Protect Yourself!”But now, with calls made to defund the police and reduce the number of police, the public cannot even rely on the police to provide even a modicum of general protection for the community, which is and always has been their main function. It is the police who are “handcuffed,” not the criminal element.This means that now, more than ever, people must assume responsibility for their own safety and well-being. And many more Americans recognize this, and they want to own a firearm for personal protection.This turn of events disturbs Radical Left politicians and fanatical Radical Left-wing groups as they intend to prevent average Americans from exercising their Second Amendment right of self-defense to carry a handgun, the best means available for ensuring one’s life.Radical Left-wing politicians and groups obviously don’t care about the life and well-being of individuals. That idea is, after all, contrary to the tenets of Marxism. All they care about is furthering their agenda and wielding increasingly more power and control over the American people — a desire that is insatiable.And this comes at a time when Radical Left Soros funded “prosecutors” refuse to prosecute even the most violent criminals, and release more and more of them out on the streets to prey on innocent Americans. But this, too, is part of the Radical Left agenda. It is all designed to keep the public off guard, in a constant state of bewilderment and fear, as the fabric of society unravels.Meanwhile, the police are constrained from providing even minimal community protection, given draconian policy directives and for fear, not unreasonable, that Radical Left politicians will second-guess their every move and treat them as the criminal element rather than as society’s protector.Since Radical Left politicians fear an armed citizenry more than they do hardened criminals, the public is left essentially defenseless. This is contrary to the Nation’s history and heritage, which Stephen Halbrook lays out in a comprehensive, scholarly manner.He explains clearly and convincingly the import of the right to bear arms and its practice, from its origins in England – going back as far as the early 1300’s – through colonial America, and then through ratification of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, up to the present day. His thorough analysis includes references to and explanations of important state and federal court cases.Given the danger presented to the Nation due to a rampaging Radical Marxist agenda, permeating society from the highest levels of the Federal Government to the local government level, and given dramatic increases in violence on our streets, the Nation’s need for Stephen Halbrook’s book is pressing. The material presented directs the public’s attention back to where that attention needs to be directed: toward an understanding of and appreciation of our Nation’s historical roots.The information provided in Halbrook’s book should be shared by everyone – regardless of political or ideological persuasion – all who truly value and appreciate the freedom, liberties, and rights we enjoy in America.Buy a copy and read it now!____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT WOULD MICROSTAMPING DO TO STOP RISING VIOLENT GUN CRIME? NOTHING!

In the immortal words of New York Yankees legend Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” Anti-Second Amendment forces are at it once more, attempting to get the jump on enforcing the “Microstamping” of all semiautomatic handguns.It is a curious thing that, with rising violent crime in Democrat-controlled jurisdictions, Democrats continue to blame society’s violence on firearms. They blame rising violent crime on the police. They blame it on “systemic racism.” They blame it on “white supremacists.” They blame it on Trump. They blame it on Republicans. They “Blame It On The Bossa Nova.” The Democrats in Congress and in the States, along with the teeming mass of Progressives and Marxists throughout the Country and the seditious Press, continue to blame society’s ills on anyone and anything but where the fault truly rests: on themselves and on their own miserable, flawed, bankrupt political, social, and economic philosophy, grounded on the tenets of Collectivism.In an article posted yesterday on Ammoland, the NRA-ILA pointed to the Democrat Party-controlled State Legislature in Albany that will soon vote on three Anti-Second Amendment bills that recently passed out of Senate Committee. One of these three bills, the Microstamping of semiautomatic handguns, is nothing new. California was the first out of the gate with this when then California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed it into law in 2007.An odd thing about that 2007 California law, apart from the fact that it would do nothing to reduce gun crime, is that it could never be enforced because the microstamping technology has patent law protection.In June 2014, in a comprehensive article titled, “Microstamping: What Is It? Does It Work? Why Have It?”, detailing the many problems associated with the technology, the Arbalest Quarrel wrote, in pertinent part:“At the time of the publication of [Dorothy] Kenney’s law journal article, [Firearm Microstamp Technology: Failing Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 38, Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. (2012)], California’s microstamp technology law was in effect and had been in effect, thanks – or no thanks – to then Governor Schwarzenegger’s having signed it into law in 2007. And, Kenney said, that, ‘while the Microstamp technology law is currently in effect in California, it is owned solely by a company called Identification Dynamics, LLC, which recently acquired the U.S. patent. However, the California legislature required the Attorney General to certify that the technology was available to more than one [gun] manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions before it could take effect. In essence, the requirement does not activate until Microstamping is outside of patent protection but the manufacturing company has a patent on it that runs until approximately 2023. Thus far, this certification requirement has not been satisfied so the legislation is practically nonfunctioning.’ Be that as it may, on May 17, 2013, Rochelle C. East, the Chief Deputy Attorney General did certify, under California Penal Code Section 31910, Subdivision (b)(7)(A), that very technology. The Chief Deputy Attorney General, Rochelle, said in important part: ‘The California Department of Justice has conducted a review of the known available patent restrictions applicable to the microscopic-imprinting technology described in §31910, Subdivision (b)(7)(A). Based on this review, the department certifies that, as of May 17, 2013, this technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions.’” In that same AQ article, we also pointed out that, “Apparently, New York is relying on the certification report that the Chief Deputy Attorney General of California published, as New York drafts its own legislation, mandating adoption of microstamping technology in its own State.” An excerpt of the AQ article appeared on Ammoland Shooting Sports News on June 30, 2014; and, on September 27, 2014, Arbalest Quarrel’s President, Stephen L. D’Andrilli, delivered an address on microstamping of firearms at the 29th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Chicago, Illinois. AQ posted, the day before, a summary of Stephen’s address to the Gun Rights Policy Conference.Very recently, on May 23, 2021, California Assembly Majority Whip, Jesse Gabriel, published a Press Release, stating, inter alia,“In collaboration with Team ENOUGH and the Brady Campaign, Assembly member Jesse Gabriel (D - Woodland Hills) announced new legislation today that would make California the first state in the nation to require firearms used by law enforcement to include microstamping technology.The measure, Assembly Bill (AB) 876, would build on the landmark Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) [Cal Pen Code §31910 et.seq.] and mark a major step forward in the effort to require firearms manufacturers to incorporate microstamping technology, which has long been a top priority for gun violence prevention advocates. Importantly, microstamping technology imprints unique markings—known as micro stamps—onto individual firearms as well as discharged bullet casings, thereby allowing law enforcement to connect fired casings to a particular firearm.”Is it just coincidence that New York is now following suit with its own Microstamping Bill, to be voted on in the coming days: 2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 4116 [AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to requiring semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in this state to be capable of microstamping ammunition]?”Even so, this isn’t the first time that New York has attempted to enact a microstamping gun law because, in 2007, the New York State Assembly introduced its Bill 2007 NY A.B. 9819. Did New York take its cue from California, back in 2007? Probably. Did the two States work together on this? Are they still working together to pass Anti-Second Amendment legislation, in tandem? To what extent are other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions also coordinating their efforts to destroy the Second Amendment? One can only wonder just how closely these jurisdictions are working together.The 2007 Bill did pass the Assembly but failed in the New York State Senate. New York Anti-Second Amendment proponents had since tried, numerous times, but without success to add a microstamping requirement to the sale of all semiautomatic handguns. But, with the legislature now firmly in Democrat Party hands, 2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 4116 has better than an even chance of passage, notwithstanding the improbability of any New York State Republican Senator voting for it.Important note: the microstamping requirement, as set forth in the Bill, were it to become New York law, does not take effect until January 1, 2023, which happens to coincide, as discussed supra, with the date that Identification Dynamics, LLC’s microstamping patent expires. And, the language of 2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 4116 makes that fact clear. Hence, any jurisdiction that has previously enacted a semiautomatic handgun microstamping law, such as California, cannot enforce the law until the expiration of the patent on January 1, 2023. But, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions obviously want to get a jump on that. Still, they can't be happy with the wait.We can already hear the grumbling in these Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions as they are compelled to wait several more months before they can begin to enforce this draconian and ludicrous law. ACTION NOTICE ALERT: If you live in New York, do not stand idly, doing anything. Contact your State Senator NOW and tell your New York State Senator that you oppose the enactment of this bill. Required microstamping of semiautomatic handguns should not occur now, nor on January 1, 2023 with expiration of Identification Dynamics, LLC’s patent, nor at any time in the future, so long as this Nation continues to exist as a free Constitutional Republic.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE CANIGLIA CASE: U.S. SUPREME COURT APPALLED BY ACTIONS OF RENEGADE GOVERNMENT AND LAX JUDICIARY

Nothing, absolutely nothing, defines the essence of what it means to be an American citizen more than the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood; in other words, “personal autonomy.” The sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood, i.e., personal autonomy, logically entails freedom from unwarranted Governmental intrusion over person and personal effects. ‘Personal autonomy’ is the sine qua non of what it means to be an American.The notion of ‘personal autonomy’ is embedded in and is the raison d’être of the Nation’s Bill of Rights; the central theme running throughout it, and the predicate basis for it. Without it freedom and liberty in the truest, most basic, and rawest sense are impossible.The Nation’s very existence as a free Constitutional Republic, along with the inherent sovereignty of the American people and the supremacy of the American people over Government, depends absolutely upon it.Caniglia, as treated by both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island is a “case study” of the mishandling of U.S. Supreme Court precedent by lower Federal Courts—glaringly so. And, as a result, those lower Federal Courts erred in the decision they reached. This happenstance isn’t all that unusual, unfortunately,Too many lower Federal and State Courts—their judgment clouded by unyielding and flawed ideological, philosophical prejudices, impulses, and biases pertaining to the import and purport of the Bill of Rights—routinely misread and misapply U.S. Supreme Court rulings and holdings.This is likely intentional. Many of these Courts know exactly what they are doing but go ahead misapprehending and misapplying High Court rulings, misconstruing High Court reasoning, and blatantly ignoring High Court precedent anyway, cloaking their flawed reasoning, rulings, and logic in abstruse legalese. This is seen most prominently in the mishandling and misreading of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald case rulings. And it occurred most recently in the Fourth Amendment Caniglia case.

WHY DID THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECIDE TO REVIEW THE CANIGLIA CASE?

It is rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case, any case, for review. Petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, demand that the High Court do so.Rarer still does the Court come to a unanimous agreement in cases that it does review. Nonetheless, all nine Justices came to a unanimous agreement in Caniglia.This happenstance is all the more remarkable today, where differences in jurisprudential and methodological approaches to case analysis exist and where philosophical differences between the two wings of the High Court are so vast and so stark as to make well-nigh impossible nine Justices coming to a mutual agreement on anything.A broad gulf exists between the liberal wing and the conservative wing of the Court, and that wide divide and bright-line are mirrored in Congress and in the Nation at large.Also remarkable is the fact that Caniglia is short in length and that several Justices wrote independent concurring opinions, joining in the concurring opinions of the others, suggesting they were much of one mind.For all these reasons and for one more, that the case at bar involves an issue that goes to the very core of a fundamental right, with ramifications on several others, the Caniglia case begs for close scrutiny.Caniglia speaks volumes about the importance—at least in some instances, as in the case at bar—where the liberal wing of the High Court, attaches as much importance to the sanctity and inviolability of one’s personhood, and, by extension, to one’s personal effects, as does the conservative wing of the Court.Also, as noted by many writers, Caniglia touches upon, albeit briefly, so-called “Red Flag” laws. Justice Alito mentions this in his Concurrence, asserting: “This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called ‘red flag’ laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. . . . Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”Since the liberal wing of the High Court is loath to strengthen, or for that matter, loath to preserve exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Alito asserts his hope that the Constitutionality of “Red Flag” laws might at some point be addressed by way of the Fourth Amendment, rather than via the Second since the liberal wing is sensitive to the Fourth Amendment. He seems to direct this point to his brethren in the liberal wing. That would explain why he bothered to mention “Red Flag” laws in his Concurrence. After all, Petitioner's firearms were unlawfully taken from him, and Petitioner did raise the Second Amendment issue in his complaint at the U.S. District Court level. The Second Amendment was certainly implicated even if the Second Amendment issue wasn't addressed at the U.S. Supreme Court level.Red Flag laws are the sort of thing that the Progressive Left in our Nation and the far more extreme Marxist faction have pushed for in the last few years in their ongoing overzealous attack on the Second Amendment to the Constitution—a full-frontal assault on the Second borne from their singular, rabid abhorrence of it and of their marked frustration with it, exemplified in caustic and frenzied desperation to do away with it once and for all time. Progressives and Marxists see this as necessary because, for them, the very existence of an armed citizenry is an anathema, something totally at odds with their agenda, the ultimate goal of which is the realization of a single, all-powerful, one-world government. Achievement of that goal is impossible as long as the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and especially the Second Amendment, continues to exist.Progressives and Marxists all ascribe to the principles and tenets of COLLECTIVISM, encompassing a vast domain and array of political, social, economic, and cultural precepts all of which are antithetical to the core principles and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM, upon which the free Constitutional Republic was constructed. INDIVIDUALISM is the polar opposite of COLLECTIVISM, as the precepts of COLLECTIVISM are precisely what the founding principles and tenets of our Nation ARE NOT grounded on.The tenets and principles of INDIVIDUALISM extol the virtues and qualities of Personal Autonomy and Personal Responsibility. Morality emanates from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, loving, Divine Creator. COLLECTIVISTS deny this. They argue that morality is an artificial social and political and cultural construct, and they infer that the Nation’s Bill of Rights, are, as well, nothing more than a set of social and political constructs devised by Government that may be lawfully dispensed with by the Government that creates them.As the principles and tenets of COLLECTIVISM gain prominence and impetus in America, concomitant with control of the Legislative and Executive Branches firmly in the hands of Progressives and Marxists, the principles and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM lose prominence and recede into the background; eventually to be erased from the public's awareness. and, thence, from the public's memory.To accomplish the task of eroding the historical, cultural, and ethical foundations of our Nation, the Progressives and Marxists will leave neither Americans nor their institutions alone. They intend to use their power to encode an entirely new set of precepts in the psyche of Americans, grounded in the precepts of COLLECTIVISM. This requires controlling both thought and conduct. Progressives and Marxists intend to preclude all dissent and to corral and redirect all impulses toward an embrace of COLLECTIVISM.Progressives and Marxists argue that all behavior and thought that does not cohere to dictated Governmental norms is deviant and contrary to the running of a well-ordered society and must not and will not be tolerated. Progressives and Marxists insist that Americans must learn to behave to the New Order. Americans must acquiesce to Government encroachment in and intrusion upon all aspects of their lives.Naturally, Progressives and Marxists would be and are suspicious and jealous of those Americans who wish for nothing more than to be left alone and who insist on being left alone; Americans who cherish and revere above all else the right of the individual TO BE individual; free from suffocating rigidity of thought and conduct thrust upon them by the mindless drones of a NEW DOGMA, who compel blind, obsequious obedience to the dictates of “DIVERSITY, EQUITY” and INCLUSION—the new mantra of the Authoritarian Progressive and Marxist extremists.“RED FLAG” laws—the common vernacular for the more accurate, legal expression, “EXTREME PROTECTION ORDERS” —have become a prominent fixture in the mind of the Anti-Second Amendment, seditious Press and in the mind of other Anti-Second Progressive Left and Marxist elements in our Nation.With control of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government presently in the hands of Radical Democrats, these Progressives and Marxists have now launched a full-frontal assault on the Second Amendment, borne from their singular, rabid abhorrence and naked fear of it and from their marked frustration with it. Their recent actions, of which the American people have obtained as yet just a foretaste, are exemplified in caustic and frenzied desperation to do away with the Second Amendment altogether.Group Responsibility and, concomitantly, Group Dynamics are features of and critical to the tenets of Collectivism. Collectivism eschews the notion of personal autonomy and personal responsibility in favor of Group identity where the Self is immersed in and lost in the Societal Collective, the Hive.The impetus behind the enactment of and application of “Red Flag” laws is to quell even minimal threats to the cohesiveness of the Collective, the Societal Hive. To contain the “Threat to Self and Others” by dispossessing a person of his firearms is the purported goal of “Red Flag” laws, or so those who ascribe to their enactment say. But containing the perceived “Threat to Self and Others” is itself a basic tenet of Collectivism. For, personal autonomy is itself the basic threat to Self and Others.Progressives and Marxists believe that the Individual Self is only adequately contained when the Self is fully immersed in and merges with THE GROUP, in THE COLLECTIVE, i.e., when one loses Oneself to the Group. Only then is the threat of SELF ‘TO ITSELF’ and ‘TO OTHERS’ contained, neutralized. And, as the ‘FIREARM’ is identified with and emblematic of SELF and with “PERSONHOOD,” and with “PERSONAL AUTONOMY,” in a clear and emphatic way, the FIREARM, the “GUN,” must be removed from the “SELF.”And this brings us back to consideration of the critical importance of the Caniglia case.The truly frightening thing about the actions of the police in Caniglia, and with the lower Federal Courts’ handling of Caniglia is not the allusion to the creeping, dire influence of “Red Flag” laws on one’s personal identity and autonomy, horrible as those laws are, but, rather, that the Police didn’t even comply with those laws, and the lower Federal Courts didn't so much as suggest that they should have done so. The police didn't obtain a judicial warrant but unlawfully intruded upon Petitioner's home; unlawfully confiscated his personal property, his firearms; and unlawfully intruded upon Petitioner's right of personal autonomy, the right to the integrity of Body, Mind,  and Soul.This is particularly worrisome and distressing because Rhode Island did enact a Red Flag law. The Red Flag law of Rhode Island is found in the General Laws of Rhode Island, Title 8, Chapter 8.3—Extreme Protection Orders, Sections 8-8.3-1—8-8.3-14 et. seq.These laws lay out in minute detail:Filing of the Petition for an emergency protection order; Contents of the petition; Temporary Order Proceedings; Hearings on the Petition, including grounds for issuance, and the Contents of the Order; Service of One-Year Extreme Protection Orders; Termination, Expiration, including Renewal of Orders; Firearms Return or Disposal; Penalties; Liability; Required Notice on Orders and Confidentiality of Proceedings; Appeal; and Severability.In particular, R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8.3-8, provides that, (a)Any firearm seized or surrendered in accordance with this chapter shall be returned to the respondent upon his or her request, within ten (10) days, when:(1) The respondent produces documentation issued by the court indicating that any extreme risk protective order issued pursuant to this chapter has expired, terminated, or has not been renewed. Respondent shall not be required to acquire any additional court order granting the return of seized or surrendered firearms; and(2) The law enforcement agency in possession of the firearms conducts a national criminal records check and determines that the respondent is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.Rhode Island’s Red Flag laws, had they been adhered to, would have provided at least a modicum of due process, at least in respect to Petitioner's firearms, because judicial intervention would have been necessary before the Government could dispossess an American citizen of his firearms. In Caniglia, though, the Red Flag laws weren’t applied. They could have been, but they weren’t.In Caniglia, the police not only unlawfully confiscated Petitioner’s firearms but forced a psychiatric evaluation on the Petitioner. The police unlawfully invaded the sanctity of Petitioner's house; they unlawfully deprived Petitioner of his personal property; they violated Petitioner's personal liberty in unlawfully compelling him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation; and they violated the sanctity and the inviolability of one's own Self in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The police further compounded their unlawful actions by refusing to return Petitioner's firearms to Petitioner upon Petitioner’s release from the hospital the following day when he lawfully demanded the police to release his firearms to him. Petitioner was compelled to retain the services of an attorney to retrieve his firearms.  Yet the lower Federal Courts saw nothing wrong in any of this. Ostensibly relying on a U.S. Supreme Court case that they took completely out of context, the District Court and U.S. Circuit Court essentially relied on common law, and, applying it ad hoc, deprived an innocent man of his fundamental right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of both personhood and personal property. The danger of reliance on interest balancing is immediately seen in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ assertion that,“Although an individual has robust interests in preserving his bodily autonomy, the sanctity of his home, and his right to keep firearms within the home for self-protection, these interests will sometimes have to yield to the public's powerful interest ‘in ensuring that 'dangerous' mentally ill persons [do] not harm themselves or others.’”Isn't it nice of the Court to acknowledge the right of personal autonomy, the sanctity of home, and the right to keep firearms within the home for self-protection? These are fundamental rights that the Court felt the Government, in its wisdom, could violate when “in ensuring that ‘dangerous’ mentally ill persons [do] not harm themselves or others.’”But, was Petitioner mentally ill? Hospital staff found he wasn't mentally ill, and promptly released him. And it certainly wasn’t so obvious to all the police who came to Petitioner’s house, as they didn’t think so. The facts as recited by the Court itself refutes the accuracy of the Court’s own inference:“When the officers asked him about his mental health, he told them ‘that was none of their business’ but denied that he was suicidal. Officer Mastrati subsequently reported that the plaintiff ‘appeared normal’ during this encounter, and Officer Russell described the plaintiff's demeanor as calm and cooperative. This appraisal, though, was not unanimous: Sergeant Barth thought the plaintiff seemed somewhat ‘[a]gitated’ and ‘angry,’ and Kim noted that he became ‘very upset’ with her for involving the police.The ranking officer at the scene (Sergeant Barth) determined, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the plaintiff was imminently dangerous to himself and others. After expressing some uncertainty, the plaintiff agreed to be transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.” Caniglia vs. Strom, 953 F.3d 112 (lst Cir. 2020).One might make a strong argument that Petitioner’s surprised reaction at seeing the police showing up at his house was completely understandable and rational.Justice Thomas who drafted the main opinion, laid out the serious error of both the Government and the Courts at the outset of the opinion. Justice Thomas opines,“Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973). In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who patrol the ‘public highways’ are often called to discharge noncriminal ‘community caretaking functions,’ such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. Id., at 441. The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these ‘caretaking’ duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. It does not.”The horror of the Caniglia episode is that the Government deprived a man of his fundamental right to liberty, personal autonomy, personal property, the integrity of the body, and the integrity of Self, and, all of this without application made to the Court for a warrant that even the most draconian of a State's Red Law procedures required. When the police officers arrived at Petitioner's home, in response to Petitioner's wife's request, they should have stated to Petitioner's wife that, absent a warrant from the Court, they could not lawfully compel Petitioner to undergo a psychiatric evaluation; nor could they lawfully confiscate the Petitioner's firearms. Petitioner's wife had made clear she did not feel threatened by her husband, and there was nothing in Petitioner's behavior upon which the officers could reasonably infer that Petitioner constituted a threat either to himself or to his wife.The police should have informed Petitioner's wife that if she truly felt the need to dispossess her husband of his firearms she should petition the Court for an Order. That the police failed to adhere to the law, illegally compelling Petitioner to undergo an immediate psychiatric evaluation and then confiscating Petitioner's firearms anyway, when telling Petitioner that they would not do so, and in fact could not legally do so. The actions of the police and the acquiescence of the District Court of Rhode Island and of the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Government's actions, illustrate just how far this Nation has slid on the road to tyranny.This is not to suggest that “Red Flag” laws aren't to be seen as a dire threat to the Nation's fundamental rights and liberties. They are. But if, as in the Caniglia case, the State can deny a man his liberty and property, ignoring even the constraints of bad law, as “Red Flag” laws are, as Rhode Island’s Red Flag is, and if a heedless, feckless Judiciary gives the State the Court's imprimatur to establish that such actions are acceptable, even commendable, then our Nation has found itself in uncharted, perilous waters, unlike any our Nation has countenanced before.In Caniglia, the Government operated completely outside the law, invading and violating both a person’s sacred, inviolate “Self” and his personal property. This was awful. Yet, the Rhode Island Federal Courts, rather than calling out the Government for their lawless acts, demonstrated a profuse and odd proclivity to defend those lawless actions. If Government can get away with that, Government can get away with anything, for, at that juncture, neither the Constitution nor Statute means anything. Written laws are seen as nothing more than a set of guidelines at best, to be followed or not as the Government wishes; and, at worst they are simply empty vessels existing simply to give the populace a false sense of security from the specter of tyranny looming over it, even as that tyranny has long taken root and has acquired a firm hold on the Land, and long after the American citizenry has been demoralized, degraded, and subjugated.Since this is something the Progressives and Marxists want, what they are working toward, what they are attuned to, what they identify with, what they long for, they see the annihilation of a free Constitutional Republic and the debasement of a once-proud sovereign people as a good thing, a positive thing, as they never believe in the sanctity and inviolability of the human being anyway. All they believe in and are concerned with is the well-being of the COLLECTIVIST HIVE, and they believe a dominant and domineering, omnipresent, omnipotent, centralized Government, giving marching orders to the States and to the people is the best vehicle for ensuring the well-being of the HIVE, the HERD. And a BEEHIVE or a HERD OF ANIMALS is how these Progressives and Marxists perceive the American citizenry, and an overbearing,  Government is just the sort of mechanism for keeping an unruly herd of animals or a nameless, swarm of bees in check. But this is something that the U.S. Supreme Court—all nine Justices—could see manifesting in the actions of the Rhode Island police and in the reasoning and rulings of the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island and as those rulings were affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The High Court must have seen the danger a renegade Government and a conniving or oblivious Judiciary pose to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic and to a Sovereign People when Government operates completely outside the law to deprive an innocent American citizen of his personal property and worse when that Government and Judiciary deprive a man of the sanctity and inviolability of bodily integrity and Personal Selfhood.To see even the liberal wing of the Court aghast by the actions of both Government and the Rhode Island Judiciary must give one pause.But how long will the U.S. Supreme Court retain even a vestige of independence if the Progressive Left and Radical Marxists, that presently control two Branches of Government, take firm control of the Third Branch as well?____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP NEW YORK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE, AT LAST!

After an eternally long hiatus, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a Second Amendment case. And it is only right this case should come out of New York after the Court majority’s disastrous handling of the “gun transport” case, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020).  As you may recall, The Petitioners in the “gun transport” case challenged a New York City rule pertaining to the transport of firearms outside the home. The Federal District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that routinely find for the Government on Second Amendment matters, rejected the claim. Petitioners appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.Stunned by the High Court granting review, and evidently knowing the New York City law violates the Second Amendment guarantee and aware, too, that a finding on the merits against the government would have negative repercussions extending far beyond the confines of the City and State of New York, the anti-Second Amendment forces attempted to waylay a what would have otherwise resulted in a certain reversal the Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision. The State of New York amended its firearm licensing Statutes and the City amended its rules so petitioners could henceforth transport their firearms to a second home or shooting range.The gambit paid off. It gave Chief Justice Roberts just such the excuse he needed to side with the radical left-wing of the Court. But his vote wasn’t enough. Roberts must have cajoled the newest member of the Court, who at the time was Brett Kavanaugh, to play along. It worked. Kavanaugh sided with the majority but, likely having felt put upon, wrote a singularly bizarre concurring opinion, ostensibly to shore up the idea, as conveyed during a tumultuous and rancorous confirmation hearing, that he does, after all, support the Bill of the Rights. But does he? Kavanaugh’s concession, reluctant though it may well have been, gave Roberts and the radical left-wing of the Court the fifth vote, necessary to nullify a hearing on the merits which undoubtedly would have gone to the petitioners.Now, one year after the “gun transport” case was shunted aside and the Court did not take up another 2A case before the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, the High Court will take up, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Corlett, 140 S. Ct. 1525. The Corlett case is no trivial Second Amendment case if any Second Amendment case can ever be considered trivial. The implications of Corlett extend far beyond the “gun transport” case, if the Justices agreed to hear the merits of it because the issue in the “gun transport” case was directed to the import of the City’s highly restrictive “Premise Residence” and “Premise Business” handgun licenses. But, in Corlett, the High Court must zero in on the notion of “good cause.” New York requires applicants who seek to acquire a concealed handgun carry license to proffer a reason sufficient—in the mind of the licensing officer—to justify the issuance of one.Because the issue in Corlett attacks a central pillar of the New York State firearms’ licensing scheme, the New York State and City Governments cannot weasel their way out of a hearing on the substantive merits as they did in the “gun transport” case, by amending New York firearms’ laws and regulations. To do so here would require New York officials to gut New York’s dubious and nefarious firearms licensing scheme—something Anti-Second Amendment zealots would never do, as the salient issue in Corlett strikes at the very heart of government licensing of firearms: that government officials have legal, binding authority to place arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of a natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable right.To obtain a concealed handgun license in New York, an applicant must overcome two hurdles. First, the Applicant must demonstrate he or she does not fall into a disability that precludes the Applicant from lawfully owning and possessing firearms. That hurdle is essentially an objective one. Once over that hurdle, the applicant faces another, much more difficult hurdle. The applicant must demonstrate “good cause” for the issuance of a concealed carry license. This is a subjective test.The police licensing official has substantial discretion to grant or deny the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license. And, since New York traditionally frowns on civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms, the vast majority of applications for concealed carry handgun licenses, are routinely denied. Most individuals fail to demonstrate “good cause” for obtaining a license under New York law.The applicant can, of course, appeal an adverse administrative decision to the Court. But, if the applicant expects to successfully challenge a denial in Court, that applicant must prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, abuse of discretion by the licensing official; and this hurdle, too, is difficult to overcome. Moreover, a Court review of denial is time-consuming and inordinately expensive.In Corlett, the petitioner unsuccessfully applied for a concealed handgun carry license in Steuben County, New York. The denial letter of the County judge and handgun licensing officer was general in content and condescending in tone. It read, “‘the decision [was] based upon concerns expressed in the Sheriff's investigation,’ specifically ‘concerns about your being sufficiently responsible to possess and care for a pistol’ and concerns ‘that your history demonstrates that you place your own interest above the interests of society.’”Note the barely tacit implication in the denial letter: the interests of the Hive outweigh the interests and needs of the individual. This, in a nutshell, describes the nature of the internal, taxing war now upon us: the tenets of Collectivism, upon which totalitarianism is grounded versus the tenets of Individualism, upon which our free Constitutional Republic is grounded.No less than the Nation’s Bill of Rights itself is on trial. It will be interesting to see how the so-called “Conservative” Chief Justice Roberts will rule on this case and whether Associate Justice Kavanaugh will follow Roberts’ lead.

HOW ARE MAJOR NEWSPAPERS HANDLING THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

Well, one leading newspaper, The Wall Street Journal recognizes the importance of this case: a landmark case that will serve either to strengthen Heller and McDonald or will whittle them down.Another newspaper, The New York Times, is notably and noticeably silent. Apparently, the newspaper that boasts of reporting “All the News That’s Fit to Print” doesn’t feel that the most important Second Amendment case to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court since the seminal Heller and McDonald cases isn’t worth a mention in today’s newspaper, and notwithstanding this is a 2A case coming out of New York. Still, the paper’s publisher, and editors, and reporters know of it, and can’t be happy about it. And, even as they would like to ignore it, at some point, they must acknowledge it.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE 11TH HOUR APPROACHES: THE FATE OF OUR COUNTRY RESTS IN THE BALANCE

In a few weeks, the U.S. may expect someone to be inaugurated President of the United States. Who will that “someone” be? Most Americans expect the empty-headed, corrupt Joseph Biden will be that person. And many Americans look forward to that event even as they fail to realize they have been hoodwinked, believing that a Biden/Harris Administration to be a godsend for the Nation, rather than the calamity it really portends for the Nation and its people.Even now, the mainstream seditious media continues its incessant, endless, badgering of Trump. His reasonable demands for a serious investigation into the most flagrant, deceitful, reprehensible acts of elections fraud and electoral process manipulation ever to occur in our Nation go unchecked, unanswered.The President can’t even make a telephone call without the Press and the Democrat Party leadership screaming yet again, ever again for his impeachment—doing so with automatic, repetitive, rote, vacuous sameness, no less so than the mad Red Queen in Louis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland,” as she constantly rages: “off with his head; off with his head; off with his head. . . .”The President’s legitimate concerns are continually, consistently met with haughty disdain as the seditious mainstream media reiterates with noxious regularity an empty denunciation of Trump’s reasonable demands for a detailed accounting of and audit of the 2020 election.The Press perfunctorily dismisses rather than troubles itself to admit or, at least, to investigate, incontrovertible proof of massive elections fraud; and, through it all, has the audacity to expect the public to accept the simplistic unsupported assertion that the 2020 election was aboveboard and honest despite a wealth of damning evidence to the contrary.Is not the Press, THIS PRESS, an enemy of the people rather than its guardian? The Press insists on playing the public for fools. The pity of it is that so many Americans are willing to play along with this; indeed, all too many even believe the idiocy. That helps explain why our Country is in the dire state it finds itself now, at this 11^th Hour.

INTER ARMA ENIM SILENT LEGES (“IN TIMES OF WAR, THERE ARE NO LAWS”)

This Country, our Nation, is in a state of war—a war as immediate and emphatic as the war fought by our founding fathers to secure independence from tyranny. An illegal takeover of our Government is about to take place and it is occurring in plain sight.With the U.S. Supreme Court and the Department of Justice having capitulated to secretive, powerful, ruthless forces that have made clear their refusal to permit Trump a second term in Office—and with the ability of these extraordinarily powerful and inordinately wealthy forces to control the mass apparatus of the Press, the courts, the vast military, police, and intelligence apparatuses, they have made abundantly clear, that they intend to destroy our free Constitutional Republic. It is now up to a few courageous members of Congress and for average Americans to prevent this.If ruthless elements both here at home and abroad do secure essentially complete control of our Government, sitting their senile puppet, Joseph Biden, in the White House, then the only thing that will remain of a once great Nation-State and a sovereign people will be but the trappings. The mere skeletal outline of a free Constitutional Republic will remain—for a time—kept merely to fool some and to appease others who remain restless, restive and suspicious.And even the trappings of a free Constitutional Republic will eventually be dispensed with as no longer necessary as the American people will have been completely subdued.We will see the Country quietly, inexorably, and quickly merged into a one world system of governance—a new world order that the neoliberal globalist statists Henry Kissinger and the late U.S. President, George H.W. Bush, and the late U.S. Senator, John McCain, talked glowingly, lovingly about and predicted would occur.The empty-headed Joseph Biden is a mere, and temporary, placeholder for powerful ruthless interests who will use him to consolidate final and complete control over the machinery of Government. And then they will dispense with him, perhaps even in before his first term ends, and he will be happy to go, having dutifully played his part.In his stead they will place Kamala Harris, as a new puppet, ostensibly to placate the Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists.These Marxists and Anarchists share at least one thing with the globalist statist elites: the intention to destroy the Country in its present form as an independent sovereign Nation-state, and a desire to eradicate a Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights perceived as a codification of natural rights bestowed on man by the Divine Creator: rights that exist intrinsically in man; rights that therefore exist wholly beyond the power of Government to lawfully modify, abrogate or ignore.Evidence of the intent of the neoliberal globalist elites and of the Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists is all around us.In the last several months, we have seen:

• The desecration and destruction of our Nation’s monuments
• Insolent, insensitive, disrespectful denigration of our founding fathers
• Presumptuous and Contemptuous attacks on Christianity and on our Judeo-Christian ethic
• Artificial attempts to reconstruct the English Language and to control English usage
• Naked attempts to sow dissension, divisiveness, and discord among ethnic groups and races
• Censoring evidence of Beijing’s massive espionage operations in our Country and cloaking Beijing’s responsibility in the handling of the COVID plague
• Undertaking an extensive campaign of historical revisionism
• Inculcating a false sense of guilt in the psyche of the target (White) population
• Demeaning the Black population by treating Blacks as victims and then raising victimhood to the status of a virtue
• Deliberately inducing fear in the public consciousness and volatility in the public domain by emptying prisons and jails of hardened, dangerous criminals and emptying mental institutions of severely disturbed individual

If the Great Imposter Joseph Biden does ascend to the U.S. Presidency, then further degradation of and subjugation of the American citizenry will proceed apace, and the Country will suffer further dissipation and ruination.With the billionaire neoliberal globalists firmly entrenched in power, we will see, the floodgates opened to tens of millions more of illegal aliens. Included in their ranks will be members of dangerous drug cartels and sex traffickers.The powerful elites of society will amass further wealth and monopolistic power at the expense of hundreds of millions of average Americans, the latter of whom will be reduced to abject poverty, becoming completely dependent on Government to provide for basic physical needs. This will all be by design.Education will be dummied down for the mass of Americans. They will be taught to blindly accept authority. The critical faculties of Americans will atrophy. And this, too, will be by design.The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution will wither and die. Freedom of Speech and thought, and freedom of association and assembly will be strictly controlled.Civilian ownership and possession of firearms will be severely constrained.Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures will cease to exist as dossiers will be kept on every American from the moment of birth until the moment of death. Surveillance of every American will be the norm; privacy will become essentially nonexistent.Even the concept of private property, except for the ruling class, will be imperiled as the concept of ‘private property’ is inconsistent with the tenets of Collectivism.The notion of personhood, of selfhood will also wither and die as the sanctity of the individual will give way to the imperative of the Collective.If anyone believes these outcomes are too fantastical to be realized, one should understand they are already coming to pass. And the defilers of our Nation have the gall to tell us that it is we, Americans and President Trump whom we elected, who are the threats to democracy.The question is, what are we prepared to do to prevent these trends from becoming so pronounced, so entrenched that it is impossible to reverse them?It will be easier, far easier, to preempt these trends if Trump retains control of the Presidency for a second term. After all, it is he who won the 2020 election and who has sought to enshrine the words, “Make America Great Again,”—words that are an obscenity to the globalist elites and to the Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists.To think that it was the insincere, corrupt, and feeble Joe Biden who hardly can speak sensibly who pulled this thing off without a dollop of fraud and criminal machinations here and there to assist him, defies common sense. And the evidence shouts out the lie of a legitimate win for this Great Imposter, Joseph Biden.Our Country will lose its soul if Joseph Biden is installed as U.S. President in Trump’s stead. And with the Democrat lackeys in control of the House and a hairbreadth away of control of the U.S. Senate (as this article goes to print), the Republic may very well be breathing its last.One must wonder and ponder if the present situation is not the very sort of situation for which the framers of the U.S. Constitution codified the natural rights of free speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE ABSURDITY OF BIDEN’S CALL FOR NATIONAL UNITY

As this article goes to post on the Arbalest Quarrel, we are only a few hours away from the beginning of the New Year. We would like to say that this New Year, 2021, would see President Trump sworn in on January 20, 2021, for his second term in Office, where he would work further on behalf of the Nation to cement his “America First” Legacy for future generations of Americans to come.As we say, we would like to see this, but it is becoming increasingly evident that we won’t see this even though we should see this.If one but looks at mountains of evidence of elections fraud it has become increasingly apparent to everyone, but the most obtuse among us, that Trump did indeed win the election. But the ruthless, powerful, well-organized, inordinately wealthy and eternally secretive and insufferable neoliberal globalist elites have, with the assistance of the media and Press that they control and with the active assistance of the courts that they oversee, clamped down hard on all attempts to bring this evidence out into the light of day to ensure the integrity of our electoral process, the sanctity of the Constitution and the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic. If anyone harbors doubt about the truth of this conclusion, one need only look at the recent actions of the highest law enforcement official in the Land, Attorney General William Barr, and of the action of the highest Court in the Land, the U.S. Supreme Court.On December 1, 2020, The Associated Press reported Barr as saying that “the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.”Let’s take a closer look at this remark. It suggests the Justice Department did find evidence of voter fraud, but Barr refuses to elaborate on the nature of that evidence; how that evidence was gathered; who did the investigating, and the extent of the investigation. And Barr says nothing about releasing a report on that investigation. Moreover, even if it were true that such evidence that was uncovered would not change the outcome of the election, that still begs the question as to the integrity of the 2020 election.Barr’s assertion is nothing more than an oblique attempt to hide from public scrutiny a matter the importance of which goes to the future of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State. The seditious Press was satisfied with Barr's action. It would be. Not one to investigate the matter of wholesale elections fraud itself, and having taken an active role in ridiculing evidence of fraud, the seditious Press certainly wouldn't take kindly to a DOJ and FBI investigation that put the lie to the Press narrative. Shortly, after Barr made his 0ffhand remark to the AP, Barr submitted his resignation as AG. One cannot  but wonder: Was Barr threatened, compromised? His perfunctory remarks to the AP are wholly out of character. Barr is not the sort of person who would willingly surrender on a matter of such monumental importance — a thing that decidedly and decisively impacts the future of our Country; indeed, a thing that portends the end of our Country as a free Constitutional Republic if it is Biden who in fact takes the Oath of Office on January 20, 2021, and not Donald Trump.Then there is the U.S. Supreme Court. Here we have three perspicacious Justices—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—silently going along with Roberts, who must have made clear to the three junior Associate Justices that under no circumstance must the Texas case, Texas vs. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ____ (December 11, 2020) be entertained. Yet, who but the U.S. Supreme Court could allow a State versus State case to proceed?Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth in clear terms:“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”In a brief, perfunctory Order, the Court Majority dismissed the case,  asserting that Texas does not have standing to sue. Really?For the Supreme Court to  assert that Texas did not have standing to bring action against another State on the matter of how a state conducts its elections, the Court cavalierly skirted the underlying question at stake: whether the matter in which Pennsylvania conducted the election for the United States President did in fact unconstitutionally negatively impact how Texas and other States conduct their own election. The framers of the Constitution made certain that the Constitution would give, indeed must give, to the Highest Court in the Land original jurisdiction in a State versus State lawsuit precisely because no lower Federal or State Court could ever have the authority to hear a legal dispute between one sovereign State and another sovereign State.And so, we have the prospect that the Great Pretender, Joseph Biden, the Manchurian Candidate and the Neoliberal Globalist elites’ Candidate for U.S. President will become the U.S. President, and thereupon make a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. In administering the Oath of Office to Joseph Biden, Americans will bear witness to the final touch of farce. We may be seeing John Roberts, himself, as having played an active role in the takeover of our Nation, an elaborate hoax, the greatest tragedy to ever beset our Nation as the elevation of the Grand Imposter, Joe Biden, to the highest elected Office in the Land will mark the nadir of the United States. The U.S. will become a Dictatorship, where a consortium of ruthless powerful individuals and groups behind the scenes, along with Xi Jinping's Communist China, operating as the true rulers, utilizing their puppets, Biden and Harris and lesser Government figures, to institute a radical transformation of the Nation, an “inverted totalitarian regime,” to be immersed in and absorbed into a one world system of governance.

JOE BIDEN, THE GREAT UNIFIER?

Joe Biden’s call for “unity” is as nonsensical and as farcical as anything else that comes out of his mouth.Likely, Biden never came up with the idea for he lacks both intellect and imagination. But a vast coterie of Democrat Party handlers, speech writers, political consultants, acting coaches, and image makers apparently thought it would be good thing to utilize; something to wrap this listless, inept, empty vessel in, at once proclaiming this stooge to be a savior that he would deign, or dare, to save Americans from themselves.Have him yap long enough and often enough about unity, cooperation, solidarity, and togetherness and perhaps the American public will warm up to him, come around to accept him as a leader of the Nation, as the leader of the Nation: the Great Unifier, the Grand Unifier, the High Lord muck-a-muck of Civility and Propriety in contrast to that awful Disuniter—that brusque, uncouth, Racist, Misogynist a.k.a. Donald Trump.The mega billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites of the world must take Americans for fools; either that, or they take Americans for complete idiots.Don’t they realize the word ‘unity,’ apropos of a Nation’s people, only makes sense in the context OF A NATION, which, under a Biden Presidency would be a shaky and murky proposition at best. The Billionaire Globalists, along with the Marxist unionists, the Globalist elites’ foot soldiers, want none of that. Their goal is to merge our Nation with those of other western nations into a single world, transnational union—encompassing geographical regions, spread out across the Earth—comprising billions of people, a heterogeneous glob that shares neither common values and culture, nor unifying traditions and histories.If one can sensibly talk of a grand unity at all, it is something the destroyers of our Nation want; what it is the mega-Billionaire neoliberal Globalist corporatists and the rabid, Globalist Marxists and Anarchists both want; and what it is both are intent on delivering to Americans: A Collectivist vision of the world finally realized, a veritable nightmare in which the populations of the developed countries are dragged down to the level of third world countries. Trump’s “Make America Great Again”—perceived by the Globalist elite and by the Marxists as a veritable obscenity agenda to be recast as and transmogrified into “Make America.”Both billionaire neoliberal globalists and trans-global Marxists and Anarchists find common ground on that score, if little else. But their goal of a one world order requires the demolishing of a free Constitutional Republic.The puppet masters’ marionettes, Biden and Harris, will happily assist them in this task, no less so than had Barack Obama, the Bushes, and Bill Clinton before Biden and Harris.But the Collectivist vision of a one world government is not what most Americans want, and it certainly isn’t something they need. It is decidedly and decisively what most of us don’t want and what anyone of us would need about as much as the plague sent to us courtesy of the Chinese Communist Government.The Collectivist vision of a one world government is wholly inconsistent with what our free Constitutional Republic demands: preservation of the Nation’s Constitution, grounded on the tenets of Individualism; an independent sovereign Nation-State where the American people themselves are the ultimate sovereign authority.How can two mutually exclusive visions of political and social reality cohere? Quite simply, they can’t. Still, there are some who talk glowingly of a unifying American spirit that seemingly transcends differing visions of the Nation, of the world, and of reality. But sober reflection demonstrates how preposterous such an idea is.Back in March 2020 the former Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal. In that Op-Ed Jindal acknowledged the deep divide in America but claimed a unifying American spirit, reflected in his pronouncement, “there’s a real voter appetite for moderation and compromise.”Jindal wrote in significant part,“America’s current political polarization seems to favor candidates like Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders, who mobilize their respective bases. The most committed conservative and progressive activists find common ground in their celebration of partisanship. They see fierce competition between principled partisans in the marketplace of ideas as benefiting the nation.Despite their deep ideological differences, they share a grudging respect for their political combatants, preferring them to be ‘cold or hot,’ in contrast with their ‘lukewarm’ fellow partisans. These activists view bipartisan compromises—from the Clinton-era crime and welfare reforms to the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare expansion—as capitulations.Yet Mr. Biden’s decisive victory in South Carolina suggests there’s a real voter appetite for moderation and compromise. He may be wrong about many policies, but he’s right to try to include the other side and to denounce the growing hostility across ideological and partisan divides. Bipartisanship is built on recognizing differences, but also on recognizing that what unites Americans is stronger than what divides us.It is built on humility—on the recognition that the other side has value. Conservatives dedicated to limited government should be grateful for liberals ensuring society considers the needs of the poor. Liberals dedicated to powerful and expansive government should be grateful for conservatives ensuring that society generates prosperity and protects individual liberty.”Bobby Jindal ends his Op-Ed asserting,“A driving force behind today’s polarization is a combination of arrogance and insecurity. Liberals talk confidently of the coming demographic wave—growing numbers of female, young, college-educated, minority, urban and secular voters they believe guarantee them a majority sooner or later. They are impatient for conservatives to convert or die. Many conservatives view their plans as blessed by divine providence. Yet both sides act with a desperate urgency that belies their stated confidence, as if losing the next election could permanently endanger their beliefs.The path to civility requires both parties to display the humble belief that the other side consists of good, patriotic Americans with valuable insights, as well as the confident determination that their own beliefs are enduring and can eventually emerge victorious. That may prove a winning message for Mr. Biden.”Well, if this were Biden’s message it certainly isn’t a winning one.Sure, a few Americans might have viewed Jindal’s March 2020 article, at the time of posting, as conveying a message of hope and yearning for reconciliation.But jump ahead to the post 2020 election—an election result that, on its face, is so statistically anomalous and one that is so laden with criminal fraud and deceit, as to understandably generate and provoke anger and resentment in a vast majority of Americans as they see a free Republic literally wrenched from them.In retrospect, Jindal’s Op-Ed comes across as quaint and flowery, wistful, naïve, and syrupy at best, and, at worst, a thing trite, banal, nonsensical, even insulting.In fact, Jindal apparently realized the flaws in his earlier Op-Ed, for, in August 2020, he recalibrated his remarks. Gone was any message of hope and trust for a better future for our Country. Jindal saw things as they truly are, as manifesting uncomfortably in front of him. He wrote,“Rather than making the traditional move to the center after he secured the nomination, Mr. Biden has continued to move left. He seems more worried about persuading Mr. Sanders’s supporters to turn out than convincing Mr. Trump’s voters to consider a moderate alternative.Mr. Biden embraced identity politics by promising to name a female running mate. Anticipating a sweep of Congress, Democrats have announced their support for abolishing the Senate filibuster and pay-as-you-go rules. Democrats covet these new powers for the majority not to pursue moderate bipartisan policies. They would likely try to expand the courts, grant statehood to the District of Columbia, restrict gun ownership, give unions more power, and ease immigration restrictions and their enforcement.”How much further have we come since Jindal’s August 2020 Op-Ed, on the cusp of a new year, January 1, 2021. In Biden’s staged remarks, and in the selection of his Cabinet, we are witnessing the marshalling of forces to finally cement complete and lasting victory for the adherents of the Counter-revolution: the neoliberal Globalist elites and the transnational Marxists and Anarchists.Newfangled and singularly bizarre concepts of identity politics, critical race theory, intersectionality—mindless neologisms, concocted by and perpetuated by Marxists, all with the blessing of billionaire Globalist elites—have become Biden’s guiding principles, as perceived in Biden’s cabinet selection.In the Collectivist vision of the world, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” imperative, which embraces the notion of “America First,” has no place. Well beyond New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s disdainful remark, delivered in a 2018 speech, that “America was never that great,”—alluding to and mocking Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan and at once contemptuous of our Nation’s traditions, history, heritage, and core values—we now have in Biden’s choice for Secretary of State, the neocon Anthony Blinken who, in a Biden Administration, is a man who eschews the notion of “America First,” whose foreign policy methodology marks a return to multilateral consensus building with western world leaders, all of whom acquiesce to a belligerent Communist China.If Biden does in fact ascend to the U.S. Presidency on January 20, 2021, and that appears to be more and more certain now, those Americans who adhere to their sacred values, traditions, and heritage, must not succumb to the idea that, come 2022, they will hold onto the Senate and retake the House, and that, in 2024, they will have an opportunity to revive a free Constitutional Republic along with their sacred, natural rights by reelection of Donald Trump as U.S. President. That is wishful thinking in the extreme.A Biden/Harris Presidency will move quickly to reverse all Trump’s gains and will plow ahead on many fronts to dismantle our Constitution, and our Nation-State. A free Constitutional Republic is breathing its last.We, Americans, stand to lose everything that truly defines us as Americans, as the concept of ‘American’ would be understood by our founding fathers; not as Neoliberal Globalist power brokers and Globalist Marxists and Anarchists twist and warp the concept out of any semblance of coherent, historical meaning and context.Once lost—our sacred rights and freedoms, our individuality, our existence as a true sovereign, independent Nation—those things that we cherish most are not coming back. The Globalist elites and their Marxist and Anarchist foot soldiers will see to it that they don’t._________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.