SECOND AMENDMENT HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES—A RIGHT DENIED!

PLACE BLAME WHERE BLAME IS DUE—ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP!

"A right delayed is a right denied." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.Consider the following: Every qualified individual in the United States who passes a background check and handgun safety test shall obtain a permit to carry a handgun for self-protection in every State of the Union and in all United States territories.Is this an empirically impossible situation? Of course not. The United State Supreme Court, held, in the seminal Second Amendment Heller case (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to service in a militia and that the right to keep and bear arms entails the right to use firearms for self-defense. The U.S. Supreme Court held, two years later, in the seminal Second Amendment McDonald case (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)) that the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller apply, as well, to the States.A reasonable person would rightly conclude from these U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the States and the federal Government should now acknowledge the inherent right of qualified American citizens to have access to handguns for self-defense and should recognize, too, that this right does not stop at the doorway of one’s residence. Enactment of national handgun carry legislation would operate as a testament to the import and purport of the Second Amendment as the framers of our Constitution understood and intended it. Such though is not the case.There are forces in this Country and outside it—highly secretive, extraordinarily powerful, exorbitantly wealthy, and extremely ruthless forces—that control the Congressional leadership. These noxious elements operate in the shadows, pulling the strings of those they control in Congress. These secretive, powerful, ruthless forces, lurking in the shadows, uniformly detest the very notion of natural, fundamental rights and liberties that exist beyond their control--rights and liberties that exist inherently in the people. They particularly detest the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Through their puppets in Congress, the forces that seek to crush the American people into submission have placed a multitude of stumbling blocks, obstacles, and snares in the path of those American citizens who would dare exercise their fundamental, natural right to keep and bear arms.Thus, Representative, Paul Ryan (R-W), current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Senator Mitch McConnel (R-K), U.S. Senate Majority Leader, demonstrate disdain for the Second Amendment and perfunctorily disregard those who desire to exercise their fundamental, natural right of self-defense through access to the best means to do so—a firearm. These two individuals wield incredible power as they, alone, ultimately determine whether or not action shall proceed on a legislative bill. Representative Ryan has the audacity and perversity to assert that “the timing isn’t right” to proceed on national handgun carry reciprocity and, through that blunt assertion, dismisses out-of-hand the singular importance of one's natural right to use firearms in one's own defense--a right codified in the Second Amendment, a right preexistent in the people, as the U.S. Supreme Court majority, in Heller, has made abundantly and categorically clear, especially to those who may have harbored any doubt.What, then, does Representative Ryan's assertion,"the timing isn't right" to proceed on national handgun carry reciprocity, even mean? If the timing isn’t right now, then when? Indeed, is there ever a time that would be right for Representative Ryan to accept the imperative of the Second Amendment? Was there ever a time that the right embodied in and codified in the Second Amendment was not meant to have effect?There exists a war on the Second Amendment. The war is grounded on a difference in philosophy between those who support the strengthening of the Second Amendment and those who seek de facto repeal of it. Those who seek to strengthen the Second Amendment--to place it on the footing of a sacred, inviolable right as the framers intended--believe in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. On the other hand, those who seek to defeat the Second Amendment, to defile it, believe not in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, but, rather in the importance of the collective, of  "the hive." These spoilers of the Second Amendment hold to a utilitarian ethical system that subordinates the individual to the purported needs of an amorphous group. As long as the hive remains intact, the harm caused to the individual is deemed acceptable. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership, the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, march in lockstep to the same drumbeat as do the majority of House and Senate Democrats. Neither the Democratic Party nor the leadership of the Republican Party can abide by and countenance a strong Second Amendment. For these particular members of Congress an armed citizenry is an anathema for the right exercised is considered inconsistent with and a threat to the national order. For those who happen to doubt the truth of this assertion, they ought to take a close look at what Congress has wrought: decades of restrictive firearms legislation.Since Republicans control both Houses of Congress, it ultimately devolves to Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell to loosen the stranglehold that existing restrictive federal legislation has on the free exercise of our citizenry’s natural, fundamental right of self-defense that only a firearm can truly provide. But they will have nothing of it.Thus, it is that the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate Majority Leader, alone, determine what bills proceed to a full public hearing, Congressional debate, and Floor vote, and what bills do not. Obviously, Representative Ryan and Senator McConnell do not wish for open and definitive Congressional consideration of bills that serve to strengthen the Second Amendment.But, what possible rational basis would the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have for refusing to allow open and fervent and critical debate on a matter that overrides every other concern: preserving and strengthening the basic, fundamental rights and liberties of the American people. Clearly, they have none, and in their inaction do the American people bear witness to the Republican Party leadership's rancor and disdain toward those citizens who seek to exercise their sacred right under the Second Amendment. This, we know. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) stand, together, in the forefront, as the two pieces of federal legislation that have done more to diminish the right embodied in and codified in the Second Amendment than any other State or Federal legislation to date. Federal antigun legislation proceeds as amendments to and refinements to these two major antigun Acts; and those amendments do nothing but further restrict the citizen’s exercise of his or her unalienable right of self-defense. Enactment of national handgun carry reciprocity would be the first major piece of firearms legislation since the NFA and GCA, to restore balance. Instead of chipping away at the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, national handgun carry reciprocity legislation would operate to repair the damage caused by the NFA and GCA.From 2011 to date, we have counted 13 bills on national handgun carry reciprocity.Senator John Cornyn has been the most persistent, but none of the bills that he sponsored or bills that other Republicans have sponsored has gained traction. Of note, one Senate Democrat, Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), sponsored a bill on national handgun carry reciprocity and several other Democrats have added their names as cosponsors on a few of the bills sponsored by Republican Senators and Representatives. But, it is really Republicans who have the most interest in this and the most ability to accomplish this. As the Republicans control both Houses of Congress, it is now that action should be taken—must be taken—to strengthen the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.The Arbalest Quarrel has provided, below, in tabular format, details on national handgun carry bills introduced in the House and the Senate, in recent years.What the table at once illustrates—through repeated efforts to get a bill passed—is frustration borne by those Congressmen who obviously do wish to strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But insurmountable obstacles, created by Republican Party leadership, and, perhaps, through a failure of spirit of rank and file Congressmen to stand up to the Party leadership, prevents effective follow-through. Here, then, are the dismal results of failed attempts, to date, to strengthen the Second Amendment:

TABLE OF NATIONAL HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY BILLS OFFERED BY BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE

Short Title	Bill Number And Date Introduced	Name of Sponsor AndNumber of Cosponsors and Party Affiliation	Present Status
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011	H.R. 82202/18/2011	SPONSOR: Clifford B. Stearns (R-FL) COSPONSORS: 35 Democrats 211 Republicans246 Total	Amendments Offered and Rejected in November 2011;NO FURTHER ACTION as of November 29, 2011
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011	H.R. 354312/01/2011	SPONSOR: Tim Johnson (R-IL)COSPONSORS: None	Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012	S. 218803/13/2012	SPONSOR: Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) COSPONSORS: 3 Democrats 0 Republicans 3 Total	Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012	S. 221303/20/2012	SPONSOR Senator John Thune (R-SD) COSPONSORS: 35 Republicans 0 Democrats 35 Total	Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013	H.R. 57802/06/2013	SPONSOR: Representative Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN) COSPONSORS: 11 Democrats 173 Republicans 184 Total	REFERRED TO COMMITTEE; NO ACTION
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013	H.R. 295908/01/2013	SPONSOR: Representative Rich Nugent (R-FL) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrat 5 Republicans 6 Total	Referred to CommitteeNO ACTION
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014	S. 190801/09/2014	SPONSOR: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrat 24 Republicans 25 Total	Read Twice and Referred to CommitteeNO ACTION
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	H.R. 40201/16/2015	SPONSOR: Representative Rich Nugent (R-FL) COSPONSORS: 3 Democrats 100 Republicans 103 Total	Submitted to Two Committees;FAILED
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	H.R. 92302/12/2015	SPONSOR: Representative Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN) COSPONSORS: 0 Democrats 119 Republicans 119 Total	Referred to Committee;FAILED
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	S. 49802/12/2015	SPONSOR: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrat 34 Republicans 35 Total	Read Twice and Referred to Committee;FAILED
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	H.R. 98602/13/2017	SPONSOR: Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) COSPONSORS: 4 Democrats 212 Republicans 216 Total	Referred to Two Committees;FAILED
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017	S. 44602/27/2017	SPONSOR: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)COSPONSORS: 0 Democrats 29 Republicans 29 Total	Read Twice and Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017	H.R. 3801/03/2017	SPONSOR: Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrats / 83 Republicans 84 Total	Referred to Two Committees; NO ACTION

Apart from numerous national handgun carry reciprocity bills introduced since 2011, Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) has introduced a bill, titled the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) (115 H.R. 3576), introduced on July 28, 2017. The bill, if enacted into law, would operate in tandem with national handgun carry reciprocity legislation, to strengthen the Second Amendment.WHAT IS "SAGA"?SAGA is a bill that, according to its sponsor, Representative Collins, as set forth on his website: "Protects Second Amendment rights; limits state authority to regulate rifles and shotguns; voids much of SAFE Act." And, according to the Press Release: “Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) has proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit states authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from implementing any regulations on these weapons that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill, most of the language included in New York State’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Governor Cuomo would be void."  Would Representative Collins' bill fare any better than any one of the numerous national handgun carry reciprocity bills? Well, given Representative Paul Ryan's reluctance to allow a public hearing, debate, and floor vote on previous pro-Second Amendment bills, we expect that Representative Collins' bill would suffer the same fate.Representative Collins' bill could be better drafted and the Arbalest Quarrel is in the process of doing just that. When completed, the Arbalest Quarrel will submit our proposed amendments to Representative Collins. But, given the present negative climate in Washington, D.C., such effort expended on our part, as with effort expended by Representative Collins and other Legislators, to date, may well be futile. Still, it is necessary to persevere. Given this sad state of affairs, it is, as is usually the case, up to the American people to set things right, and compel Congress to act.Congress has lost its way. Congress does not serve the interests of the American people. But, if it is not the American people whom Congress serves, then whom is it that Congress does serve? Congress must be reminded that its duty is to serve the American people. Those Legislators who fail in their duty to the American people must be voted out of Office.Let your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative know how you feel about your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Phone (202) 225-3121. It is a fast and easy process; and a critical one. Only through your active participation, can we help secure our Second Amendment. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PERFORMS A SURPRISE SWITCHEROO TO THE CONSTERNATION OF D.C. GOVERNMENT, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ANTIGUN GROUPS, AND ANTIGUN LEGISLATORS, IN WRENN CASE

APPELLATE COURT VACATES ORDERS OF LOWER DISTRICT COURT AND REMANDS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF DISTRICT’S “GOOD-REASON” ANTIGUN LAW.

PRELUDE TO COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT CASE, WRENN VS. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The decision handed down very recently, in Wrenn vs. District of Columbia, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 2017), supporting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, would not have been possible were it not for the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Justice Antonin Scalia’s glorious and sublime legacy will forever be tied to that one singularly important case: a case that stands as a living testament to Justice Scalia’s service to and his great love for this Nation and for its people. In that singular, seminal case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, Justice Scalia threw down the gauntlet at those malevolent forces that seek to tear down the fabric of our Free Republic as they whittle away at the Nation’s sacred Second Amendment. They shall not have an easy time of it as the Second Amendment now stands front in center in the Nation’s psyche as a meaningful reminder to those who seek to disassemble our Nation and who seek to tear down and reconfigure our Bill of Rights out of all semblance to that as conceived by the framers of it. They will learn: our Bill of Rights and, especially, our Second Amendment, will not be toyed with.Through Heller three points are made abundantly clear. One, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer to be dismissed as a subordinate right. The right expressed is fundamental, second in importance to no other right that comprises the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. Two, the right, as codified in the Second Amendment, is capable of vindication and shall ultimately be vindicated in our Courts of law when Government, whether State or Federal, dares blithely to trample upon it. And, three our Nation stands preeminent above all other Nations on this Earth. The founders of our Nation took great pains to establish that such Government they happen to form shall serve—must serve—at the behest of and at the pleasure of the Nation’s people, responsive to and responsible to the Nation’s people. The founders of our Nation forged that understanding in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides the mechanism to make that fact poignantly clear to anyone or any group who might disagree with that idea and who would dare wish to test the resolve of the American people.Tyranny cannot arise where the citizenry stands armed against the imposition of it. Implicit in the language of the Second Amendment is the idea the individual’s existence as an individual, separate and apart from any group affiliation, remains always sacrosanct and inviolate. Any threat to individuality constitutes a threat to the sanctity of one’s personal security and well-being—a threat to one’s personal integrity. Thus, the language of the Second Amendment also implies the right of the individual to take responsibility for his own life, his own protection, his own personal safety and well-being. Government cannot do this, and the law makes clear that it is not Government’s duty or responsibility to do this. It is not Government’s duty or responsibility to protect the security and integrity of the individual, and case law makes this point clear. But, in turn, this means the Government must not intrude on one’s life. Each of us, in this Nation, has the right to be free from Government interference and meddling. Each of us has the right to protect the integrity of his person—of his self—from the tyranny of Government and from threats posed to one’s self by others who would dare do one harm.No other Country will recognize or acknowledge these sacred truths. We know this because no other Country has codified in its own constitution or in any other legal writing of that Country the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Contrary to notions promulgated by propagandists or apologists for restricting the exercise of the fundamental and natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, this right is not archaic. It is not anachronistic. It is not to be construed, as some ignorant or ignoble people may wish perhaps, to convey it, as mere anomaly, or peculiarity, or curiosity, or annoyance. It is the very instantiation of the sovereignty, sanctity, and inviolability of the individual self.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is, therefore, as meaningful and purposeful today as it was in the day the founders of our Nation codified and enshrined this sacred natural, preeminent, fundamental right in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The founders of our Nation’s federal Government knew that the forces that seek to waylay a Nation’s people—to crush a Nation’s people into submission—lie ominously about—secretly, silently, malevolently. The founders of our Nation therefore sought a mechanism to fervently prevent or, at least, to forestall the subjugation of a Nation’s people—to forestall or prevent the subjugation of a people from the greatest and gravest and most insidious threat existent to our Nation’s people—a threat posed not from outside the Nation—but from the bowels within it. They sought to create an insurmountable hurdle to those secretive, powerful, evil forces that might seek then as now, the creation of a one world government—a government seemingly promoting the well-being of the planet’s people, but intent on crushing everyone, for the benefit of a few. Thus, our Nation’s founders drafted a short but prominent statement reminding those who may seek to destroy the American people, in body, mind, and spirit, and who may seek to dismantle this Nation State, that they will have a difficult time of it—that they will find the implementation of their insidious plan difficult, if not impossible—but certainly, impracticable—precisely because of those words etched in stone, impervious to erasure, that are, forever, our sacred Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The majority opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), penned by Justice Scalia, made clear, unmistakable, unequivocal, and categorical that the Second Amendment bespeaks an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms logically entails the right of self-defense. In that seminal case, as well, the high Court’s majority made clear, unmistakable, unequivocal, and categorical that Government cannot legally preclude the right of each of us to defend ourselves with a handgun in one’s own home.Does that mean that one’s right of self-defense stops at the doorstep of one’s home? Not at all. Yet, the forces that would crush the American people into submission went quickly and quietly to work to undermine the Heller rulings. They attempted and continue, to this very day, to attempt to undermine Heller. They do this through State Legislatures; through Congress; through mainstream news organizations; through grass root efforts, organized and funded by those despicable, disreputable, but powerful, highly secretive, and incommensurably wealthy overseers who seek to destroy our sacred Bill of Rights; and, most unfortunately, the forces that would crush the American people into submission do this through our Courts.While politicians and media attempt to whittle away at the Heller rulings through pompous oratory and misleading and dubious assertions, their fellow travelers in the Courts attempt to whittle away at Heller through obfuscation and through use of arcane legalese that serves to hide the misapplication of law, and that is designed to hoodwink the lay person, not attuned to the intricacies of legal thought.But, with Heller, the floodgates are open. The right expressed in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can no longer be simply and summarily dismissed as a subordinate right or, worse, as a dead letter—a meaningless assertion without force or substance.The case handed down by the D.C. Circuit, yesterday, in Wrenn vs. District of Columbia, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 2017), is the latest case to deal directly with a core Second Amendment issue. Does the right of use of a handgun in one’s self-defense in one’s home extend to the carrying of a handgun in one’s self-defense—which implies the carrying of a handgun in public—namely, outside the home. If so, defense of self, then, does not stop at the doorstep of one’s home, and Government is enjoined from creating arbitrary standards to restrict one’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.The decision was correctly decided in favor of plaintiffs but it came through a convoluted, circuitous path through the lower District Courts; and the ultimate decision, wasn’t unanimous. One Judge, in the three-Judge panel that decided the case, dissented from the majority opinion.The jurist who wrote the opinion for the Majority, Judge Griffith, began, thus: “Constitutional challenges to gun laws create peculiar puzzles for courts. In other areas, after all, a law’s validity might turn on the value of its goals and the efficiency of its means. But gun laws almost always aim at the most compelling  goal—saving lives—while evidence of their effects is almost always deeply contested. On top of that, the Supreme Court has offered little guidance. Its ‘first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment’ is younger than the first iPhone. District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller I), 554 U.S. 570, 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). And by its own admission, that first treatment manages to be mute on how to review gun laws in a range of other cases. See id. at 634. But listening closely to Heller I reveals this much at least: the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach. This lesson will prove crucial as we consider the challenges presented in these cases to the District of Columbia’s limits on carrying guns in public.”Judge Griffith, concluded the Wrenn opinion with this: “To watch the news for even a week in any major city is to give up any illusions about ‘the problem of handgun violence in this country.’  Heller I, 554 U.S. at 570. The District has understandably sought to fight this scourge with every legal tool at its disposal. For that long struggle against gun violence, you might see in today’s decision a defeat; you might see the opposite. To say whether it is one or the other is beyond our ken here. We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows—but no more. Just so, our opinion does little more than trace the boundaries laid in 1791 and flagged in Heller I. And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.”Judge Griffith obviously took pains to appease the angry antigun mob with a few sops. But, he made clear, if only tacitly, alluding to Justice Scalia’s assertions in Heller, that Government restrictions on one’s right to keep and bear arms, predicated on securing the safety of society does not invariably take precedent over the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, Government restrictions on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, grounded on notions of protecting society as a whole, in order to secure the safety and tranquility of the collective, of the hive, is doubtless false, fatuous. What Government is truly undertaking in restricting the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to constrain and control the people—to protect Government and the “elites” from the visible “threat” posed to their own unlawful usurpation of authority. Thus, restrictive gun legislation is contrary to the very import and purport of the Bill of Rights, as envisioned by the framers.As with the Kolbe case (Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42. F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) ), that the Arbalest Quarrel will continue to analyze, the Arbalest Quarrel will provide an in-depth analysis of the Wrenn case as well.Keep in mind that both cases, Kolbe and Wrenn, involve two core Second Amendment issues, and those two issues go hand-in-hand.Kolbe involves the issue as to what firearms are protected under the core of the Second Amendment. The Wrenn case involves the issue as to what constitutes good cause or, rather, whether, one must establish cause at all to carry a handgun—to be able, then, lawfully to carry a handgun; and that issue necessarily implicates the notion of where a person may exercise the right: namely, whether the right to defend one’s life with a handgun exists only  inside the home, or outside the home, as well. Plaintiffs in Kolbe have filed for an extension of time for U.S. Supreme Court review of their case. The $1,000,000.00 question in Wrenn is: what will the Defendant, District of Columbia do, now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit effectively struck down the restrictive District of Columbia handgun carry Statute?This state of affairs is odd to say the least and exasperating for government, for no State government has, in recent times, coming on the heels of Heller, failed to secure a win at the U.S. Court of Appeals level, in spite of the rulings and reasoning of the majority in Heller. Consider: Plaintiffs--namely, those individuals and entities filing complaints alleging government violation of the core of the Second Amendment--who lost at the U.S. Circuit Court level, in those critical cases implicating the core of the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs then filed for U.S. Supreme Court review, but failed to obtain review. Four U.S. Supreme Court Justices must vote to hear a case. We know that Justices Scalia and Thomas had voted to review U.S. Court of Appeals decisions in Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015) and in Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5498 (9th Cir. Cal., 2014) because Justices Scalia and Thomas wrote scathing comments, indicting the decisions of the U.S. Circuit Courts in those cases and tacitly voiced, vociferously, their disapproval of those jurists--Justices--on the high Court who failed to vote in favor of review of the cases. Likely, Justice Alito cast a third vote in favor of review of the Friedman and Jackson cases, consistent with the votes cast by Justices Scalia and Thomas; but three votes is insufficient to support U.S. Supreme Court review. Recently, the high Court also rejected a writ of certiorari in Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436 (9th Cir. Cal., June 9, 2016). Justice Thomas wrote a comment, amounting to a vehement denunciation of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in that case. The comment obviously alluded, as well, to more than slight chastisement of those Justices on the high Court who voted against review of Peruta. Justice Gorsuch, the most recent Justice to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, now joined Justice Thomas in dissenting the denial of the writ of certiorari. In each of those cases--Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015), Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5498 (9th Cir. Cal., 2014), and Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436 (9th Cir. Cal., June 9, 2016)--the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, clearly and, to our minds, unconscionably, revolted against the clear and categorical pronouncements of Heller and, further, deliberately and wrongly failed to heed to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In so failing to follow high Court precedent, those recalcitrant U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal denigrated our system of laws that relies for its efficacy, efficiency, and consistency on adherence to case law precedent.At this moment it isn't clear what the Defendant, District of Columbia, will do having lost in Wrenn. There are three options. One, the District of Columbia can file its own petition for review of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the District of Columbia does this, the high Court may very well decide to hear the case as Wrenn's connection to Heller--emanating as it does in the same jurisdiction--begs for a hearing if the District of Columbia dares to take the case up. Two, the District of Columbia can request an en banc review of the adverse decision. While en banc review--that is to say, a hearing of the full complement of U.S. Court of Appeals Judges of the D.C. Circuit to review the decision of the three-Judge panel--is not guaranteed, as an appellant cannot demand en banc review as a matter of right any more than a petitioner can demand that the U.S. Supreme Court accept petitioner's writ of certiorari (in fact, the high Court accepts very few cases for review), there is, we believe, albeit unfortunately, in all likelihood, more than an even chance that the decision of the three-judge panel would be reversed, since the D.C. Circuit, like the Ninth Circuit, has a deep-set aversion to the Second Amendment. Three, the District of Columbia can let the ruling of the three-Judge panel in Wrenn stand. This means the District of Columbia will become a "shall-issue" handgun carry jurisdiction. For supporters of the Second Amendment, as true Americans, faithful to the strictures of the Bill of Rights as defined by and understood by the framers, are, this last scenario is an acceptable situation. For, while the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals does not constitute binding precedent in other jurisdictions, the decision does constitute support, that sister jurisdictions might adopt.One cautionary note to those individuals who seek to carry a handgun in the District of Columbia on the basis of the Wrenn decision: Be advised that to do so, one must still obtain a license to carry a handgun, issued by the appropriate authorities in the District of Columbia. Do not attempt to carry a handgun in the District of Columbia without first obtaining a valid District of Columbia handgun license! It is a serious offense to do so; and penalties are harsh.One last note: Assuming the decision in Wrenn is not overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, hearing the case en banc, in the event the full complement of Judges decides to hear the case, or, in the alternative, assuming the decision in Wrenn is not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the event the District of Columbia petitions the high Court for review of the case and the high Court accepts review of Wrenn vs. District of Columbia, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 2017), that means one more United States jurisdiction is slowly, if grudgingly, commencing to comply with the rulings of Heller. That also means that we, supporters of full exercise of the right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment, are one step closer to realization of our goal of National handgun carry reciprocity. It is time for Congress to get off its duff and act to make National handgun carry reciprocity a reality!______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CONNECTICUT HANDGUN LICENSING LAWS AND PROCEDURES: COMPLETING THE APPLICATION

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: THE CASE FOR UNIVERSAL STATE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY

The Adventures of One Law-Abiding American Citizen as He Traverses the Minefield of Firearms’ Laws, Attempting to Secure for Himself Multiple Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses from A Multitude Of Jurisdictions That He May Exercise His Fundamental Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution For The Purpose Of Self-Defense

A Comprehensive Analysis of The Procedures for Obtaining a Concealed Handgun Carry License in Various States for The Layman

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE: THE APPLICATION PACKET

THE CIRCUITOUS, TORTUOUS ROUTE TO OBTAINING MULTIPLE UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES AS EXPERIENCED BY OUR INTREPID CITIZEN, MR. WRIGHT.

SUBPART FIVE

COMPLETING THE APPLICATION

INTRODUCTION

In the previous segment of the ROAD TRIP series, we commenced a detailed analysis of the application process for obtaining a Connecticut handgun carry permit. Mr. Wright, an American citizen and successful businessman has applied for several handgun carry licenses. He has done this because he conducts business in several jurisdictions and he carries with him substantial business assets when he travels to and through various States. He is a tempting target for thieves. Mr. Wright knows that the best defense against assault, when he is on the road, is through possession of handgun. Mr. Wright is thoroughly trained in the safe handling of a handgun and he has had special training in the use of a handgun for self-defense in critical life-threatening situations.We laid out for you, in the previous segment, SUBPART FOUR, all the documents the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police provides in the information and application packet. In this segment, SUBPART FIVE, we take a close look at the formal “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION." This Application is four pages in length—two pages folded over, in dark blue heavy stock paper. The first page lays out the instructions. There are three columns: one, “Instructions for State Pistol Permits,” (which applies to residents of Connecticut); two, “Instructions for Non-Resident State Pistol Permits;” and, three, “Instructions for Eligibility Certificates to Purchase Pistols or Revolvers and/or Eligibility Certificates to Purchase Long Guns.”As we are following the procedures for completing applications for handgun licenses that Mr. Wright—a law-abiding U.S. citizen and successful businessman who we use as our example in this exercise—followed, we see Mr. Wright and his attorney and professional security consultant, reviewing the application. Since Mr. Wright is a non-resident, Mr. Wright first checks off the box for a “Non-Resident State Pistol Permit.” Turning the page, Mr. Wright fills out the usual information requested—which he has done many times before, when completing applications for handgun licenses as issued in other jurisdictions. He sets forth his complete name, date of birth, vital statistics, namely, sex, height, and weight, race and sex.

A WORD OF ADVICE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE UNDERGONE SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY OR WHO WISH TO CLASSIFY THEMSELVES AS TRANSGENDER AND WHO IDENTIFY WITH A SEX OTHER THAN THEIR BIOLOGICAL (BIRTH) SEX.

Given changing societal norms, matters that have, for decades, never been an issue but that are slowly manifesting as new issues in employment, in schools in the military and in government, generally may create conundrums for applicants.It goes without saying that those parties authorized to prosecute applications for firearms’ licenses and permits are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, national origin, and that likely includes sexual orientation. Now, the matter of sex identification is a complex subject. Much legislation and litigation is or will be ongoing for some time to come. So, prior to specific legislation and Court rulings on the matter of sex, how should a person who, say, was born a man, but who identifies as a woman, complete an application for a firearm’s license or permit, when that person is instructed to set forth sex?For those who have not undergone sex reassignment, one should check the box that refers to their sex at birth—namely, their biological sex. Even for those who have undergone sex reassignment, it is probably best to indicate one’s sex at birth. Remember, the purpose here is to obtain a handgun license. Do not attempt to get into a philosophical fight with the firearms’ licensing official. You will lose. Nor should you leave the entry pertaining to sex, blank. The licensing official will assume that you had simply forgotten to enter your sex and this will delay prosecution of one’s handgun license. That goes for the issue of one’s race. A person may not wish to check off the appropriate box. There are six categories for race, and they include a category for “unknown.” Do not refrain from checking off at least one box on the application form. For, once again, if you leave this category blank, that will only delay prosecution of the application.If there is any doubt as to the appropriate course of action, you should contact a licensed attorney.For, Mr. Wright, the completion of this section on vital statistics was simple enough to complete. Mr. Wright is male, and white. He completed the entry for his height, weight, date of birth, place of birth and Country of Citizenship. Mr. Wright is a citizen of the United States.

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THIS COUNTRY.

For those individuals who do not reside in this Country legally, do not attempt to complete this application. The licensing official will deny your application. If you do reside in this Country legally, there is a box on the application form requiring you to set forth your “alien registration number.”

RESIDENTIAL AND MAILING ADDRESS AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

In this section of the Application, the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESSP, requires applicants to provide residential address—which includes addresses for the last seven years, from the date of the application, if the applicant has changed residences, and a mailing address (if different from residential address). Note, if residential address and mailing address are different, this may cause the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit Officer to flag the application.The applicant must also provide the name, address, and telephone number of one’s employer. If the applicant has had several employers, then the applicant must list the name, address, and telephone number of each employer that that applicant worked for during the last seven years. Be specific and do not refrain from listing every employer.Mr. Wright, for his part, is self-employed and has been self-employed for many years. So, Mr. Wright listed his Company as employer, the address of his main business offices, and his business phone number.

"PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION”

Every section of the Application is critical. But, some sections raise red flags. This is one of those sections. This section of the application requires the applicant to indicate whether he or she has had an application for a firearm’s permit “denied,” “suspended,” “revoked,” from any jurisdiction. Mr. Wright has several firearms’ permits and licenses issued by appropriate licensing authority from multiple States and, as required, from various jurisdictions within a State—as is the case with the State of New York, as Mr. Wright has handgun licenses issued by the appropriate licensing authority for New York City and for Nassau County, Long Island, New York. Mr. Wright has never had a firearm’s license permit, denied, suspended, or revoked and he checks off the appropriate box to indicate that fact.For those individuals who have applied for a firearm’s permit or license and a permit or license has been denied, suspended, or revoked, you must indicate that fact and give the particulars, by identifying the jurisdiction that denied, suspended, or revoked the application, the date of denial, suspension, or revocation, and the reason for the denial, suspension, or revocation.DO NOT LIE! And, do not refrain from indicating a denial, suspension, or revocation, that you might have, for that is tantamount to lying on the application. While admitting a denial, suspension, or revocation does raise a red flag, this does not constitute an automatic denial of your application. Lying does. You will find that The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police unforgiving of outright lies. On the other hand admitting a denial, suspension, or revocation of a handgun license does not mean that you will not receive a permit. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police is mindful that, in some jurisdictions, securing a handgun license or permit is very difficult and that this is due to the fact that some jurisdictions are “MAY ISSUE,” not “SHALL ISSUE,” where a person seeks to secure a handgun carry license. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police of Connecticut is certainly mindful that denial of a handgun carry permit or license may not be due to a “disability”—such as a felony arrest record—but simply due to the fact that a person does not meet the stringent requirements for obtaining a handgun carry license. Now, even though Connecticut is, itself considered a “MAY ISSUE” State for handgun carry permits, the issuance of a handgun carry permit is, for qualified individuals, much less stringent than is the case in a jurisdiction such as New York City. For, in Connecticut, the stated reason of “SELF DEFENSE” constitutes good and sufficient cause for issuance of a handgun carry permit to a qualified person. In New York City, on the other hand, “SELF DEFENSE,” as a stated reason for issuance of a handgun carry license is patently insufficient.If an individual’s application for a firearm has been denied due to “DISABILITY” that individual must indicate that fact. If an individual’s firearm’s license or permit has been suspended or revoked after issuance, the date of suspension or revocation and the reason therefor must also be stated. Once again, DO NOT LIE AND DO NOT REFRAIN FROM MENTIONING EACH AND VERY OCCURRENCE OF A DENIAL, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF A FIREARM’S LICENSE OR PERMIT! Be advised, too, that the Connecticut Application makes reference in this Section of the Application to “FIREARMS.” So don’t try to be cute and suppose that, if one had applied, in another jurisdiction for a long gun—that is to say, a rifle or shotgun—and that person has been denied issuance of a permit or license for a long gun—a person may refrain from mentioning that fact simply because he or she is applying, in Connecticut, for a handgun license. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police has used the term, ‘Firearm,’ for a reason, when it asks an individual to indicate whether that person’s application for a license or permit, in any jurisdiction, has been denied, suspended or revoked. If the Special Licensing Unit had indicated an interest in determining whether an individual’s application for a pistol or revolver had ever been denied, suspended, or revoked, it would have made specific reference to the denial, suspension, or revocation of one’s pistol or revolver license or permit. The use of the general term, ‘FIREARM,’ here is meant to be all-inclusive.

MEDICAL HISTORY, CRIMINAL HISTORY, AND MILITARY HISTORY

The third page of “THE PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” is the most critical section, for it is the true “RED FLAG” portion of the Application.In the “MEDICAL SECTION” of the Application, the applicant for a Connecticut handgun carry permit must check the appropriate for each of the following:

CONFINEMENT TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS BY ORDER OF A PROBATE COURT

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been confined in a hospital for mental illness in the past sixty (60) months by order of a Probate Court?” There is a check box for “yes” and for “no.”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no” as he has never been confined to a hospital for mental illness by order of a Probate Court. The question asked is inapplicable to him. Mr. Wright proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: THE QUESTION PERTAINS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS AS INVOLUNTARILY COMMITMENTS REQUIRE AN ORDER OF COURT. NO ONE CAN BE LAWFULLY CONFINED TO A HOSPITAL AGAINST HIS OR HER WISHES ABSENT AN ORDER FROM A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.

DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY HAVING BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY OF A CRIME BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL DEFECT

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been discharged from custody within the past twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of a mental disease or defect.”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no,” as the question asked is inapplicable to him. He has never been charged with a crime and, so, has never been in the position of having been found guilty of a crime where a court might have found him not guilty by reason of a mental disease or defect. Mr. Wright now proceeds to the next section of the Application.

VOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been voluntarily admitted to a hospital for mental illness within the past six (6) months for reason other than solely for alcohol or drug dependence?"Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no,” as he has never had reason to voluntarily commit himself to a hospital for mental illness or, for that matter, for any reason, relating to mental illness, or for alcohol or drug issues. The question asked is inapplicable to him. Mr. Wright then proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: THIS QUESTION, UNLIKE THE FIRST QUESTION, REFERS TO A VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTARILY ADMITS HIM OR HERSELF TO A HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT FOR A MENTAL ILLNESS OR FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG ISSUE RELATED TO OR UNRELATED TO AN UNDERLYING MENTAL ILLNESS.If the applicant has voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital for treatment for alcohol dependency or for dependency on drugs, whether those drugs be illegal or through lawful prescription, but the treatment does not entail “mental illness,” then the applicant can reasonably check the corresponding check box, “no.” This is tricky, though. If the applicant voluntarily commits himself to a hospital, within the six months preceding the date of application for a Connecticut, handgun carry permit, for treatment of an alcohol and/or drug related problem, the applicant may also be treated for a mental condition as alcohol and/or drug related problems may subsume a mental condition. If there is doubt about this, the applicant who has voluntarily committed himself or herself to a hospital for alcohol and/or drug related problems within the last six months should take a look at his or her medical record to ascertain whether the record indicates a mental disorder as it is incumbent on the applicant to be certain what his or her medical record says.“NOTICE: “DESPP HEREIN NOTIFIES THE APPLICANT THAT, PURSUANT TO C.G.S. §§ 29-28 THROUGH 29-30b, DESSP WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES IF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CONFINED TO A HOSPITAL FOR PSYCHIATRIC DISABILITIES WITHIN THE PRECEDING SIXTY (60) MONTHS BY ORDER OF PROBATE COURT, OR IF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS WITH THE PAST SIX (6) MONTHS FOR REASONS OTHER THAN SOLELY FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG DEPENDENCE.”This “NOTICE” is to alert the Applicant that, regardless how the Applicant answers the questions of this section, DESPP will contact the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. So, under no circumstances should the applicant think that, by lying on the application, the DESPP, will not find out whether an applicant has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a hospital for treatment. DESPP will also be contacting the FBI, to ascertain criminal record of the applicant if any and if an individual was found not guilty of a crime due to mental illness or mental defect, that is likely to be in the FBI data bases as well.

PRIOR ARREST RECORD

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you ever been ARRESTED for any crime in any jurisdiction?”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the appropriate box, “no,” and proceeds to the next section of the Application.For those individuals who do have an arrest record and therefore must check off the box, “yes,” the Firearms and Special Licensing Division of the Division of State Police instructs the applicant to list all arrests, indicating charges, locations, dates of arrest and dispositions.“NOTICE: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION, THE RECORDS OF WHICH HAVE GBEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO C.G.S. §§ 46-b-146, 54-142a. IF YOUR CRIMINAL RECORDS HAVE BEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO ONE OF THESE STATUTES, YOU MAY SWEAR UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ARRESTED. CRIMINAL RECORDS THAT MAY BE ERASES ARE RECORDS PERTAINING TO A FINDING OF DELINQUENCY OR THAT A CHILDE WAS A MEMBER OF A FAMILY WITH SERVICE NEEDS (C.G.S. 46b-146), AN ADJUDICATION AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (C.G.S. 54-76o), A CRIMINAL CHARGE THAT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR NOLLED, A CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PERSON HAS BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY, OR A CONVICTION FOR WHICH THE PERSONA RECEIVED AN ABSOLUTE PARDON (C.G.S. 54-142a).”“WITH REGARD TO CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION ARISING FROM JURISDICTIONS OTHER THAN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION, THE RECORDS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO THE LAW OF THE OTHE RJURISDCITION. ADDITIONALLY, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF AN ARREST ARISING FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION IF YOU ARE PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW OF THAT JURISDICTION TO SWEAR UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ARRESTED.”The Section pertaining to criminal history too, gets tricky. The applicant with an arrest record must, of course, be completely honest. Failure to admit an arrest record when required to do so, will not likely fool the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police. And, even if a handgun carry license should issue because a mistake was made, don’t think that you have “pulled the wool over the eyes” of the Licensing Official. For, at some point the truth will come out. You will lose your firearms; you will lose your handgun carry permit; and you will face federal prosecution and possibly State prosecution as well on the ground of unlawful possession of firearms contrary to law because of disability. On the other hand, whether you can properly check the corresponding check box, “no,” regarding ARREST RECORD, notwithstanding that you DO have an arrest record, this comes down to whether you fall within an exception as noted above. READ THE "NOTICE" CAREFULLY. The safest course of action for those applicants who do have an arrest record, whether or not it is apparent that the applicant falls within an exception to acknowledging the arrest record on the application, is to contact a licensed attorney before completing and sending in the application packet. That will prevent a multitude of sins if you make an error, intentionally or not, in filling out this section of the Application for a Connecticut handgun carry permit. For mistakes in accurate reporting have negative ramifications, not only in Connecticut, but in any other jurisdiction where a person is considering applying for a handgun carry permit or license.

CONVICTION OF A CRIME

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you ever been CONVICTED under the laws of this state, federal law or the laws of another jurisdiction?"Mr. Wright truthfully checks the appropriate check box, “no,” and proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: TO THOSE APPLICANTS FOR A CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME EITHER IN CONNECTICUT, OR IN ANOTHER STATE, OR HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, THAT APPLICANT MUST LIST ALL CONVICTIONS, INCLUDING, CHARGES, LOCATION , DATE OF ARREST, AND DISPOSITION.THE APPLICANT MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION TRUTHFULLY, AND MUST PROVIDE COMPLETE ANSWERS. THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING UNIT WILL OBTAIN RECORDS, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE APPLICANT RESPONDS, BUT THE LICENSING OFFICIAL IS LOOKING FIRST AND FOREMOST FOR VERACITY ON THE PART OF APPLICANTS FOR HANDGUN CARRY PERMITS. IF AN APPLICANT IS LIAR, THAT ALONE IS GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF ONE’S APPLICATION, FOR LYING ON THIS APPLICATION CONSTITUTES OVERT ADMISSION OF BAD CHARACTER, AND INDICATION THAT SUCH A PERSON SHOULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

PROBATION, PAROLE, OR WORK RELEASE

Other than arrest or conviction of a crime, or concomitant with arrest or conviction of a crime, the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Are you currently on probation, parole, work release, in an alcohol and/or drug treatment program or other pre-trial diversionary program or currently released on personal recognizance, a written promise to appear or a bail bond for a pending court case?"Mr. Wright responds, truthfully, answering, “no,” by checking the appropriate check box and proceeds to the next section of the application.NOTE: THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING UNIT DOES NOT ASK FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION AS SET FORTH IN THE PRIOR SECTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, NAMELY, CHARGES, LOCATION OF COURT, AND SPECIFIC DISPOSITION. THE QUESTION APPEARS MORE OPEN-ENDED, PARTLY, PERHAPS, BECAUSE PROBATION, PAROLE, WORK RELEASE, AND OTHER COURT ORDERS, RESPECTING SPECIFICALLY DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT ,REQUIRE THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPECIFY DETAILS OF CONVICTION AND ARREST IN THE PRIOR SECTIONS AND HAVING TO REPEAT THOSE IS REDUNDANT.

PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND RESTRAINING ORDERS

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Within the past five (5) years, have you been the subject of a Protective Order or Restraining Order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of the outcome or result of any related criminal case?”Mr. Wright truthfully answered, “no” to this question, checking off the appropriate box on the Application. He then proceeded to the next question.NOTE: ONCE AGAIN, THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING DIVISION ISN’T INSTRUCTING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER, BUT MERELY FACT OF IT AND, IF AN ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THEN THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SET FORTH, ON THE APPLICATION, THE COURT THAT ISSUED THE ORDER.

MILITARY HISTORY

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Were you ever a member of the Armed Forces of the United States?” And, if so, the Applicant is requested to provide a copy of the applicant’s “DD-214”—the Discharge Documents.Mr. Wright was never a member for the Armed Forces, so he truthfully, responds by checking the appropriate checkbox, “no,” and he proceeds to the next section of the application.If the applicant were a member of the Armed Forces, the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police pointedly asks:“Were you ever discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States with a less than Honorable Discharge?” The Applicant must respond with either, “yes,” or, “no,” checking off the appropriate check box.

AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATIONS

The “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” doesn’t state, but an individual applying for a pistol permit in Connecticut—or in any other jurisdiction for that matter, should be advised that, under FEDERAL LAW, specified grounds exist that prohibit a person from possessing a firearm. That means the Firearms and Special Licensing Division of the Division of State Police cannot and will not issue a handgun carry permit to anyone who is not permitted under federal law—wholly apart from the requirements of Connecticut Law—from possessing a firearm. Under Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes), Chapter 44 (Firearms) of the Federal Penal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d):“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—(1)  is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2)  is a fugitive from justice;(3)  is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4)  has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;(5)  who, being an alien—(A)  is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B)  except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a) (26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (26));(6) [who] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7)  who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;(8)  is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A)  was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and(B) (i)  includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii)  by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9)  has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”If you fall under any one or more of the above categories, then do not apply for a Connecticut permit to carry a pistol or revolver. Save your money. The Firearms and Special Licensing Division will deny you a permit to carry and you may be subject to federal and State criminal penalties for attempting to gain possession of a firearm by lying on the application. Worse, if you lie on the application and a permit is issued to you, and through the issuance of a permit you obtain a firearm, you are now in criminal possession of a firearm and subject to immediate arrest. AND, Be advised that, if a handgun permit is erroneously issued to you, because you lied on the Application, the DESPP will eventually become aware of the error. Don’t think that you will be able to fool the DESPP—that no further investigation won’t be done specifically to spot errors on an application. Further, suppose you are truthful in answering each question on the Application and yet you are under a disability that the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit Officer fails to spot, still, under federal law if you are not permitted lawfully to own a firearm, then the mere assertion you told the truth when completing the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION and that it is the fault of the DESPP in issuing you a handgun carry permit will not protect you from criminal liability. For, intent to be truthful is not a defense to the litany of disqualifications of Title 18. If a person isn’t permitted under federal and/or State law from possessing a firearm, then the fact that he or she has been issued a firearm’s license or permit erroneously will not provide one with a defense to the discharge of unlawful possession of a firearm.

PROOF OF TRAINING

On page 4, the last page of the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION, the applicant must attach a copy of his or her handgun training certificate, setting forth the agency that offered the training and issued the certificate, along with the Instructor’s name and ID Number.Mr. Wright made a copy of his Certificate and completed the application with the information requested.

DECLARATION

The Applicant must attest that the information he has provided in the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION is truthful and that the Applicant understands that an untruthful statement will void the Application. This DECLARATION is UNDER OATH. So, the Applicant must swear before a Notary Public and the Notary Public must duly notarize the Application.Mr. Wright duly signed his name and swore, before the Notary Public, that the contents of the Application that he completed were truthful. Mr. Wright and his attorney and professional security expert then made sure that the Application packet contained all documents that the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESPP required, that all portions of the Application that Mr. Wright had to complete were in fact answered, and that the Application packet contained Mr. Wright’s personal checks to cover the processing of his Application.Mr. Wright waited a few weeks. His attorney checked with the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit, regularly, to make sure, first, that the Licensing Unit did receive the Application, and subsequently, that Mr. Wright’s Application was complete and, lastly, that the Application was being prosecuted.Mr. Wright was eventually contacted by the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police. Mr. Wright was required to travel to Connecticut to receive his Connecticut Pistol Permit.

NOTICE: APPEAL PROCESS FOR PERMITS

The final section of the Application provides the Applicant with the process for Appeal if his or her Application is denied. Further discussion of the appeals process.In the concluding segment of analysis of Connecticut handgun carry permit application procedures, Subpart Six, we discuss renewals. Although renewals are generally a relatively easy and painless process, they do take time and they do require more outlay of cash. Furthermore, each jurisdiction has its own timetable for renewals. This causes a busy entrepreneur like Mr. Wright more than a little frustration. Renewals of handgun licenses must not be taken lightly. Missing a renewal date means that the license or permit holder will have to go through the entire ordeal of obtaining a permit again with the concomitant monetary outlays, aggravation, and delays in the processing of the application.National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation will go a very long way in streamlining the process of obtaining and renewing a handgun carry permit, as, if Congressional Legislation is drafted well, then the handgun holder of a valid handgun permit or license will only be required to have on his person, when carrying a handgun, just one valid handgun carry permit. That means, too, that the permit or license holder will only need to renew one handgun license and not several that many license holders must now carry—that Mr. Wright must, at present, hold.We conclude our discussion of Connecticut handgun licensing laws and procedures with the next installment of the Road Trip Series: Part Four, Subpart Six, a Postscript. We will then move to a detailed analysis of Massachusetts handgun licensing laws and procedures, as we continue the Road Trip Series of articles.____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

SMART GUNS: INTERVIEW WITH BBC ON TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017, AT SENECA SPORTING RANGE, LOCATED IN RIDGEWOOD, QUEENS, NEW YORK.

SMART GUNS: INTERVIEW WITH BBC ON TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017, AT SENECA SPORTING RANGE, LOCATED IN RIDGEWOOD, QUEENS, NEW YORK

In early May 2017, a researcher with a BBC affiliate, BBC Radio 4, contacted the Arbalest Quarrel by email, informing me (Stephen D’Andrilli) that the BBC was doing a Documentary on “Smart Guns,” titled, “Guns and Coders,” and invited the Arbalest Quarrel to take part in it.I informed my Business Partner, and co-founder of the Arbalest Quarrel, Roger Katz, and we agreed that the Arbalest Quarrel would be interested in taking part in the Documentary. A series of back-and-forth emails followed. We pointed out that we were very busy but would take the time to prepare for the Documentary, researching and publishing articles.In one email, Roger wrote to the BBC researcher with this: “Thank you for contacting us. I see that my business partner, Stephen L. D'Andrilli, contacted you. I have been in phone contact with Stephen this morning as well. We would like very much to assist you in your research on ‘smart gun’ technology and would like to set the record straight. We have much information to share with you, to help you better understand the problems associated with ‘smart gun’ technology. In that regard, there are four basic areas, pertaining to ‘smart gun’ technology we would like to touch upon: (1) media related matters apropos of social and political messaging; (2) technical and pragmatic issues; (3) economic considerations; and (4) legal issues.”Roger and I felt it important to establish parameters for agreeing to take part in the Documentary. In that regard, Roger elaborated with a further email, which he directed to the Producer of the BBC Documentary, stating:“In preparation for the upcoming interview, be advised: 1)  Stephen has arranged for you to meet with the owner at the owner's NYC licensed in-door firearms range in Queens. The owner of the range holds a Federal Firearms License (“FFL”) and will be able to answer technical questions related, generally, to proper firearms use and safety. 2) We have provided for your perusal links to two articles we wrote and posted on our website, on smart guns. They are, one, "Smart Guns are not a Smart Idea;" posted on August 1, 2016;" and, two, "'Smart Guns for Gun Owners: A New Monitoring Device," posted on May 2, 2014.  You will note we present a specific slant to the issue of firearms ownership and possession, just as those, on the other side, present their own slant. We don’t apologize for this. We readily admit it. But the points we make, in the articles on smart gun technology are sound and valid. We trust they will operate as a useful springboard to further questions you may wish to pose to us. In that regard, we ask that you provide us with specific questions. We will respond to you, in writing, and discuss and expand upon the points made, during the interview in June. You may wish to consider the following, in posing specific questions to us, to which we will gladly respond in depth. A) TECHNICAL: Understand that there is no one specific “smart gun” technology. There are several. Each has defects. Real world, in depth, tests have not, to our knowledge, been undertaken. Questions remain whether police departments around the Country would recommend use of such technology for their rank and file officers. And, if not, why not? B) ECONOMIC: Quality firearms are not cheap. Factor in the cost of ammunition, cleaning supplies, accessories, cost of licensing, and an individual could spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars. If smart gun technology becomes a requirement, the cost of producing firearms will skyrocket. Those costs will be passed onto the consumer. Only the most well-heeled individuals will be able to afford such firearms. Further, question remains whether application of certain “smart gun” technology is feasible from a manufacturing perspective. It is the firearms manufacturers alone who can best answer that question. C) LEGAL: The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an “individual” right. The 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, has made that point clear. Smart gun technology would “lock out” poorer Americans ability to exercise their right of self-defense inherent in the 2008 Heller decision. Keep in mind a basic tension that exists between Government that seeks increased regulation of firearms ostensibly to promote public safety versus the right and duty of each individual to take responsibility for his or her own life and safety. Public safety does not equate with personal safety. There is no one-to-one relationship. State Governments have no duty under their laws, with few exceptions, to protect the life and well-being of individuals, only communities. That idea tends to be lost in discussion. D) MEDIA RELATED: The mainstream media is antithetical to the notion of civilian gun ownership. That is not conjecture. It is fact. We ask that you keep in mind, as you approach the subject matter of “smart guns,” that the specific matter you wish to address exists within the context of two fundamental, contradictory influences that  overshadow the question whether “smart gun” technology is a good idea or not. On one side of the debate there are the antigun groups, which, together with the mainstream media, and like-minded politicians approach the “gun issue” from the standpoint that no civilian should own or possess a firearm. They believe the Second Amendment is archaic and they would seek de facto repeal of it if they could. This fundamental premise informs their argument in support of “smart gun” technology and cannot logically be separated from it. This antithetical view toward guns is visceral and functions as the raw foundation of the antigun movement, stripped to its essentials. On the other side are the proponents of civilian gun ownership and possession. That is the side we fall on. We begin with the assumption, as the Heller majority made clear, that gun ownership and possession is a sacred right, not a privilege, and that it is grounded in natural law. The Second Amendment does not create the right, but merely codifies the right that exists inherently in each American. Smart gun technology is an unnecessary restriction that, to use a cliché, appears, to us, to be simply “a solution in search of a problem.” We understand that, given time constraints and exigencies, you will be compelled to edit the responses we provide you with. Our concern is that our answers can, if improperly edited, be taken out of context. We ask that if you do edit our written responses, you allow us the opportunity to see the proposed edits before presenting them in a final cut. Thank you.”In a third email, Roger provided further commentary which we felt the BBC should be aware of:“This is a follow-up to the email I sent to you earlier this evening. I realized I had not responded to your query regarding specific case law pertaining to smart guns. The long and short of my response to you here is that no case law exists in any jurisdiction that I was able to find through legal research. That doesn't surprise me because no laws have been enacted in any jurisdiction, as of yet (at least that I am aware of), that would require a person—who is under no federal or State disability and who seeks to own and possess a firearm—to purchase a firearm utilizing ‘smart’ technology. I have no doubt that there would be challenges to the Constitutionality of such legislation if or when a State enacts ‘smart gun’ legislation. The Constitutional challenge will rely, in part, at least, on the  Heller case where the high Court, held—apart from striking down the District of Columbia's total ban on handguns as patently unconstitutional—that ‘the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.’ Extrapolating from that holding in Heller, this means that, if ‘smart gun’ technology delays reaction time in an emergency either due to the nature of the technology—assuming it is functioning properly and is not otherwise defective—or otherwise delays use of the firearm in an emergency due to the requirement that some manipulation of ‘smart’ technology is required by the user before the firearm will function properly, this may result in a successful challenge by a party plaintiff on the ground that such technology when employed in firearms is unconstitutional, consistent with U.S. Supreme Court holding that, if self-defense is a legitimate and well-founded ground for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is ludicrous, to preclude a person from having immediate, effective access to a firearm in a critical emergency self-defense situation. By the way, the Kolbe case that we have written extensively on does not involve ‘smart guns.’ [The Producer had asked about the Kolbe case as we had pointed out that we were doing a comprehensive analysis on Kolbe, at the time and the Producer had apparently erroneously made an association between that case and the issue of ‘smart guns’]. The plaintiffs in Kolbe challenged the constitutionality of Maryland's ‘Firearms Safety Act’ that, inter alia, bans lawful ownership of firearms that Maryland defines as so-called ‘assault weapons.’ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en banc, held that the Act does not offend the Second Amendment. The Court employed the ‘intermediate scrutiny’ standard when it upheld the lawfulness of the Act. Plaintiffs will appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is a virtual certainty. But, whether the high Court will grant certiorari to hear the case is an open question. Two previous Second Amendment cases, one from the Ninth Circuit and one from the Seventh Circuit, coming on the heels of Heller, were denied cert. Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia were livid at the failure of the Justices to vote to hear those cases. Clearly, one or more of the conservative wing Justices, along with the liberal wing Justices did not wish to hear the cases, fearing an expansion of Heller. There is no other reasonable explanation for the high Court's failure to grant certiorari in those two cases.”The Producer responded to Roger’s emails, exclaiming:“Personally I don’t have position on this, as I said, so I  find the arguments interesting and strong actually. I look forward to meeting to discuss further.”Roger and I felt it important to establish the parameters for my interview with the BBC, concerned the BBC, during the editing process, might unfairly manipulate the data we present to them, as the BBC would then present to the public, recalling the infamous Katie Couric "Under the Gun" pseudo-Documentary. The Virginia Citizen's Defense League ("VCDL"), brought a defamation suit against Couric in the case, Va. Citizens Def. League vs. Couric, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83308) (E.D.V.A. 2017). The case was decided against Plaintiff VCDL on May 31, 2017. The VCDL is appealing the adverse decision.We agreed to take part in the Documentary but with the stipulation that we would receive questions that would be asked beforehand and, because we were under publication deadlines, we would need time to prepare a detailed, formal response. It was also our understanding that the BBC would not stray from the questions provided to us.These are the questions the BBC Producer emailed us, on June 2, 2017. They are predicated, in part, in substantial part, on Roger’s correspondence with the BBC.“Do you have a gun in your home? What is it, where do you keep it? Do you think smart guns are a good idea? Why not? Tell us about the legal reasons Tell us about the technical reasons Tell us about the economic reasons What are the different groups involved in this debate in the US? Where do you reside? What do you think would be a good way to reduce gun violence (accidental deaths etc)?”With these questions provided us, Roger and I prepared a comprehensive written response.The interview took place on June 6, 2017, as planned.The BBC interviewed John Deloca, owner of the Seneca Sporting Range, first. My interview immediately followed. I was prepared to answer the questions based upon our research. The BBC deviated from the questions provided, expecting spontaneous informal responses.At that point I was prepared to call off the interview. But I agreed to go forward with the interview when the interviewer gave me the latitude to deal with what underlies the entire debate about “smart guns”: the issue concerning gun possession in America.As I proceeded, I talked about gun ownership and gun possession in America and in the context of UK attitudes toward gun ownership and gun possession, as the BBC Documentary was really targeting the UK audience.As the British Government does not recognize the right of their citizens—really subjects—to own and possess guns, and as the average British subject has no conception of a right to keep and bear arms, a British subject would not understand Americans antipathy toward “smart guns” as an alternative to those firearms presently on the market.I explained that, in this Country, neither manufacturers of firearms nor consumers of firearms have expressed any interest in “smart guns.” I pointed out that “Smart guns” are being pushed on the American public by antigun politicians, antigun groups, and by the mainstream media. Smart guns are not needed, and they are not wanted. Smart guns are nothing more than an expensive, foolhardy solution in search of a problem.I also pointed to Great Britain’s own antipathy toward firearms, explaining that, at one time, the average British subject could own firearms, back in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries but that, through time, British subjects had lost their right to own and possess firearms. I explained that the British Government did not confiscate guns immediately. Gun prohibition was done slowly but inexorably. The British Government made incremental changes to gun laws until the right was completely lost.More insidiously, British subjects lost all knowledge that, at one time, it was commonplace for those subjects to own and possess firearms. The BBC interviewer was unaware of that fact. Today, the average British police officer (colloquially, even affectionately, referred to as the “Bobby”) is unarmed. But, in light of devastating attacks recently against British subjects and against the British police, by radical Islamic terrorists, the Government in Britain is reappraising now whether the “Bobby” should be armed. But, it is clear that the British Government is not entertaining any notion of arming the average British subject.British politicians claim that the British subjects may be unnerved and alarmed to see heavily armed military police patrolling after the fact. Yet, if the Metropolitan Police force (the “Bobbies”) were armed before the fact, coupled with armed British subjects, it is clear that the number of lives lost because of the despicable actions of radical Islamic terrorists could have been reduced. The entire United Kingdom is a soft target.Concern over offending Muslims prevents the British Government from enacting the stringent laws necessary to combat terrorism. The Islamic terrorists have taken advantage of an unarmed citizenry and even an unarmed police force.The interview didn’t go as we had expected and had hoped for, but the BBC interviewer seemed amenable to the points we made. Toward the end of the interview, the BBC interviewer expressed a desire to learn more generally about the gun debate and about self-defense with firearms; and I was pleased to expound upon these matters at some length. How much of my exposition will appear in the Documentary remains to be seen. That there be no doubt as to our position on "Smart Guns," we provide, below, our complete response to the BBC Interviewer's questions._____________________________

ARBALEST QUARREL’S DETAILED RESEARCH MATERIAL PREPARED IN RESPONSE TO THE BBC’S QUESTIONS

QUESTION #1: DO YOU HAVE A GUN IN YOUR HOME?

• As a veteran police officer with the New York City Police Department, I carried and possessed firearms on a daily basis. As an NRA Certified Instructor in pistol, rifle, and shotgun, a Training Counselor, and an active member in the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (“IALEFI”), I handled firearms regularly. As an Associate Professor/Lecturer of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY), I taught about the proper and safe use of firearms. So, I am comfortable and experienced with firearms.
• The purpose of a gun is deterrence and one should be discrete about it. It would not be prudent for me or for anyone who is similarly situated to advertise that they have a gun on them or in their possession.
• There are millions of honest, law-abiding citizens who own and possess handguns and who carry handguns on their person or keep them in their home and place of business. Although Americans possess firearms for sporting, recreational, and competitive purposes, most do so for self-defense and protection. These are all lawful purposes for possessing firearms in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court held, in the 2008 Heller decision, that the Second Amendment protects the right of American citizens, as individuals, who are not under a disability, to possess firearms for lawful purposes.
• Now, I understand your inquisitiveness, coming from the United Kingdom where it is illegal for the average person to possess firearms, where even the police are unarmed, and where your Government does not recognize an individual’s right of self-defense with firearms. But, in our Country, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural right, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

QUESTION #2. WHAT KIND OF FIREARMS DO YOU HAVE

• The type of firearms a person chooses to own and possess is a personal matter, based on one’s needs. There are three categories of firearms available to the American public: rifle, shotgun and handgun. Handguns can be revolvers that generally hold 5 or 6 rounds of ammunition or semi-automatics with magazines where the number of rounds carried, varies. Each type of handgun has its own advantages and disadvantages and applications.

QUESTION #3. WHERE DO YOU KEEP YOUR FIREARMS?

• Persons who choose to exercise their right to possess firearms bear the responsibility to properly handle them when in use and to safeguard them when not in use.
• A firearm should not be left unattended where an unauthorized person or child could get his/her hands on it.

QUESTION #4. DO YOU THINK “SMART GUNS” ARE A GOOD IDEA?

• No. But, to understand why I don’t think they are a good idea, it is necessary to define the term. So, we must ask first:

WHAT IS A “SMART GUN?”

• Basically a ‘smart gun,’ as the expression is generally understood, means a firearm that can only be operated by the authorized user of it. My close friend, David Kopel, an academician, a licensed attorney, and constitutional law expert defines the expression in this way: “‘Smart Guns’ is a slang term for a hypothetical firearm that incorporates computer technology so that the gun can only be fired by the authorized user.’”  
• As an aside, the expression, ‘smart gun,’ was registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 9, 2007: Registration No. 3307653, for “firearms having automatic locking mechanisms.” The registration is still active.
• The owner, Kenneth Pugh, held, as well, the first patent for such technology. Patents, though, expire; trademarks never do, so long as the mark, in connection with the goods, is continuously used in interstate commerce and if an affidavit of continuous use in interstate commerce is filed every six years with the USPTO.
• If federal or State law requires use of such technology in firearms, and firearms are mass-produced by companies using “smart” technology, those companies will not be able to use the expression, “smart gun” on their firearms unless they successfully bring an action to challenge the registration arguing that the expression, “smart gun,” as applied to firearms having automatic locking mechanisms is generic of the goods. The expression, ‘smart gun,’ may also be available if the owner of the registration has cancelled it or the registration, or the registration is abandoned.
• Through time, companies have attempted to market firearms using such technology. The most commonly drawn example is the iP1 semiautomatic pistol manufactured by the German manufacturer, Armatix GMBH. The firearm, as advertised, uses RFID technology. Retail gun dealers in the U.S. are, to our knowledge, not interested in it. The manufacturer does offer the handgun on its website. The price, though, is not listed. An interested party must contact the manufacturer directly to obtain pricing. The pistol is surely expensive and beyond the budget of most consumers.
• Several technologies have been employed in research and development of firearms using such “smart” technology. The most common technology employs what I talked about above, “Radio Frequency Technology” (“RFID”). Firearms that incorporate this technology require the user to wear a ring, bracelet, or watch that transmits radio waves to the receiver that then allows the gun to be fired. Other technology would employ some form of biometric control, such as voice or touch recognition. Still a third type of “smart” technology would utilize some form of remote control feature.
• Smart gun technology first arrived in the latter quarter of the Twentieth Century, and, so, is relatively new. It is the application of computer technology to firearms.
• Today’s mechanical guns, though, are not new. They are the state of the art in product development, design, materials, and testing, going back to the Nineteenth Century. They operate reliably in every conceivable extreme condition: heat, cold, sand, mud, or submerged in water. They can be abused in many ways: dropped, thrown, and stepped on. They can be operated with hands covered in dirt, grime, or blood, or when wearing gloves. They can be inoperable for years and can still operate perfectly when required for use.

QUESTION #5. WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC, AND PRAGMATIC REASONS AGAINST “SMART GUNS?”

• To begin, there are always costs, some of them unintended, even with the supposed benefits of adopting a new technology. That is certainly true in the case of mandating a major change to handgun production.
• If safety is the object, to prevent unauthorized use, then it is relevant to consider that this issue cuts two ways. Handguns, as used by civilians in the U.S., are essentially defensive weapons. It is as critical that the weapon operate for the authorized user of it when the authorized user has need of it—for self-defense—no less than it is to prevent an unauthorized user from gaining access to it. Yet, the default, fallback, state of “smart guns,”—if the “smart technology” detects a technical problem with the mechanism—is for the weapon to shut-down, which means that it will not operate. However, in a self-defense situation, that can mean the difference between life and death for the “authorized” user who depends on the weapon for self-defense.
• The technology is not proved reliable. Firearms have come a long way. Smart technology, as applied, to handguns, as of this date, has not. The major manufacturers of handguns, including, among others, Glock, Ruger, Colt, Beretta, Heckler Koch, Sig Sauer, and Smith and Wesson, produce quality products. That’s why military and police forces around the world, as well as law-abiding American citizens, have come to depend on these weapons for self-defense. Through decades, and in some instances for over a century that these gun manufacturers have been in business, they have honed their skills and have, as a result, created quality weapons that are known for their durability and dependability.
• Smart gun technology has not been demonstrated to be reliable. To date police departments in the U.S. have not adopted smart gun technology for this very reason. If law enforcement and the military cannot be expected to rely on “smart guns” in life and death situations because of the anticipated unreliability of weapons incorporating this technology, why should the government force this technology on the public. The answer is simple. Look to those politicians and groups who are promoting its use. It is not coming from firearms manufacturers or from the firearms consumer, or from the police or the military. It is coming from politicians and organizations that are viscerally opposed to civilian ownership and possession of firearms. These politicians and groups know virtually nothing about firearms, nor do they care to learn the mechanics of their operation. They promote these firearms from a purported “safety” aspect only. But “safe” for whom, against whom? These politicians and groups would be perfectly content that “smart guns” don’t work; that, they cannot be relied upon as a self-defense implements.
• Considering that one impetus for “smart guns” started with the idea of providing a way to protect police from incidents where, in a confrontation with an individual, the officer’s weapon is taken away from him and then used against him, proposed legislation specifically exempts the police from the mandate that they use the technology when or if available.
• If smart guns do become feasible from a technology and production standpoint and if the problem of reliability—marrying a mechanical tool with computer technology—there is still a hurdle; and that hurdle is one of cost. Academicians posit the cost of a smart gun to range from a few hundred dollars to double the cost of a gun that is presently manufactured. Quality guns already cost the consumer several hundred dollars. Add in the cost of manufacturing guns with “smart” technology, to produce a quality, dependable, durable handgun for the average consumer, the price of the average handgun may well exceed one thousand dollars, perhaps, two or even three thousand dollars. Only the “well-heeled” among law-abiding citizens will be able to afford handguns. That means most law-abiding citizen consumers who seek to purchase a handgun for self-defense will be priced out of the market.
• Even if major reliability issues of smart technology are overcome some residual inherent flaws remain, specific to each “smart” technology. Those handguns utilizing RFID technology rely on some power source and any power source, such as batteries, are prone to failure over time. Those handguns that utilize a remote-control transmitter require proximity to the person and all such transmitters would be prone to excitation through radio waves from some other external source thereby causing a malfunction in the handgun due to interference. The transmitter itself may be lost or held by a third person, causing another avenue for malfunction. Biometric technologies such as voice or fingerprint command are prone to their own set of flaws: change in voice tone or modulation, or contaminants on the hand or on the weapon causing malfunction.
• There is a practical issue that must be considered and it relates to problems inherent in the context of authorized user and to the notion of personalization intrinsic to smart guns. Suppose a household has a smart gun, using, for example, RFID technology. RFID technology requires the authorized user of the weapon to wear a ring or bracelet or watch. “What happens if a spouse, who does not wear the ring or bracelet, has to use the weapon to defend the gun owner who is already incapacitated by the perpetrator?” This should not be construed as an implausible situation that would not arise in a real-life situation. It is all too possible. We have a situation here where one spouse might have to come to the aid of the other, but now have both spouses at the mercy of the house invader. The smart gun, designed to reduce risk of unintentional injury, has now become a useless object—useless for self-defense. This problematic fact of smart guns was brought to my attention by another close friend and my former partner in the NYPD, Andrew Cilenti. Andy is a retired Police Lieutenant, a New York State Licensed Private Investigator, and an active member of several national law enforcement organizations.
• There exists an inherent flaw in smart gun technology that likely will never be overcome, regardless of the type of “smart” technology employed, making adoption of smart guns by both police and law-abiding citizens problematic. This involves “delay time.” Smart gun technology—whatever its nature—must incorporate sensors of some sort—to ascertain whether the user is, in fact, authorized to use the weapon. Academic studies point out that the delay time can be as much as a few seconds—much too long in a life and death situation to be practical.
• Since “smart guns” contain computer technology, it is well within the realm of possibility that they can be “hacked into,” thereby permitting an unauthorized user to gain use to the weapon. Moreover, if smart guns can be hacked remotely, it is possible that the guns may fire unexpectedly, thus defeating the de facto state of non-operation. Hence, smart guns may not offer the paramount “safety” that the proponents of them assume, erroneously, that they have.
• While smart gun technology may prevent operation of a stolen gun by a criminal who might otherwise use that stolen gun in a homicide, smart gun technology will do nothing to prevent an authorized user of his or her smart gun from using it to commit suicide, which is the single source of major deaths attributed to firearms next to homicide. Criminal traffickers of stolen “smart guns” will always find a way to override the “smart gun” features. This is no different than hackers of computers always finding ways to overcome even the best computer defenses, leading to a constant arms race between those who wish to protect computers from being broken into and those committed to breaking into those computers.
• There are about 250 million firearms presently in civilian hands in the United States. Laws requiring that all new civilian handgun purchases incorporate smart gun technology is unlikely to have substantial statistical impact on gun deaths resulting from accident or intentional, unlawful killing. Moreover, accidental deaths might increase as gun safety becomes laxer as individuals come to rely on purported safety benefits accruing from handguns that utilize “smart” technology.
• Advocates of this technology proclaim that surveys demonstrate public support for “childproofing” guns and for “personalization,” but the legislation being proposed does not necessarily address those issues. Yet, assuming for argument that they do, the mandate of built-in safety features can very well make it difficult for the authorized user to be able to access the weapon in an emergency self-defense situation. Likely, many gun owners will find a way to defeat the features that create the problems of accessibility to a firearm when needed in an emergency. Hacking tools available on the internet applied to phones and other devices will almost certainly be made available to others, including criminal organizations that steal “smart guns,” override the safety features, and then sell the guns on the black market.
• Would smart gun technology prevent accidents? The issue here is generally directed to accidental deaths caused by children gaining access to a handgun that has not been properly secured in the household and where the child has not been properly trained to avoid contact with firearms the child might happen upon.
• Smart gun technology, employed in handguns, if it ever becomes reliable—and that is a big IF—would likely prevent a child from harming himself or others if that child did gain hold of the weapon, but we should consider that accidental gun deaths attributed to young children getting hold of guns has been declining since the 1970s and the number of such accidental deaths is, in relation to gun deaths due to homicides and suicides, is virtually non-existent. Moreover, the duty to prevent child access to firearms adheres to adults in those households with children, to make sure firearms are secured. The danger that a handgun poses to a child—if an adult does not secure the handgun and train the child—is like the danger posed by kitchen knives, by power saws, and by electrical outlets—the responsibility of which, in our society, devolves to the individual, not to government.
• While advocates of application of “smart” technology to firearms, tend universally to come from those groups that are antithetical to civilian ownership and possession of firearms, little, if anything, is said about the public’s own disposition toward “smart guns.”
• My close friend, Richard Washburn, confirms several of the points that I mentioned. He is the President of The Specialists Ltd., a licensed federal firearms dealer and gunsmith, and a recognized expert in weapons and firearms technology.
• Rick says: “‘Smart Gun’ technology has not been developed to the point where it is reliable enough for life and death situations involving handgun use. In addition, it is expensive beyond the average cost of today’s defensive handgun. The handgun buyer has many options from current firearm manufacturer’s with proven technology, while ‘smart guns’ are a developing unproven technology and would limit the market to one or two manufacturers. In light of all the above, requiring handgun owners to buy/own only ‘smart guns’ amounts to a de facto ban of handguns, which would appear to be the intent of any government sponsored legislation promoting ‘smart guns’ only.”
• To sum up, for governments to mandate that manufacturers retool machinery to incorporate “smart” technology makes no sense from a technical, economic, and even policy safety standpoint. First, the modern firearm has achieved a state of near perfection, after innovations and improvements over a period of one hundred years. Incorporating computer technology to firearms is, in a very real sense, then, creating an entirely new firearm, one that will inevitably exhibit numerous problems in real world situations. Those real-world situations will have life and death consequences, resulting, conceivably, in more innocent deaths, not fewer deaths. Second, the attendant new costs involved in retooling machinery production for the manufacturing of firearms with “smart” computer technology will inevitably be passed on to the consumer, increasing the cost of the handgun beyond the reach of what the average consumer can afford. Third, the advent of “smart guns” is driven by the media at the behest of interests that are antithetical to firearms in the hands of the American public. What drives these interests to push governments to enact legislation, mandating adoption of “smart guns,” is blind abhorrence toward firearms. These interests look only at the violence caused through misuse of firearms, rather than the innocent lives that are saved through firearms. 

QUESTION #6. WHAT ARE THE LEGAL REASONS AGAINST ADOPTION OF “SMART GUNS?”

• There is a blurring of the line between politics and the law, especially involving guns rights, and it arises through a tension existing, as, on the one hand, between State Governments that, through the application of their police powers, enact laws restricting both the kinds of firearms and ammunition law-abiding individuals may lawfully own and possess and the circumstances of use of firearms by those individuals, and, on the other hand, the individuals who wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, sans restrictions. The clash of policy and politics of government that constrains the individual versus the rights of the individual to remain free of governmental restrictions plays out in the Courts.
• The specific legal issue is whether “smart gun” technology, as a government mandate is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court Heller case. Apart from the holding that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one’s service in a militia, the Court also held that, one, the District of Columbia’s outright ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment and, two, that the District of Columbia’s requirement that such firearms that may be lawfully possessed must be rendered inoperable in a household also violates the Second Amendment. It is in respect to the second holding that a Constitutional problem involving “smart guns” arises because, whatever “smart gun” technology is employed, “smart guns” are not readily accessible for immediate use. Thus, the issue is whether incorporation of smart gun technology in firearms amounts to making the firearm inoperable. If so, then “smart guns” are not consistent with the rulings and reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision. We conclude that the new technology, as applied to handguns is in fact primitive and amounts to making handguns inaccessible, inoperable and therefore not consistent with U.S. Supreme Court law.
• There is, as well, an implicit equal protection argument under the Fifth Amendment and an explicit equal protection argument under the Fourteenth Amendment that is applicable here as well. The manufacturing of quality handguns is expensive. If manufacturers are compelled to incorporate “smart” technology in the production of all new handguns, a sizable portion of the adult population that is under no disability and that wishes to purchase a handgun for self-defense will be unable to do so. Such handguns will only be affordable to persons who are financially well off. A legitimate equal protection argument is likely to be made and likely to be successful.
• Since firearms are private property a question will be raised as to the right of individuals who own handguns that do not incorporate “smart gun” technology to bequeath them or sell them or trade them to others. Millions of such firearms are already on the market. They would likely be “grandfathered in” but, then, what can an individual who owns such “grandfathered” firearms do if that person wishes to sell, trade, or bequeath those firearms to another. To deny an individual the right to dispose of his property as he wishes conflicts with the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and involves an illegal taking of property under the Fifth Amendment as well.

QUESTION # 7. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT GROUPS INVOLVED IN THE DEBATE?

The people and groups that advocate for smart guns are, not surprisingly, advocates of restrictive gun control laws--laws directed to, and that adversely affect the rights of, law-abiding honest citizens. The impetus for these laws are not, contrary to popular belief, directed to curtailing crime. Gun control advocates direct their energies to curtailing the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment--the right to keep and bear arms of honest, law-abiding American citizens. It is the Second Amendment, itself, that gun control advocates are really targeting. Gun control advocates thrust "smart guns" on the populace as a temporary stopgap to attainment of their primary goal, a complete ban on citizen ownership and possession of firearms of any kind.A partial list consists of participants of “The New York City Smart Gun Symposium,” subtitled, “An Action Plan for Moving Smart Gun Technology,” held on August 2, 2016, at the Brooklyn Borough Hall include the following:

• Eric L. Adams--Brooklyn Borough President co-founded "100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care;" organized support against the NYPD’s controversial “Stop and Frisk” policy; and led efforts on behalf of gun control initiatives.
• Leah Gunn Barrett--Executive Director of the antigun group, "New Yorkers Against Gun Violence" ("nyagv.org") and "CeaseFire MD," another antigun group that led efforts for an "assault weapons" ban
• David H. Chipman--Senior Policy Advisor for the antigun group, "Americans for Responsible Solutions," established by Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly
• Ralph Fascitelli--30 years in Tech Marketing and 17 years in Gun Safety and Brand Marketing; became President of the antigun group: "Washington CeaseFire"Mark Glaza--Named “the face of the gun control movement” by the WSJ; is Board President of "Campaign to Unload," which encourages divestment of institutions from gun stocks, and is also Executive Director of "Everytown for Gun Safety."
• Dennis A. Henigan-Former VP of the "Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence," and author of the books: “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People" and "Other Myths about Guns and Gun Control.” Henigan is a leading advocate of gun control measures and has appeared on several news and news commentary programs, including: 60 Minutes, Frontline, Hardball, Nightline, and The Today Show.
• Stephen P. Teret, J.D., M.P.H.--Professor of Health Policy and Director of the "Johns Hopkins Center for Law and the Public’s Health," a known gun control advocate who drafted the N.J. “Childproof Handgun Law” of 2002.
• Loretta Weinberg--New Jersey Senate Majority Leader and Co-sponsor of the N.J. “Childproof Handgun Law.”

QUESTION #8. WHERE DO STAND ON THE ISSUE?

• It should be obvious by now that I am not in favor of “smart guns.”

QUESTION #9. WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO REDUCE “GUN VIOLENCE?”

• More law-abiding citizens who choose to carry and possess firearms and receive training in their proper and safe use will deter crime, coupled by strict enforcement of laws on-the-books and prosecution and imprisonment of criminals found guilty of violent crimes, and no plea bargaining in cases involving criminal use of a weapon.

QUESTION #10. WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO REDUCE “ACCIDENTAL DEATHS?”

• Commonsense, training, and education in the proper and safe use and safeguarding of firearms and dangerous instruments.

--END--______________________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

KOLBE VS. HOGAN: A SECOND AMENDMENT CASE DECISION THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE RULE OF LAW

MARYLAND’S FIREARM SAFETY ACT: ATTACKING THE CORE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH THE VENEER OF PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY.

WHAT DOES THE RULE OF LAW REALLY MEAN?

KOLBE VS. HOGAN

PART NINE

Politicians love to pontificate, tirelessly, grandiosely, often meaninglessly. We hear them say that our Country is ruled by law, not by men, proclaiming, indefatigably, assiduously, pompously, but ingenuously, how important the rule of law is in a free Democratic Republic and how much importance they attach to the concept of the rule of law—that is to say, how much importance they attach to the concept of the rule of law over men as opposed to law ruled over by men.Yet, as with any overused expression—the rule of law phrase no less so than any other expression becomes trite, over worn. The phrase has been, through much misuse and overuse by politicians and political pundits and hacks, reduced to cliché with little if any real effect and efficacy behind it. It is recited with little thought and care as to its import. So, we should step back and ask what the phrase means as used in the sentence: our Country is a Nation ruled by law, not by men. What does that sentence as a proposition to live by—for the people to be governed by—really mean, were it in fact adhered to, rather than given mere lip service? It means just this: no person, regardless of position, wealth, status, or station, stands above our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our system of laws, our jurisprudential authority. That is the intent at any rate, lofty as that intent is, and so often disregarded.We, Americans, are supposed to be governed by laws, but laws and jurisprudential standards, consistent with the dictates of our Nation’s Constitution, sublimely overseen by our Nation’s Bill of Rights. That is as the framers of our Nation’s Constitution with its preeminent Bill of Rights intended. That is as the founders of a free Republic envisioned. That is as our Nation was always supposed to be. What happened to change this?Quietly, subtly, seemingly irrevocably we are sliding into the throes of tyranny, which, by definition, means a Nation ruled by men—by the dictates of men—not by law.

HOW TYRANNY ARISES IN A FREE REPUBLIC

How may tyranny arise in a free Republic—in our free Republic?Tyranny arises in one of three ways. It arises, first, when our Legislative Branch drafts and enacts laws that subvert our Constitution or subvert our Bill of Rights. We see this, firsthand, through Congressional enactment of laws that undermine the searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment and Congressional enactment of laws that whittle away at the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We see this also when laws designed to protect the integrity of our borders are not adhered to. How often do we hear by Congressional Democrats and by Congressional Centrist Republicans that the Nation’s immigration laws are broken—a scarcely disguised phrase that means we have millions of illegal immigrants in our Nation whom—some would argue—cannot feasibly, from a pragmatic standpoint, be returned to their native Countries or that—as others may argue— ought not, from some moral imperative, be returned to their native Countries; and, so, we should amend our immigration laws to allow these illegal immigrants to remain in our Country, providing all of them with amnesty and, eventually, with de facto, if not de jure, citizenship.Yet we ought to ask, before Congress either amends our present immigration laws or repeals the laws outright and rewrites the laws in full, how is it that we have eleven or twelve million illegal immigrants in our Nation? Where did they all come from? How did they happen to be here? It is not as if eleven or twelve million immigrants surreptitiously crept across our borders overnight. They came in dribs and drabs over decades. That would suggest that our present immigration laws are not broken at all and that they never were broken. It is simply that the federal Government never adequately, zealously enforced the laws we have. Similarly, it may be convenient and useful for some to say that we have a problem with gun violence and that we should curtail civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms. But, to account for gun violence, is the problem to be found in the millions of law-abiding civilian citizens who own and possess firearms or is it, rather, in the lack of enforcement of federal and State criminal laws that the problem of gun violence truly rests? Do we then ask of Congress that it enact further gun laws directed against the citizen civilian population? Would that really address the problem of gun violence that is the product of criminal misuse of firearms? Tyranny arises when Congress—the First Branch of Government—either fails to enforce the useful laws—those designed to preserve and strengthen our Nation’s values and traditions, and our rights and liberties—or enacts useless or bad laws—laws at odds with our values and traditions, and at odds with our sacred rights and liberties.Tyranny arises, second, when the Chief Executive of the Nation, the Second Branch of Government unilaterally undermines our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, occurring through executive edict and fiat, essentially subsuming the functions of the Legislative Branch, unconscionably into the Executive Branch. We saw this firsthand with Barack Obama’s misuse of executive directives, most glaringly, those directives weakening our immigration laws and those directives weakening the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and those directives aimed at weakening our moral codes.We would have seen this through the misuse of executive directives had Hillary Clinton assumed the Office of the U.S. President. Where a U.S. President ignores the laws enacted by Congress or where a U.S. President actively contravenes the laws of Congress, or where a U.S. President creates his or her own laws through edicts and directives adverse to the laws laid down by Congress, thereby becoming a law unto himself, this is tyranny. This means our Nation is ruled by men, not by law.In these two instances the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government often take their orders from powerful, secretive interests, desirous of supplanting the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the pursuit of personal nefarious interests at odds with the rule of law, at odds with the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and at odds with the rights and liberties and protections secured for the benefit of the American people under the Nation’s Bill of Rights. Thus, we would see our Country proceeding inexorably toward ruin. We would see our Country, as an independent, sovereign Nation and as a free Republic, in jeopardy.But, there is a third threat to our Nation’s continued existence as a free Republic and as an independent sovereign Nation, second to no other Nation.Tyranny arises, third, when our Judiciary--the third Branch of our Government—comprising our Federal Courts--go awry, ignoring its own case law precedent, peppering and lacing case decisions, not with the law as it exists, but with law as individual jurists would like that law to be, creating new “law” out of whole cloth—new law that undermines, rather than safeguards, our Bill of Rights—new law that supports a jurist’s personal philosophical convictions and beliefs—such personal philosophical convictions and beliefs that, taken to the extreme, disassemble our sacred rights and liberties—that, taken to the extreme, supplant our rights and liberties with artificial constructs, denigrating the very idea inherent in our legal system, namely that our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, reign supreme—second to those of no other nation, and no group of nations, and no international tribunals.The threat to our Nation—our Nation as a Free Republic, grounded in and overseen by our Bill of Rights, codifying natural law, our fundamental rights, supreme, emphatic—is most serious, most grievous, and most egregious when that threat derives from an overzealous, freewheeling Federal Judiciary, operating from a personal philosophical perspective, one at odds with the import and purport of our Nation’s Bill of Rights, one in contravention to clear case law precedent that promotes uniformity, consistency in our body of law.The threat posed by a federal judiciary that eschews case law precedent constitutes a serious breach and the most serious threat to our Nation and to the rule of law, for the federal Judiciary, as the Third Branch of our Government, as the interpreter of law, is the final bastion of “the rule of law.”If a federal judiciary forsakes its duty under the law, tyranny arises in the most devious way imaginable, for it is in the third Branch of Government—with its learned practitioners of the law—most adept at subverting the law if it so chooses—doing so secretly, within the interstices of complex terminology and argot—that the lay American public becomes hoodwinked, thinking that its rights and liberties are other than the way the public might think--less than they may have imagined--less than they really are. That is where the true subversion of the rule of law occurs.The Second Amendment case ((Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)), illustrates how far some federal courts will go to decide cases in contravention to United States Supreme Court precedent, doing so through dissimulation, through dissembling; and, in so doing, acting in league—whether conscious or not—with those unscrupulous interests in Congress and with those sanctimonious interests in the mainstream media, and with those hardened, confident, powerful, shadowy, ruthless interests behind the scene—to undermine our most sacred right—the right of the American people to keep and bear arms in their own defense, in defense of their families, and in defense of all American people— against tyranny.It is one thing for Courts to denigrate the sanctity of the Second Amendment through misapprehension of the law. It is quite another for Courts to denigrate the sanctity of the Second Amendment through deliberate misapplication of the law. Unconscious misapprehension of the law in judicial decision-making may be pardonable although its impact on the lives of Americans is harmed just the same, albeit contained. Deliberate misapplication of the law in judicial decision-making isn’t pardonable. It operates as a betrayal. That betrayal suffuses itself throughout the body of our Nation’s law, throughout the entirety of our system of law, throughout our jurisprudence, weakening the very heart of the Constitution—the Bill of Rights, negating the principle that we are a Nation ruled by law, not by men.Part Ten of the Arbalest Quarrel analysis of the disastrous Fourth Circuit Kolbe decision follows forthwith, where we begin our in-depth analysis of the lower U.S. District Court of Maryland that first decided Kolbe. We explain how the lower Federal Court contravened U.S. Supreme Court case precedent, rendering a decision wholly at odds with the holdings and reasoning of District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268 (2008).______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DOES THE SECOND AMENDMENT CODIFY NATURAL LAW, PREEXISTENT IN THE INDIVIDUAL, OR IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS A MAN-MADE CONSTRUCT?

Maryland's Firearm Safety Act: Attacking The Core Of The Second Amendment Through The Veneer Of Promoting Public Safety

KOLBE VS. HOGAN

PART SEVEN

The Underpinnings Of The Second Amendment Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms

Against the backdrop of every major Second Amendment case rests a fundamental and profound philosophical question. The question is this: does the right of the people to keep and bear arms exist as a quality, feature, attribute, aspect, condition, or characteristic intrinsic to the individual, existing, then, within the individual, or is the right to be perceived as an endowment, bestowed on the individual by others, something, then, extrinsic to the individual—existing, if at all, outside the individual? If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is extrinsic to the individual, this means the right is a human invention. It is a construct, convention, or contrivance. It is a thing created by and then granted to, licensed to, or bestowed upon the individual by another entity, say the State, through Government. But, if it is a thing bestowed upon the individual by the State, then the right does not belong to the individual. The right belongs to the State. The State may, then, at its discretion, at its whim lawfully withdraw or rescind the right so bestowed upon the people. That means the right of the people to keep and bear arms is less a right than a privilege of the people to keep and bear arms—a privilege which the State may grant, or cede, or license to an individual, for a time, and, thereafter, at the State’s pleasure, rescind or withdraw. The individual has no legal recourse to contest the privilege rescinded or withdrawn except to the extent that law set forth in statute—also a creation of the State, through the State's government, yet another man-made construct—allows.If, however, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an inherent quintessential quality, feature, attribute, characteristic, condition or aspect of each person, existing within an person qua an autonomous individual, this means, by logical implication, the right exists outside of and independently of the State. If so, the right of the people to keep and bear arms operates as an extraordinary constraint on the State’s power, through Government to regulate and control the exercise of the right. For the right is indefeasible, immutable, archetypal, preexistent in the soul of man, and therefore resting beyond space and time. In its purest application, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. The right cannot be constrained without also restraining and constraining the sanctity and inviolability of the individual soul. The right of the people to keep and bear arms--the operative clause of the Second Amendment--is not, then, a creation of man. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is simply a codification of, and an acknowledgment of the right preexisting in the individual. It is not a thing that can, lawfully, be defeated through legislation or really destroyed by the State, through government since it was never a thing enacted through legislation or granted or licensed to the individual by grace of the State through the State's Government. To suggest otherwise is mere pretense and artifice. The right of the people to keep and bear arms as a right, preexisting in the individual, is not a novel idea. The U.S. Supreme Court made the point in 1879, as Justice Antonin Scalia reminds those jurists who may have forgotten this critically important fact or who may simply have chosen to ignore it or belittle it. Justice Scalia says, "The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1876), '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. . . ." Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592; 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2797-2798; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 657-658 (2008). How a Court perceives the right of the people to keep and bear arms informs a Court's resolution of all Second Amendment cases that come before it. Does a Court perceive the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a primordial, preeminent right preexisting in the individual, consistent with the framers' beliefs when the framers codified the right within the Bill of Rights as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1879 in the Cruikshank case and as reiterated by Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, in the 2008 Heller case, or does a Court simply view the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a man-made construct or invention, no more so nor less so than any man-made statute, code, rule, regulation, or ordinance? If a Court chooses to deny, or chooses to ignore, or, if a Court  simply chooses, seemingly and  conveniently, to forget the import of the operative clause of the Second Amendment--the right of the people to keep and bear arms--as several United States District Courts and United States Circuit Court of Appeals are wont to do, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has done as seen in its disastrous Kolbe decision, the Second Amendment will lose its strength, its efficacy. The right, though, does not cease to exist. It cannot ever cease to exist because the right is deathless. The right exists in a person's very being. But, if a Nation fails to recognize and accede to the import of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right remains dormant, and a nation, any nation--but, in particular, our Nation--will loses its soul that would seek to deny to the individual his or her natural birthright. Tyranny will, then, inevitably, rear its ugly head, and if tyranny should arise, our Free Republic will surely fall, for the existence of a Free Republic is incompatible with the existence of autocracy even as government heads assert the continued existence of a republic in an attempt to assuage public consternation, public doubt, public enmity, and to quell rebellion--rebellion that would be impossible to effectuate anyway with the loss of a citizen army with the denial of one's natural right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the philosophical underpinnings of the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution cannot be overstated. It is the hallmark of this Nation and of this Nation's regard for the autonomy, sanctity, and inviolability of the individual, as this is in accord with the framers' own core beliefs in codifying The right of the people to keep and bear arms within the Bill of Rights as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and as, subsequently recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1879 in the Cruikshank case and as reiterated by Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, in 2008, in the seminal Heller case. And it is the ultimate "fail-safe device" against tyranny. The attempt, any attempt by a Court to denigrate the right of the people to keep and bear arms is nothing less than an apostasy.Unfortunately, as we have seen, although Courts will acknowledge the seminal Second Amendment case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), as they must when faced with a Second Amendment issue, this acknowledgement does nothing, of itself, to restrain courts from often blatantly ignoring the rulings of that seminal case, and, in so doing, ignoring the jurisprudential principles that ought guide judicial conduct in the resolution of a case before it, and, more so, committing the cardinal sin of undercutting the sacred precepts of our Nation. The Heller case has cast the right of the people to keep and bear arms in stark relief. Lower Federal District Courts and higher Circuit Courts of Appeal can no longer hide their animus toward the Second Amendment by contending that the import of the Second Amendment has never been adequately resolved by the Courts or by academicians. The Heller case makes abundantly clear, in no uncertain terms, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and, more, a preexisting right, intrinsic to the individual, a right unconnected with one's service in a militia.The high Court has provided clear guidance for resolution of cases that involve government actions that attack the core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Lower federal courts that ignore the clear intent of and clear reasoning of the seminal Heller case, do so at their peril. For they can no longer hide behind obfuscating language if they choose to ignore the holdings of the case and the reasoning of the Court's majority in rendering those holdings. They can no longer claim that the meaning and purport of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is still in doubt. The Kolbe case ((Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42. F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)) is the latest in a line of poorly decided and poorly reasoned--and extremely dangerous--cases cascading through the legal system from Courts that directly and routinely and unabashedly attack the core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Kolbe is a case that aptly illustrates a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s caustic attitude toward Heller, and, by extension, aptly illustrates the Court's disregard for application of case precedent to the Second Amendment cases before it; the Court's disregard for the sanctity of the American citizen as an autonomous individual; and the Court's refutation of the importance of adherence to the core traditions, values, and belief system as reflected in the Constitution and in the Republican form of Government that our framers created and passed down to us.The Kolbe case aptly demonstrates that, once a Court disagrees with the philosophical underpinnings of the Second Amendment—that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists within man, and not as a thing extrinsic to man—that Court will invariably rule for the State, against the individual. It will do so in clear contravention to and in clear defiance of case precedent, as set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller, and will do so in ostensible contemptuous disregard of our Nation’s historical traditions and in disregard of our Nation’s substantial jurisprudential history, manipulating law to derive a result consistent only with the Court's personal flawed philosophy, remarking, in its opinion, what, in the Court's view, the Second Amendment ought to say, rather than in adhering to what the Second Amendment does say, as clarified through the rulings and reasoning of the Heller majority.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AS A COMPONENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, STANDS PREEMINENT; FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS, UNLIKE THE CONSTITUTION’S ARTICLES AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS, CODIFY NATURAL LAW, NOT MAN-MADE LAW.

The framers of our Constitution accepted, as axiomatic, that a critical component part of that Constitution —the normative rights and liberties, of the Bill of Rights—are, in a critical manner, wholly unlike the main body of the Constitution. For, although the structure of Government is man-made, the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights, are not man-made. The rights and liberties, set forth in the Bill of Rights are not social or political constructs, conventions, contrivances, or mechanisms. The framers knew that any Governmental form they created could, even with the best checks and balances in place, can still devolve into tyranny. The framers understood that the greatest threat to the sanctity and inviolability of each person, each American citizen—is the threat that the Federal Government might one day devolve into autocracy, into totalitarianism, into tyranny. To guard against this possibility, to offset the insinuation of tyranny, lurking behind the corner of every government formed by man, the founders of our Nation and framers of our Constitution, established, as a critical component of our Nation’s Constitution, an indelible Bill of Rights.The Bill of Rights comprises a set of primary, primordial, fundamental, natural laws that Government must adhere to lest Government devolve into tyranny. These natural laws rest well beyond the power of the Federal Government, lawfully, to destroy. Preeminent among the natural laws that constrain the possibility of a despotic Government is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The framers understood that an armed citizenry protects the entirety of the Bill of Rights and that an armed citizenry is the single best guardian against and check on a Federal Government run amok and that an armed citizenry is the ultimate bastion against tyranny. Some jurists, though, do not appreciate the threat posed to a free Republic, in the absence of an armed citizenry. They don’t accept this. They are philosophically predisposed to regard an armed citizenry with trepidation, with suspicion; as a potential threat against public order. So, they don't accept the necessity of an armed citizenry. They do not and will not accept the emphatic command to the State, to a State's Government, to the Court itself, as a component of the State, of the Government. They do not accept, will not accept the idea that the Second Amendment is to be revered, respected, preserved, strengthened, exalted, as the framers intended. They don't accept this. But, they must. The Heller holdings and the legal and logical reasoning of the Court's majority, as penned by the late Justice Scalia, fell upon those courts, that find the Second Amendment anachronistic, like a ton of bricks. They don't like the holdings and they do not agree with the Heller majority's reasoning. So, they slither around Heller, pretending to adhere to it rather than truly complying with it, rendering decisions, antithetical to Heller, and, therefore, antithetical to the import and purport of the Second Amendment.

WHY THE HELLER CASE IS TRULY CRITICAL TO U.S. SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

The Heller case is generally cited for its principal holding: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, exclusive of a person’s connection with a militia. But, in dicta, the Court's majority spoke, at several points, of the “natural right” of self-defense and resistance. To the framers of our Constitution, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a creation of government. The right exists intrinsic to man, as natural law, not man-made law. Justice Antonin Scalia refers to the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a natural right several times in the opinion he penned for the majority of the high Court, citing to the historical writings of the Second Amendment that he reports in the Heller case. Not surprisingly, the dissenting Justices for their part, notably Justices Stevens and Breyer, who penned penned two separate dissenting opinions, do not. The dissenting Justices do not even allude to the notion of a right of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the context of natural law and natural rights.The dissenting Justices on the high Court do not accept the facticity of the rights and liberties of man as codified in the Bill of Rights, as natural rights. These Justices—and many other judges that fill the seats on the lower U.S. District Courts and that fill the seats on the higher U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal—do not and will not accept as axiomatic that the Bill of Rights comprises a set of indefeasible rights and liberties.The liberal wing of the high Court and the liberal jurists of the lower Federal District and higher Federal Appellate Courts take as a jurisprudential principle, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no less a social, political, and legal construct than any other part of the law. For such jurists, the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms bespeaks natural law, outside one’s service in a militia, is not only false, it is patently ridiculous. Their opinions are infused with the notion that the Bill of Rights may be lawfully violated if utilitarian demands so dictate. None of the dissenting Justices in Heller would, though, make such a remark overtly and none have done so. But, since none of the dissenting Justices accept as axiomatic that the right of the people to keep and bear arms codifies a natural right, they fail to see how discordant their position is when they proclaim that such right of the people to keep and bear arms that exists is contingent only on one’s service in a militia. For, one might reasonably ask that, if a person's right to keep and bear arms is tenable only in the event one serves in a militia, then under what circumstance or set of circumstances might an individual ever vindicate the right so violated, if such right operates only in connection with one's service in a militia? And, if the right cannot be vindicated, is the right, then, not simply nugatory?Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, joined by Justices, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, attempts, unsuccessfully, to skirt as de minimis the question whether the Second Amendment codifies an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to a collective right. In the first sentence of his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens says, “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an ‘individual right.’ Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.” District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. at 636; 128 S. Ct. at 2822.* How is the individual right to be vindicated legally--indeed, how is the individual right to be vindicated logically--if that "individual" right is subsumed under or in connection with one's service in a militia? Is that right not, then, a mere "collective" right? But, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a "collective" right, how is that collective right to be vindicated? Is a collective right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right in any legal or logical sense at all?Justice Stevens undermines the import of his own remark as he directs the entirety of his argument to the thesis that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is merely and solely tied to one’s service in a militia. The scope of the right is, apparently, the issue Stevens seemingly wrestles with in his dissenting opinion because he must realize the logical flaw inherent in it. Justice Stevens attempts to respond to Justice Scalia's logical argument that, on Justice Stevens' interpretation of the right codified in the Second Amendment, there is nothing in "the scope of the individual right" left to be protected. Justice Stevens cannot and does not adequately argue that there is something left of the individual right to be protected on his peculiar interpretation of the Second Amendment, because, once Justice Stevens accepts, as a premise, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms rests principally upon the person’s service in a militia, he cannot escape the implication of that premise, namely that there exists no individual right of the people to keep and bear arms left to be protected, as he has severed the right, which exists only in the operative clause of the Second Amendment, from the prefatory clause, and, in so doing, he attempts, unsatisfactorily and unjustifiably, and, indeed, incoherently, to insinuate the right into the prefatory clause. But, there is no legal or logical, or linguistic way in which he might reasonably do this. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be protected, which is to say vindicated, in any manner, because the right is contained, according to Justice Stevens, in the prefatory, dependent clause of the Second Amendment. The prefatory clause, though, has, in its very language, no operative force. It talks of no right at all. So, there is nothing in the prefatory clause that can be vindicated. Justice Scalia laid bare the problems with Justice Stevens argument. Justice Stevens, for his part, had no adequate rejoinder. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, pointed out that, "The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed [citation omitted]. . . . Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.'" District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. at 577; 128 S. Ct. at 2789; 171 L. Ed. 2d at 648, 649 (2008).** Moreover, if one assumes for purpose of argument that a right does exist or can be implied in the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, that somehow carries over to the independent, operative clause, that still doesn't help to salvage Justice Stevens' argument. For, the State, through Government is, then, and, in fact, must be, the final arbiter not only of what firearms the individual may possess but whether the individual may possess any firearms at all, outside of that individual’s connection with a militia. But, if that were so, then, once it is posited that the Government has sole authority to regulate the kinds of firearms a person may possess in his or her individual capacity, or whether a person may possess any firearms at all, then, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as a right exercised by the individual, is subject to the whim of Government. The right, then, is not a real right at all, as the "right" may very well be regulated out of existence. The right, then, is ephemeral. It simply falls away. This is the salient problem with Kolbe and those cases that, like Kolbe, accept, at least tacitly, the absolute power of Government to dictate the kinds of firearms that Americans may possess and, ultimately, whether Americans may possess any firearms at all.We continue with our exegesis of Kolbe in light of the Heller case in Part Eight of this series._________________________________________________________*Did Justice Stevens pilfer from a law review article having failed to acknowledge the source? Consider and compare the remarks in the first paragraph of Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller to the following statements that appeared in a law review article written nine years before the high Court decided Heller: "There are two relevant Second Amendment questions. The first question is whether the right belongs to the individual. Professor Yassky [David Yassky, The Sound of Silence: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment - A Response to Professor Kopel, 18 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 189, 190 (1999) (debating scope of individual's rights under Second Amendment)] believes the question to be confused because 'all constitutional rights - even those most obviously concerned with government structure rather than individual freedom - ultimately belong to individuals in the sense that individuals can sue to vindicate them.' The proper question assumes that the  Second Amendment recognizes some individual right but asks what the scope of the right is. This article argues that the scope of the individual right is limited to those circumstances in which the individual participates in a government militia." From, "The Inconvenient Militia Clause of the Second Amendment: Why the Supreme Court Declines to Resolve the Debate Over the Right to Bear Arms," 16 St. John's J.L. Comm. 41 (Winter 2002), by Robert Hardaway, Elizabeth Gormley, and Bryan Taylor. **Curiously, after Justice Stevens retired from serving on the United States Supreme Court, he attempted, apparently, as set forth in his book, published in April of 2014, titled, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution," to come to grips with if not to circumvent the problem, with his thesis as pointed out by Justice Scalia. Justice Stevens' contended, as set forth in his dissenting opinion in Heller, that a way exists through which the right of the people to keep and bear arms" may be vindicated. Justice Scalia explained that, under Justice Stevens approach, though, that, under Justice Stevens' thesis, there is no manner in which the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms can be vindicated, that, under Justice Stevens' thesis, the right is nugatory. Justice Scalia had proved that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be vindicated through the prefatory clause, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," because the right--on the plain meaning of the language of the Second Amendment--does not exist in the prefatory, dependent clause and cannot logically be transported into "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" exists in the operative, independent clause only, for that is where the right is expressly stated.There is no logical, rational reason or basis for inserting the right of the people to keep and bear arms into the prefatory clause and tying the intrinsic right of the individual, inextricably, to that individual's connection with a militia. For, there is no mechanism for vindicating the right when the right is tied to one's connection with a militia. Thus, there is no right to be vindicated and the Second Amendment, as a codification of and assertion of a right, would be, must be nugatory. Apparently realizing this and not acceding to the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, preexisting in the individual, not connected with service in a militia--as these ideas are not philosophically acceptable to Justice Stevens--Justice Stevens suggests, in his book, that the Second Amendment should be rewritten as: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in a militia shall not be infringed." Justice Stevens apparently sees this rendition of the Second Amendment--which, by the way,  does not comport with any such suggestion by any of the framers of our Constitution--as a tenable way to get around the late Justice Antonin Scalia's contention   that, on Justice John Paul Stevens interpretation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, there is nothing left of the right to be vindicated. Justice Stevens apparently believes that, in his novel rendition of the Second Amendment, the right of the individual is, now, successfully limited but still vindicated, and the Second Amendment is not, then, nugatory as he has now tied the right of the people to keep and bear arms specifically, linguistically, indisputably, to a person's connection with a militia. The right is duly limited but expressly stated in the operative clause. But, there is still a problem, and it is a problem quite apart from the fact that Justice Steven's reworking of the Second Amendment fails to comport with any view of the import of the Second Amendment as set forth by any of the framers of the U.S. Constitution, and it is a problem that cannot be surmounted through the rewriting of the Second Amendment, which, is, by any account, an extremely drastic way to respond to the fatal flaw in his argument. For, even accepting, on logical grounds, that there is something to be made of Justice Stevens' redraft of the Second Amendment as a way to avoid the flaws in his position, as he has set forth that position in his dissenting opinion in Heller, the question arises how a group right, that is to say, a collective right, is to be vindicated. Justice Scalia had remarked on this point as well, in pointing to another flaw in Justice Stevens' position, that Justice Scalia referenced in the majority opinion he penned, in Heller. How, one might ask, might one petition the Courts for vindication of a right purportedly tied to one's service in a militia? Moreover, suppose the militia, "necessary to the security of a free State" though it be, as set forth in the prefatory clause, ceases to exist. Wherein is the right, that one may exercise, be vindicated if there is no right left to be exercised? What, really, is there left of the right? One may ask: was there ever truly a right that might be vindicated at all?  As Justice Scalia pointed out, the necessity for the armed citizen lay not in the existence of the militia but in the force of arms of the citizenry that the citizenry brought to the militia and that made a militia possible. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority said, ". . . the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right--unlike some other English rights--was codified in a written Constitution." District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. at 599; 128 S. Ct. at 2801; 171 L. Ed. 2d at 662 (2008). It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that is to say, in the individual ownership of and possession of firearms, in and of itself, that is critical to the exercise of and vindication of the right, a right unconnected to service in a militia or in connection with any other man-made creation; and in that exercise of the right intrinsic to, immutable, indestructible, preexisting in each person, where each person is perceived as an autonomous individual, whose individuality must remain sacred and inviolate, would the security of a free State be preserved. An armed citizenry resides in what remains, today, of the true militia, namely, the unorganized militia, and that unorganized militia is not equivalent to or equated with, nor is it to be considered equivalent to or equated with the "organized militia," namely, the National Guard of each individual State that exists as a reserve military arm of and for the Federal Government, as dictated by Federal Statute.Better it would have been for Justice Stevens to accept that his thesis regarding the Second Amendment is wrong and that Justice Scalia is correct and that Justice Scalia was correct all along. But, Justice Stevens doesn't accept the plain meaning of the Second Amendment; he refuses to do so on a deep, visceral level. Justice Stevens absolutely refuses to accept the plain meaning of the Second Amendment as set forth in the Constitution, and in refusing to accept the plain meaning of the Second Amendment, Justice Stevens is taking exception with and contending with the deeply held beliefs of the framers of our Constitution. So, Justice Stevens is compelled to hold onto the legally deficient, logically unsound, and ethically dubious notion of an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms that happens to be tied to and exercised only by one's service in or connection with a militia.In point of fact, though, the "organized militia," as such no longer exists. It has been subsumed into and, more accurately, replaced by the "National Guard," which has become a reserve component of the federal Government, subject to federal control. This might not bother Justice  Stevens although it might be of concern to others. Justice Stevens seems to be more concerned with the logical coherency and consistency of his position, as well he should be, that requires that a right exercised by an individual must, in a logical sense, to be considered a true right at all be capable of vindication if violated. Justice Stevens seems less concerned over the practical application of the right that is to be vindicated, though, which, consistent with his thesis, is a contingent matter, after all, contingent on the existence of a militia. If there exists no militia, then, apparently, the failure of the condition precedent does not negatively impact the fact that a right may, at least, logically, if not empirically, that is to say, factually, be vindicated. In other words, the right to be exercised, albeit, one tied to the militia, under Justice Stevens' thesis, does always exist. For, Justice Stevens does, after all, in his redraft of the Second Amendment, retain the words, "shall not be infringed." So, if the militia exists, then the right may, Justice Stevens would argue, be vindicated. If the militia does not exist, the right, although it still exists, cannot be exercised and cannot be vindicated. The success or failure of a right to be vindicated is a function of the existence of the militia. But, then, what does it mean to say the right, supposedly, always exists? This is a tortuous attempt at legal and logical manipulation of concepts to give credence to an idea that Justice Stevens, doesn't even truly accept--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms {a right that shall not be infringed by anyone or any entity} if such right truly exists, beyond the power of the State to lawfully destroy, must be a right  preexistent, immutable, indestructible, and absolutely capable of exercise in all instances, for all time, beyond the possibility of any conceivable contingency that might serve to make the right impossible of exercise (as for example the nonexistence of a militia). Thus, merely tacking on this or that phrase to a proposition, in a dubious attempt to erode an indestructible right and in an attempt to overcome an insurmountable, logical flaw that exists in his argument, the retired Justice, John Paul Stevens cannot successfully sidestep the problem inherent in Justice Stevens' thesis that the late Justice Antonin Scalia had perceptively pointed to in Heller. Anyway, the proposed redraft of the Second Amendment, insufferable and ludicrous as that proposed redraft is, appears, then, to be, in part, at least, Justice Stevens belated answer to the late Justice Antonin Scalia's sharp attack on the weaknesses of Justice Stevens' argument as evinced in Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

KOLBE VS. HOGAN: KILLING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

“Bubble Guns" In The Fourth Circuit Take Pot Shots At Heller In The Circuit's Poorly Reasoned Opinion

PART ONE

THE KOLBE CASE: INTRODUCTION

On February 21, 2017, antigun establishment judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided a case—one directly and negatively impacting the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. The case, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016, rev'd, Kolbe vs. Hogan ____ F.3d ____ (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2930, is the latest in a slew of badly decided and badly reasoned cases coming down the pike since the late Justice Antonin Scalia penned the majority opinion in the seminal Second Amendment U.S. Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). What we are seeing are U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals openly defying the clear import and purport of Heller. We are seeing U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal—the Second, Fourth, and Seventh U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal—operating in open revolt to the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment cases.The high Court, in Heller, made abundantly clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right—a right unconnected to a person’s connection with a militia. Two years later, question arose whether the Heller decision applies to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority in the case McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), held that the individual right to keep and bear arms applies to the States no less so than to the federal government. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit obviously has clear disdain for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, concomitantly, disaffection for the Heller and McDonald cases that provide a firm foundation for the Second Amendment’s preservation and provide welcome relief to those Americans who wish to exercise their right under it.

WHERE TO BEGIN?

Where do we begin on our analysis of the atrocious decision of the Fourth Circuit in Kolbe. The import of this awful decision rests, first, upon the majority’s disregard for the precedential holdings of Heller and McDonald. The majority shreds the legal principle of stare decisis, which requires courts to uphold prior decisions lest the foundation of our system of case law fall apart. The import of this absurd decision rests, second, on the Court’s clear contempt for the explicit fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And, this atrocious decision rests, third, on the majority’s clear rebuke of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s legacy.

WHY IS THE KOLBE CASE, IN PARTICULAR, CRITICAL TO THOSE WHO WISH TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Since 2008, when the Heller decision became the Law of the Land, there have been several cases wending their way up through the various Circuit Courts that have dealt directly or tangentially, and disparagingly, with the Second Amendment. What makes the Kolbe case so important to those Americans who hold dear the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the decision openly defies Heller.One, the Kolbe decision amounts to a direct, frontal assault against the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Two, the decision is a disrespectful and unrestrained attack on the methodology that Scalia employed when the Justice wrote his opinion for the majority in Heller. Now, the Fourth Circuit, writing its damning opinion in Kolbe, won’t admit its denigration of the Second Amendment and, by extension, its disrespectful attitude toward Justice Scalia. After all, the decisions of the high Court are the Supreme Law of the Land, and lower courts, State and federal, are legally bound to respect and to apply rulings, holdings, and reasoning of the high Court.

HOW DO LOWER COURTS UNDERMINE RULINGS AND HOLDINGS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES THEY DO NOT LIKE?

If a lower court doesn’t like a holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, it has weapons in its arsenal. Lower courts use these weapons against a U.S. Supreme Court holding if, one, the lower court disagrees with the decision of the high Court, and, two, if a lower court disagrees with the philosophy of law underlying the ruling of the high Court, and, three, if a lower court disagrees with the legal and logical methodology employed in support of the high Court’s ruling in a case.One technique a lower court uses to undercut a high Court ruling is to argue a distinction in fact patterns. We see this in Kolbe. Of course, a reputable* court would attempt to discern similarities in the facts of a case before it, before the court goes hither and yon, denying obvious similarity in fact patterns. A lower court should give maximum effect to a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court but may feel less compelled to do so if it can, plausibly, demonstrate a distinction in fact patterns between the facts as presented in a case before the high Court and the facts as presented in a case being heard in a lower court.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Kolbe opined that the facts of the Heller case are wholly unlike those in Kolbe. The Court is wrong.Why do we say that the Fourth Circuit is wrong? First, the critical facts in Kolbe are in several critical ways, identical to those in Heller. A couple of Plaintiffs in Kolbe, as with the Plaintiffs in Heller, are individuals who are under no disability. They are average law-abiding, rational, sensible, sane American citizens whose right to own and possess firearms is undeniable. Second, the D.C. Government in Heller, and the Maryland State Government in Kolbe, both enacted laws to ban outright an entire category of firearms that American citizens traditionally and commonly employ for self-defense. In our analysis of the Kolbe case, to follow, we will demonstrate how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit attempts to skirt clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent to ignore and undercut Heller and, in so doing, allows stand a restrictive Maryland firearms law that is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Heller decision. The sad result is that average, law-abiding, sane American citizens who seek to own and possess firearms they had traditionally owned and possessed for decades, can no longer do so. Thus, notwithstanding that the gun ban enacted in Maryland applied originally only to residents of the State of Maryland and to those passing through the State, the Fourth Circuit decision directly impacts the right of American citizens in the five States that comprise the Fourth Circuit: North and South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, and Maryland. All individuals of these five States are now denied their right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed under the Second Amendment because they are denied their right to keep and bear an entire category of firearms they had traditionally owned—firearms that the American public commonly owns and possesses for self-defense.Second, lower courts that harbor a strong disdain for the ruling in Heller and who thereby harbor a disdain for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, misconstrue—whether deliberately and callously or, if not deliberately and callously, then certainly carelessly and recklessly—the reasoning of the high Court. The lower court substitutes for the high Court’s reasoning, its own flawed reasoning—reasoning, that lends support to a conclusion the lower court seeks, rather than to the conclusion the high Court requires that the lower court reach.In Kolbe, the Fourth Circuit applied a standard of review that the majority in Heller, and, in particular, Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion, had rejected outright. We explain this in detail when we proceed with a comprehensive case analysis of Kolbe.Third, lower courts that harbor a strong dislike for the Second Amendment and who attempt to meander around the clear and cogent reasoning, rulings, and holdings of the high Court often, in our estimate, consider matters wholly outside the purview of the law, namely political matters. If so, this clouds judicial judgment, as application of the law to the facts of the case is colored by personal biases and feelings rather than by reasoned, seasoned, Judicial thought. In the process, judicial neutrality and integrity is lost as partiality enters into judicial decision-making. Thus, the rule of law is denied one or the other party to a lawsuit.As we proceed with our analysis, we make abundantly clear the extent to which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considers matters, it appears to us, outside of legal constraints—matters that have no legitimate, legal, or, for that matter, logical connection to or bearing on how this Second Amendment case ought to be decided.The dreadful decision in Kolbe, also operates as a warning to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. The Committee better get cracking on holding a confirmation hearing of the President’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. It must do so because the Kolbe case must not stand unchallenged. The antigun forces have slowly chiseled away at Heller through other poorly reasoned and decided cases. But, Kolbe is most dire because this decision, more so than other Second Amendment cases coming down since Heller and McDonald, constitutes a direct assault on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and, if allowed to stand, unchallenged, severely weakens the Second Amendment and will undoubtedly embolden other antigun federal Circuit Courts that wish to chisel away at Heller.Make no mistake, Plaintiffs in Kolbe vs. Hogan will take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. They must, for the decision here is antithetical with the holdings set forth and reasoning evinced in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases.With Gorsuch on the high Court, the Justices will likely vote to hear this case. The Justices must hear this case. The case must be overturned, lest the legal precedents of Heller and McDonald be continually ignored by State Governments.What is Kolbe vs. Hogan really all about and why are the issues presented in it critical to the safeguarding of our Bill of Rights? We explain in Part 2 of this series.______________________________________*CLARIFICATION AND QUALIFICATION: The Fourth Circuit Courts, as with Courts of any other federal Circuit, are Courts of competent jurisdiction and, therefore, is competent to rule on the legal and factual issues that come before it. The authors of this article do not intend to assert expressly or impliedly that the Fourth Circuit Courts or that the Courts of any other Federal Circuit are not competent to rule on the cases that come before them. The term, 'reputable,' is not and was not used here to impugn the honor of Fourth Circuit Courts and is not and was not directed to impugn the honor of any other federal Court.  While we disagree vehemently with the decision and reasoning of the majority in the Kolbe case, we do admit that use of a term that would suggest that a Court might act dishonorably was wrong on our part, and for that we admit error and apologize for even suggesting the casting of aspersion on any Court. That said, we believe, as we will illustrate through a comprehensive analysis of the Kolbe decision and, eventually, in an analysis of similar decisions of various sister Courts--that political and ideological considerations pepper the reasoning and conclusions of many Courts as they wrestle with the core of the Second Amendment. The fact of the matter is, and we take this to be axiomatic, that every individual--whether judge, attorney, or layman--has a political philosophy, and it is clear to us that political philosophies are interjected into judicial opinions. We firmly believe, as we will show, in this multi article series, that legal precedent, which should be adhered to, often is not. Yet, if a Court wishes to overturn precedent, it should say so. Obviously, only the U.S. Supreme Court can legally overturn its own decisions. Lower Courts, State and Federal, must adhere to legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. We feel that the Fourth Circuit, in Kolbe, and certain decisions handed down by federal Courts in other Circuits, most prominently, in the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, as well as the Fourth, have not abided by the holdings and reasoning of Heller and that this can only, and ultimately, be attributed to the insinuation of political philosophy into decision making--as much in judicial opinion, where we, unfortunately see it, as anywhere else. Since insinuation of political philosophy pervades Kolbe, and similar cases coming out of other Circuits, controversial though that statement may be, and as that is the underlying point of our criticism of Kolbe, we do not walk away from it, but embrace it.Our Second Amendment is not to be toyed with. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the defining feature of our American heritage, for it is the primary safeguard against tyranny, and it informs our Government that the American people control their destiny. Our destiny is not controlled by those who have been given, for a time, extensive authority. For they govern in our name, for our benefit. They do not govern in their own name, for their own benefit. Somewhere along the line, in the years that have gone by, that idea has been lost. It should be found. The Second Amendment encourages those who govern us that ultimate authority rests with the American People, and the Second Amendment is a constant reminder to those who govern us where it is that true authority rests. It is not through the First Amendment, as the Press has, itself, lost its way. It is not through the Fourth Amendment unreasonable searches and seizures clause, as that has been blatantly ignored, even unconscionably refuted by Government, as illustrated through Government's actions. It is not through the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which have grown more tenuous, through time. It is only through the continued existence of the Second Amendment. And even the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is slowly but inexorably being whittled away, in spite of Heller--a case that exists to remind Government that some members of the U.S. Supreme Court intend for the American People to retain ultimate authority over Government and responsibility for their own lives.______________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE STATISTS SPEARHEAD ATTACK AGAINST THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER THROUGH THE COURTS

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision, Enjoining the President’s Executive Order, Temporarily Suspending Refugees from Entering Our Country Who Reside in Failed States, Was Legally Wrongheaded. Who Really Was Behind the Filing of the Lawsuit? What Is the Basis for The President's Order? And, Why Did the Ninth Circuit Block Implementation of The President's Order?

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS HIS WORK CUT OUT FOR HIM.

President Trump has promised to get our House in order. This is no small task given years of disassembling through the insidious machinations of Bill Clinton, George Bush Senior, George Bush Junior, and Barack Obama. These lackluster U.S. Presidents of the past decades have supported doctrines of liberal democracy, globalization, multiculturalism, and debilitating military interventionism and entangling alliances—all of which have, together, devastated the financial well-being of our Nation, and have denied to hard-working, proud Americans the financial and physical security they deserve—the financial and physical security they might have had but through the implementation of destructive trade policies and through seditious collusion with foreign Countries to keep our borders open; and through seductive psychological conditioning and indoctrination, designed to produce mass confusion in the public psyche—inverting and substituting the ideal of nationalism for the flawed notion of internationalism; the ideal of protectionism for the corporatists’ dream of globalization; the ideal of individualism for the morass of mass conformity and alien inclusiveness; the ideals expressed in Judeo-Christian morality for amorphous cultural and moral relativism.Through incessant, monotonous, repetitive sloganeering and messaging by the mainstream media, Americans are urged, even cajoled, to view patriotism as jingoism, national pride as nativism and racism, and love of Country and concern for one’s Nation and one’s Countrymen, first and foremost, as selfish parochialism.These past U.S. Presidents support the precepts of utilitarian consequentialism, an ethical position anathema to the Founders of our Republic and inconsistent with the import of the Bill of Rights. These Past U.S. Presidents worked to undermine our free Republic and worked to undermine the U.S. Constitution even as they declared, disingenuously and hypocritically, to support our free Republic and our Constitution. They have forsaken the American public, implementing policies that benefit a small, exceedingly powerful and ruthless, cunning and duplicitous, secretive and sinister, extraordinarily wealthy, elite coterie of internationalist globalist benefactors, hell bent on undermining and ultimately destroying the very  concept of the Nation State—our Nation State—working vigorously behind the scenes to dissolve our Nation’s sovereignty; weakening our Nation’s laws; doing nothing to secure our borders against waves of illegal migrants and criminal gangs and refugees and Muslim terrorists; spending frivolously on wars they have no intention of winning; involving our Country in innumerable foreign escapades that have nothing to do with our national security; throwing billions of our tax dollars to foreign countries that give us nothing in return except millions of their own wretched citizens who drain our own wealth and resources; and slowly moving our Country in the direction of an EU style social, political, economic construct through implementation of secretive international trade deals that harm our small businesses, destroy our manufacturing base and leave millions of hard-working Americans destitute. Not surprisingly they, and their international benefactors, are yet working, behind the scenes, taking every opportunity to frustrate the policies of President Donald Trump, sowing dissension, creating discord, inciting violence, vilifying our President, blocking our President at every turn—doing everything in their power to prevent him from doing his job, to prevent him from succeeding on behalf of our Nation and on behalf of its citizenry.The quick, violent, and virulent assault on the President’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order is a case in point. President Trump implemented this Executive Order for the legitimate purpose of protecting this Nation and its citizenry from acts of Islamic terrorism, sweeping across Western Europe, lest the unmitigated horror descending upon the EU work its way into the U.S.The title of the President’s Executive Order is: “PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.” What does the January 27, 2017 order say? The principal purpose of the President’s Executive Order is laid out clearly, comprehensively, cogently, and candidly in the first three paragraphs:“The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.  Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.  And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.  The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including ‘honor’ killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.” The President should be commended for issuing this Order. The danger our Nation and our People face from Islamic terrorism isn’t hypothetical. It is real. The President of the United States has a duty to secure our borders against threats to our National Security and threats to the American citizenry.The duty of a U.S. President does not extend to salving a person’s feelings where demonstrable threats exist to the security of our Nation. President Trump has demonstrated a conscientious desire to protect this Country from harm—to protect this Country against the very harm destroying the fabric of social and political order in the EU. Yet, instead of standing behind Trump, Democrats in Congress attack this Order, and they blast the President for implementing it.Internationalist globalist forces drum up public resistance to the U.S. President’s Executive Order with the avid assistance of the insistent, quarrelsome and vocal mainstream media. Where are the Republicans in all of this? Most are staying acutely silent, apparently afraid to show backbone. Instead of actively supporting the U.S. President, Republicans remain, for the most part, complacent, thereby lending support to those who would place this Nation’s security at risk—a risk that the Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton, deemed perfectly acceptable. Other Republican members of Congress openly castigate the President, rather than come to his defense. As for the Democrats, they are rabble rousing, unabashedly inciting the unruly ignorant mob to agitate. The mainstream media, not content to report the news, has declared war on our President, using every opportunity to engage in confrontation with the President, castigating him, and disrespecting him, attempting to demean both him and his policies.Some elements within the federal bureaucracy—diehard fans of Barack Obama, still raging over Hillary Clinton’s defeat, are skirting with subversion and sedition because they have pointedly said they will not work with and on behalf of the United States President. That is reprehensible. Openly confronting the U.S. President cannot be condoned, much less encouraged. If Government bureaucrats disagree with the President, they should at least keep their mouths shut. They should not use their position as a soapbox to openly defy the President of the United States. If they cannot or will not work with the U.S. President, then they should resign from Government employment. That is the honorable thing to do. It is the only correct and proper thing to do if they do not wish to work with the President. Imagine an individual in the private sector openly defying his or her superior. How long do you think that person would remain at their job?

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IS LAWFUL, CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

This Executive Order is lawful. The principal duty of the U.S. President is mentioned in the oath he takes as set forth in the Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”Two of the laws the U.S. President must faithfully execute, which provide the impetus and legal ground for this Executive Order involve immigration. One is 8 U.S.C. § 1182, titled, “Inadmissible Aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) says, in pertinent part, “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President. Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”This Statute gives the President clear authority to suspend the refugee program and to take any action he deems necessary to prevent individuals who may pose a threat to our national security from entering our Country. That action includes precluding from entering our Country those denizens, residing in Countries that are failed States and otherwise openly hostile to our Nation and its citizens. Such failed States pose a true threat to the safety and the security of our Country and its People and to our National interests. Terrorists can and will infiltrate into this Country through the waves of refugees whom they follow, if these terrorists are given the opportunity.Another Statute, 8 USCS § 301, titled, “General authorization to delegate functions; publication of delegations,” authorizes the U.S. President to delegate responsibility for implementing his Executive Order to, inter alia, appropriate officials in the Executive Branch. In this instance, the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tasked with carrying out the Executive Order, suspending penetration of our Country by denizens of Countries adverse to our interests.8 USCS § 301, says:“The President of the United States is authorized to designate and empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President: Provided, that nothing contained herein shall relieve the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such functions.” Now, the internationalist globalist elites don’t like this Executive Order because it conflicts with their goal to seed disruption in our Country as they have seeded disruption in the EU. They seek to undermine the security of the United States, slowly whittling away at our National Sovereignty, paving the way for ultimate dismantling of our Nation and its Constitution, eventually surreptitiously taking over our Country. Still, these internationalist, globalist elites have little power to harm this Nation and its citizenry now that their puppet, Hillary Clinton, lost the U.S. Presidential election and is politically dead. Where, then, does the power of these singularly powerful, immensely wealthy, abjectly ruthless, and intensely private, secretive, sinister creatures lie?These “elites” still control the mainstream media. What does the mainstream media comprise? The mainstream media comprises major newspapers, including, inter alia, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune. It includes major broadcast networks like ABC, CNBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, and PBS, and, yes, FOX network too—various gatekeepers on the right and on the left of the political spectrum. Yet, with the election of Donald Trump, this same mainstream has now fallen out of the mainstream. It has devolved into the voice of the extreme. As it has castigated the weblogs that supported Trump during the election cycle as being unruly, this same mainstream media has itself grown unruly. It has become increasingly boisterous, vituperative, obstreperous, sanctimonious.This mainstream media has lost any semblance of dignified restraint and measured tone in reporting. It disrespectfully denigrates the Office of the U.S. President at every turn because its owners, the internationalist globalist “elites” who rule the EU quietly with an iron fist behind the scenes, failed—which, for them, was an unbelievable turn of events—to seat their puppet, Hillary Clinton, in the White House. But, the American people have turned a deaf ear to the nonsense spouted by the mainstream media.What else do these internationalist, globalist “elites” have up their sleeve? They can, as we have seen, orchestrate mass marches and they can foment violence and chaos through the use of agents provocateur, buttressed by legions of ignorant Americans quick to jump of the cliff like willing lemmings as soon as they hear the appropriate buzzwords that flood the soft tissue of their mush-filled brains. These internationalist, globalist elites work hand in hand with subversive political groups like the George Soros Group, MoveOn.org, and the Groups, Code Pink, and Black Lives Matter.But, the American people have really nothing to fear from an unruly mob. For, the police, and the military, and, most importantly, an armed citizenry can contain an unruly mob. The Second Amendment still exists much to the chagrin of those that seek to do away with the Bill of Rights. And the American people need not fear the lurid nonsense spouted by the mainstream media that is growing increasingly unimportant and extraneous as the messages it conveys are clearly out of the mainstream.But the internationalist globalist elites can still manipulate the Judiciary. That is problematic. The mainstream media and an unruly mob do not constitute a Branch of Government. But, the Judiciary does. While the internationalist globalist elites won’t be able to compromise the U.S. Supreme Court once the U.S. Senate confirms Neil Gorsuch, still the third Branch of Government encompasses, today, more than the U.S. Supreme Court. The Judiciary comprises eleven U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal and over ninety lower U.S. District Courts. The Judiciary also includes a few specialized lower federal courts and several federal administrative boards.

FORUM SHOPPING DISPOSSESSES THE U.S. PRESIDENT OF HIS ABILITY TO PROTECT THIS NATION AND THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY FROM THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITY AS THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAMSTRINGS THE PRESIDENT.

Less than a week had passed from the date of the signing of the President’s Executive Order to protect this Nation against intrusion into our Nation by Islamic terrorists, when the State of Washington—apparently at the behest of outside influences—filed a Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.The U.S. District Court issued a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order), placing an immediate hold on execution of the Executive Order. A TRO is an extraordinary legal remedy. It is one Courts do not routinely issue. Courts do not routinely issue injunctions because Courts wish to give each side an opportunity to present facts and law in support of their position. In the absence of a full adversarial trial on the merits, injustice may occur. Therefore, a party seeking immediate relief—through preliminary injunction or TRO—must satisfy stringent tests.

POLITICAL MATTERS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE MATTERS OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IS NOT CONTENT ON TELLING PRESIDENT TRUMP WHAT THE LAW IS; IT TELLS THE U.S. PRESIDENT HOW TO DO HIS JOB!

THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE DECISION OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE U.S. DISTRICT IN PLACE.

The State of Washington, evidently taking its cue from the internationalist globalist elites who seek to undermine our free Republic, our Constitution, and our National Security, lost no time in preparing and filing a formal Complaint, seeking to preclude President Trump from implementing his travel ban. The Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was filed on February 1, 2017.The Plaintiff State of Washington was joined, in the First Amended Complaint, by the Plaintiff State of Minnesota. The State of Washington, alleged, in principal part, that the President’s Executive Order is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The State of Washington also alleged that the President’s Executive Order violates The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), because that Act, as Plaintiff alleges, prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. The State of Washington further alleged that the President’s Executive Order is discriminatory, violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The State of Washington also alleged the President's Executive Order violates the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 706(2)(D), because, as the State of Washington asserted, federal agencies must conduct formal rule making before engaging in action that impacts substantive rights. Lastly, the Plaintiff, State of Washington alleged the Executive Order violates the Tenth Amendment because, as the State of Washington asserted, “the Constitution prohibits the federal government from commandeering state legislative processes.”But, notwithstanding the bare recitation of these naked allegations, how is the State of Washington, as Plaintiff, in the suit, specifically harmed? Let’s see. The State claims:

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ALLEGES THAT THE PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDER HARMS THE STATE IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

“Washington’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its residents, including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is a quasi-sovereign interest.Washington also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from the benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and privileges provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Washington’s interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health, safety, and well-being extends to all of Washington’s residents, including individuals who suffer indirect injuries and members of the general public.Immigration is an important economic driver in Washington. Many workers in Washington’s technology industry are immigrants, and many of those immigrant workers are from Muslim-majority countries. Many companies in Washington are dependent on foreign workers to operate and grow their businesses.The technology industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program, through which highly skilled workers like software engineers are permitted to work in the United States. Washington ranks ninth in the U.S. by number of applications for high-tech visas.Microsoft, a corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington, is the State’s top employer of H-1B visa holders and employs nearly 5,000 people through the program. Other Washington-based companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands of H-1B visa holders.   Washington-based companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands.The market for highly skilled workers and leaders in the technology industry is extremely competitive. Changes to U.S. immigration policy that restrict the flow of people may inhibit these companies’ ability to adequately staff their research and development efforts and recruit talent from overseas. If recruiting efforts are less successful, these companies’ abilities to develop and deliver successful products and services may be adversely affected.Microsoft’s U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas. There may be other employees with permanent-resident status or green cards. These employees may be banned from re-entering the U.S. if they travel overseas or to the company’s offices in Vancouver, British Columbia.”The State thereupon asks, inter alia, for the Court to enjoin the Defendants, Donald Trump, President of the United States, and John Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, from implementing the Order. This means the State requests the U.S. District Court to issue its own Order preventing the President from exercising the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws of the U.S., prior to an adversarial proceeding that would give the President and the Secretary of DHS an opportunity to be heard in open Court.

THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NEVER HAVE ISSUED A TRO, ENJOINING THE U.S. PRESIDENT FROM CARRYING OUT HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WAS DESIGNED MERELY AND ONLY TO PROTECT THIS NATION AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FROM REAL HARM POSED BY THOSE INDIVIDUALS ENTERING THIS COUNTRY FROM SEVERAL NAMED COUNTRIES THAT HARBOR TERRORISTS.

The U.S. District Court should have summarily denied issuance of an injunction. Why? Injunctions are extraordinary remedies.Courts generally frown on issuing injunctions because injunctions amount to ex parte action. That means a Court renders an injunction prohibiting a Party against whom the injunction is issued from engaging in a particular action. The Court that issued an injunction is operating on the say-so of one party without bothering to hear from the other party against whom the injunction is issued. That is not how our legal system is meant to function. Our system is an adversarial system of justice. This means that each Party to a lawsuit is promised an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence in his or her behalf, and to have an opportunity to challenge the veracity of the allegations made against that Party. When a Court issues an injunction on the allegations proffered by one Party before the other Party has had an opportunity to be heard, the adversarial system of justice is dispensed with, and justice is denied the Party whose rebuttal arguments are never heard. This is bad enough where individuals stand to lose much in the way of their individual rights under the law. It is absolute insanity where, as here, the entire Nation and its citizens are placed at risk due to the action of one judge, operating out of one Court who orders that his injunction be given nationwide effect.

WHAT IS THE LEGAL MECHANISM FOR ISSUING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION?

In the Ninth Circuit, A Court will issue an injunction—in the instant cast—the most extraordinary injunction—a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)—when the Court is satisfied: one, that a Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction isn’t issued immediately, and, two, the Party that seeks an injunction is likely to win on the merits, and, three, the equities tip in favor of the Party seeking an injunction, and if, four, issuance of an injunction is in the public interest. All four factors must be present. But, looking at just one factor here, namely, that Plaintiffs here, the State of Washington and the State of Minnesota, will, as the Court has determined, be irreparably harmed if the Court does not immediately prevent implementation of the U.S. President’s Order, the Complaint is devoid of anything concrete that so much as suggests the States would suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not enjoin the U.S. President and DHS from implementing the Executive Order. Yet, the District Court itself acknowledged, in Washington v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00141 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) that a preliminary injunction—of which the TRO is one type—is an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that a Plaintiff is entitled to such relief, prior to a full-blown trial on the merits. But where in the Court’s Opinion ordering a TRO, in the context of the allegations of the Complaint, is there any indication that the Plaintiff would be irreparably harmed if the TRO isn’t issued?There isn’t any and that is reason enough for the Court to refrain from issuing a TRO. Then, too, there is nothing in the Court Opinion to buttress the Court’s finding that the State of Washington is likely to win the case on the merits. Moreover, the idea that the equities tip in favor of the Plaintiff is absurd on its face. How can one State possibly argue, with a straight face no less, that its claimed economic interests—not so much its own but that of a private Company, namely and especially that of the technology Company Microsoft—and that its claimed interest in protecting the Constitutional rights of individuals, who are not even citizens of the United States, and its claim of a public interest that is purportedly harmed by the U.S. President’s Executive Order, are all greater than the concern the President of the United States has for the security of the Nation and for the life and safety and well-being of the citizens of this Nation as a whole, thereby warranting, according to the U.S. District Court Judge, the awarding of an injunction, enjoining the U.S. President from carrying out his duties, under Article II of the Constitution, on behalf of this Nation and on behalf of its People?

THE U.S. PRESIDENT RESPONDS TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE’S ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION

On February 3, 2017, the President of the United States filed his emergency motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking the Ninth Circuit to overturn the District Court’s issuance of a TRO. The President made clear that his Executive Order was a lawful exercise of his complete and absolute control over the admission of aliens into this Country. The President pointed out that the District Court had issued a sweeping injunction in the absence of any legal analysis. Essentially the District Court simply mouthed the platitudes for issuance of its TRO without explanation of how the State of Washington and Minnesota met their burden of proof, thereby begging the very question at issue: whether the Plaintiff States had provided a convincing showing of hardship in the absence of issuance of an injunction. Indeed, rationally, sensibly, one would think that the U.S. President’s Executive Order, predicated on his duty to protect the Nation against outside threats to this Nation and to its citizenry, would outweigh the States’ insistence that its personal economic interests and the economic and financial interests of a few private businesses, and the interests of non-citizens are harmed by the President’s Order and therefore must be protected. The State of Washington is essentially saying: “The United States be damned. The economic concerns of Microsoft and the concerns of non-citizen refugees count for more than the safety and well-being of the Nation and its people as a whole.” Certainly, more serious interests are at risk when a Court enjoins a U.S. President from acting on behalf of the Nation and the American People, which, after all, was the reason the President issued his Executive Order in the first place. Evidently, the Ninth Circuit didn't think so.The President also argues in his Motion that the Plaintiffs have not even presented a convincing argument that they have standing to present a case against the President and the Secretary of DHS, apart from the naked claim that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The District Court itself proclaimed subject matter jurisdiction over the case when the Court should properly have questioned its jurisdiction because a State cannot properly bring suit to enforce purported rights on behalf of its citizens based on a State’s estimate of its citizens’ relationship with the federal government. In other words, it is for the citizens themselves to bring suit against the federal government, to vindicate rights, if they feel the federal government has violated their Constitutional rights. But, the U.S. District Court never questioned its own jurisdiction in the case. At the very least the Court could have and should have asked each of the Parties to the action to submit briefs on the standing issue. Instead the Court assumed it had subject matter jurisdiction and obligingly gave the State whatever it wanted, irrespective of the law.It must be pointed out that, in the first instance, a Federal Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to even hear a case brought by a plaintiff before it--as required under Article III of the U.S. Constitution--before that Federal Court proceeds pell-mell to hear a case at all. In the matter before the Court, the Court assumed the State of Washington had standing and accepted at face value the allegations made in support of enjoining the United States President from carrying out his duties under Article II of the Constitution. A hearing on standing should have at least have been ordered prior to any consideration of issuance of an injunction against the U.S. President. The Court did not do this, and the President properly brought up the issue of standing in its Motion asking for emergency relief from the effect of the TRO, when it filed its Motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Citing United States Supreme Court precedent, the U.S. President correctly pointed out, in the Motion, citing legal precedent, that, “an order barring the Executive Branch from enforcing a Presidential Executive Order inherently imposes harm on the public, by thwarting the legal effect of the public’s chosen representative.” Yet, the U.S. District Court, in awarding Plaintiff States a TRO, opined that, the “States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders.” Think about that for a moment. The Court is saying that an inconvenience to a State’s residents in the areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel, count for more than the life, well-being, and safety of the citizenry of the entire Nation.You would think the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would not only reverse the lower Court’s awarding of the TRO to Plaintiff States but would have chastised the District Court for awarding the TRO at all. Instead, the Ninth Circuit, in State of Washington vs. Trump, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017), denied the Defendants' Emergency Motion for a Stay pending appeal, the effect of which was to affirm the District Court's awarding of a TRO to the Plaintiff States, Washington and Minnesota. The Ninth Circuit said, citing a U.S. Supreme Court case: “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). “It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ and ‘the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Id. (quoting Virginian, 272 U.S. at 672-73) (alterations omitted). “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433-34. The Nken vs. Holder case dealt with the meaning of 8 USCS § 1252(f), titled, “Judicial Review of Orders of Removal.” The Nken vs. Holder case has nothing to do with the present case. In Nken, the Petitioner, an alien, sought to stay his removal from the U.S., pending review of the removal order, but the Respondent, Attorney General, asserted that the alien could not meet the stringent requirements for a stay under 8 USCS § 1252(f). The alien appealed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which denied the stay and the alien then appealed the adverse ruling to U.S. Supreme Court. The high Court affirmed the decision of the Fourth Circuit, denying the alien’s motion for a stay, pending the appeal of his removal from the United States.

THE NKEN CASE IS INAPPOSITE AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT MISUNDERSTANDS AND MISAPPLIES FEDERAL STATUTE, WHEN IT REFUSES TO ISSUE A STAY OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT’S RULING, ENJOINING THE PRESIDENT FROM IMPLEMENTING HIS SUSPENSION OF REFUGEE, SEEKING EMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES FROM HOSTILE COUNTRIES.

The Ninth Circuit misapplies 8 USCS § 1252(f), titled, “Judicial Review of Orders of Removal.” The applicable section, titled, “Limit on injunctive relief,” says, “(1) In general. Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of chapter 4 of title II [8 USCS §§ 1221 et seq.], as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such chapter have been initiated. (2) Particular cases. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law.” The prohibition on Courts against use of a stay here, even where hardship exists, applies to aliens who seek to prevent a Court from removing them from this Country, pending their appeal of a final removal order. In other words, aliens can’t claim hardship to prevent their removal from this Country on a final order in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that execution of the removal order is prohibited by law.In the instant case the President’s Motion for a stay of the District Court’s TRO has nothing whatsoever to do with the import of the Statute, 8 USCS § 1252(f). And the Nken case has nothing to do with the case before the Ninth Circuit, here. An alien isn’t seeking to prevent his or her removal from this Country. Rather, the President is precluding, temporarily, aliens, citizens of failed States that are known to harbor Islamic terrorists, from entering our Country. Moreover, even if 8 USCS § 1252(f) did extend to the President’s Executive Order, which it doesn’t, the District Court’s TRO is not a final order.By its nature preliminary injunctions, such as a TRO, are interim orders—they are not final orders on the merits. And this TRO deleteriously impacts the security of this Nation and the security of its citizenry. The Ninth Circuit is grasping at straws, citing law that has no bearing on the issuance of a TRO against a U.S. Presidential Executive Order, as the Ninth Circuit has, apparently, made up its mind before the fact to allow the U.S. District injunction to stand.Furthermore, constitutional rights do not apply to aliens. Aliens are, by definition, individuals who are not citizens. Due process concerns and equal protection concerns do not apply to non-citizens. No one who is not a citizen can claim legal right, under the Fifth Amendment, to enter our Country. Yet, the Ninth Circuit makes this very determination, essentially deciding the case on the merits to justify and sanctify the lower Court’s awarding of a TRO, with nationwide affect, on behalf of two States whose standing to bring suit against the U.S. President is tenuous at best.

IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS INTRUDED UPON THE DOMAIN OF THE JUDICIARY IN VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, BUT RATHER, IT IS THE JUDICIARY, HERE, THAT HAS BY ALL ACCOUNTS, IMPROPERLY INTRUDED UPON THE DOMAIN OF THE EXECUTIVE AND, IN SO DOING, HAS UNDERMINED THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE AND HAS MADE DIFFICULT THE PRESIDENT’S DUTY TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THIS NATION, AND, HAS, AS WELL, JEOPARDIZED THE SECURITY OF THIS NATION AND THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.

In a seminal case, decided well over two hundred years ago, Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 CRANCH 137 (1803)—a case that all first year law students of accredited law schools study in depth, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court made clear the role of the Judiciary in our THREE BRANCH SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. The Chief Justice, John Marshall, made clear the defining role of the Judiciary. He said, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”  Thus, the Chief Justice made clear that while Congress shall make the laws of this Nation, and the President shall faithfully execute the laws of this Nation, it is the role of the Judiciary—and the role of the Judiciary alone—that shall determine what the law is. That specific role clearly demarcates a singular prerogative of the Judiciary if any doubt had previously existed as to the specific singular prerogative of the Judiciary.But, Marbury vs. Madison does not stand merely for the proposition that, in so asserting a specific defined role for the Judiciary upon which neither the President nor Congress may lawfully tread, there are not also areas in which the Judiciary, for its part, must not tread.  Clearly, when laying out the scope of judicial inquiry Chief Justice Marshall was also circumspect in laying out the limits of Judicial inquiry—the parameters beyond which the Judiciary must not tread. The Chief Justice stated, “Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” Expounding further, the Chief Justice stated, “By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders. In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing the department of foreign affairs. This office, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the President. He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.”It is a curious matter today that the Press, which isn’t a Branch of Government at all, often operates as if it is one, explaining as the voice of conscience—which it has little of—and the voice of reason—which has none of—how it is that, in its opinion, the U.S. President has overstepped his bounds of legal authority. The Press can, perhaps, be excused its excesses. It has long since lost credibility. But, the Ninth Circuit, for its part, should know better. It would have done well to read Marbury vs. Madison before rendering its decision in the latest case on the U.S. President’s temporary travel ban. Had the Ninth Circuit done so, it would have realized that it had transgressed the bounds of propriety by telling the President what his duty is, rather than more ably considering what its own duty is. Had the Ninth Circuit given more thought of the limits of judicial inquiry, it would have refrained from engaging in political matters where it has no business going, having no cognition of the dangers this Country faces from the outside—to which the U.S. President is particularly able to deal with and is charged to deal with—and unmindful of the dangers to the Constitution itself creates, on the inside, having failed to heed to its rightful purpose—namely, interpreting the laws of this Nation, and not telling the President what his job is and how he is expected to do that job and what he is expected to refrain from doing.The issuance of a TRO by the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington, in the absence of any demonstrative legal basis to do so, is an example of a Court improperly intruding on the legitimate authority of the Executive to faithfully execute the laws of the Land. The Ninth Circuit would have done well to remind the U.S. District Court not to intrude on Presidential prerogative. Instead, the Ninth Circuit makes matters worse by affirming the lower Court’s decision. The decision isn’t just wrongheaded from a legal standpoint, having misinterpreted the law. It is wrongheaded in another sense entirely. For the Ninth Circuit has taken a political matter—one wholly outside the purview of the Courts—and has turned it into a legal one, thereby improperly intruding on a domain completely outside Judicial review and outside Judicial prerogative. The President is right.The President’s Executive Order, faithfully executing the laws of Congress is unreviewable. The Ninth Circuit, in defiance, of the clear separation of powers, decided to review the Executive Order anyway. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit takes into account matters wholly outside the allegations of the Complaint, relying, in great part, on biased newspaper accounts and editorials to support the District Court’s issuance of a TRO. The Ninth Circuit also improperly considers remarks the President made in his campaign—essentially nothing more than rhetoric. But, the Ninth Circuit then uses those remarks against the President, arguing that the Executive Order follows from religious bias toward Muslims. That is patently ridiculous.The purport of the President’s Executive Order, on its face, is designed to protect this Country and its citizenry from the very problem facing the EU as a result of having taken in waves of refugees from the Middle East—many of whom have engaged in acts of terrorism across Europe. The President has taken a proactive stance, rather than a reactive stance, to protect American citizens from physical harm. The Ninth Circuit gives that matter no thought.The mainstream media, for its part, shows its abject ignorance of our laws and jurisprudence, and ignorance of the separation of powers doctrine by asserting bombastically that President Trump’s Executive Order is unconstitutional and that the President, rather than the Judiciary, has ignominiously encroached on the powers of the Judiciary by referring to the U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington as a “so-called Judge.” The admonition on the part of the President hardly constitutes encroachment on the Separation of Powers. Improper issuance of a TRO, made all the worse through affirmance of the District Court’s Order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, does.Hopefully, Judge Gorsuch will soon be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. Supreme Court will put matters right. For this Country teeters on the brink of anarchy wrought by those who would insinuate odd notions of morality into the framework of our Constitution and thrust into the public’s psyche alien ideas, devoid of reasoned, sensible reflection.Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

CONNECTICUT PROCEDURE FOR UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: The Case For Universal State Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity

THE CIRCUITOUS, TORTUOUS ROUTE TO OBTAINING MULTIPLE UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES AS EXPERIENCED BY OUR INTREPID CITIZEN, MR. WRIGHT.

The Adventures of One Law-Abiding American Citizen as He Traverses the Minefield of Firearms’ Laws, Attempting to Secure for Himself Multiple Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses from A Multitude Of Jurisdictions That He May Exercise His Fundamental Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution For The Purpose Of Self-Defense

A Comprehensive Analysis of The Procedures for Obtaining a Concealed Handgun Carry License in Various States for The Layman

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE: THE APPLICATION PACKET

SUBPART FOUR OF THE CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PROCESS APPLICATION

INTRODUCTION

If you have arrived at our website for the first time, and this is the first article you have come across on our ROAD TRIP series, the Arbalest Quarrel has been discussing, in the last few articles, the application process for securing a Connecticut handgun carry license.The State’s licensing Statute refers to the handgun carry licenses its Division of State Police issues to qualified applicants as: “State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers.” In this discussion, for brevity, we will refer to the type of license a qualified handgun permit holder must carry with him on his person—when also carrying a pistol or revolver on his person—as a ‘handgun carry permit.’ The reader should understand that this shortened expression does not appear in the State Statute and that the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESSP) does not use this expression either. Still, the shortened expression carries the essential meaning of the longer, statutory, expression and will be a useful for our purpose.If you haven’t read SUBPART ONE through SUBPART THREE of the ROAD TRIP series of articles on CONNECTICUT’S PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR HANDGUN LICENSING, we suggest you do so before reading the instant article as our articles follow a straightforward linear progression and we place the licensing scheme of this State, and others that we discuss, in appropriate context.

WHY ARE WE DOING A COMPREHENSIVE SERIES OF ARTICLES EXPLAINING THE LAWS AND PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES FROM REPRESENTATIVE JURISDICTIONS?

One reason we are doing this series is to bring to the reader’s attention the costly, time-consuming, frustrating, and often confoundingly complex process of obtaining multiple handgun carry licenses from multiple jurisdictions. The Arbalest Quarrel has commenced this formal series of articles with the aim of systematically laying out the handgun licensing procedures of selected jurisdictions. We hope and trust that these articles will save our readers considerable time if they are contemplating applying for and securing a handgun carry license from any one or more of the jurisdictions that are the subject of our attention in the ROAD TRIP series of articles.There is, however, another reason the Arbalest Quarrel is doing this ROAD TRIP series  and in the specific manner presented—through the experiences of an actual individual, an American citizen and successful businessman whom we refer to as Mr. Wright, to protect his identity. By personalizing the process, we emphasize how an otherwise dry subject has a real-world impact on a living person, a law-abiding American citizen who has been forced to engage in the time-consuming, costly, often frustrating process of having first to obtain and then to renew on a continuous basis multiple handgun licenses from multiple jurisdictions. He must do this even as he seeks nothing more nor less than to exercise his fundamental, sacred right to keep and bear arms for the lawful, recognized purpose of self-defense.The application process for securing any firearm license, let alone an unrestricted “full carry” permit, is not an easy process. It requires considerable time and attention to detail. If an application is incomplete or completed improperly, those governmental authorities tasked with processing an applicant’s handgun or long gun application will cease doing so and whatever time and money the applicant has spent in the process will be for naught.Understand, too, as we here emphasize, and as the ROAD TRIP series clearly illustrates, firearms’ application and processes and procedures are generally time-consuming, often confusing, ever duplicative, inevitably tedious, and invariably expensive. In several jurisdictions the exercise of one’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only available to those American citizens who can afford the expense of securing gun licenses—an expense that one must bear beyond the cost of handguns, long guns, supplies, tools, and ammunition--and those American citizens who have the fortitude and stoic resolve to follow through with the lengthy application process. Renewing one's firearms’ licenses involve yet more time and expense, and create additional aggravation for the law-abiding gun license or permit holder.Furthermore, in “MAY ISSUE” States, one’s application for a handgun carry license may be denied even if the person is not otherwise prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, which is to say, the applicant for a handgun license is not under a disability—defined in State and Federal Statute—that operates as an automatic exclusion from possessing firearms.In “MAY ISSUE” States an applicant for the most coveted gun license—and the one generally most meaningful to the notion of self-defense, namely a concealed handgun carry permit or license—must demonstrate “NEED” sufficient to support issuance of a handgun license.The mere fact the applicant is not under disability is insufficient to warrant issuance of a handgun carry license to that applicant in “MAY ISSUE” jurisdictions. The applicant must present a case for issuance of the handgun license, to the satisfaction of the official tasked for issuing those licenses or permits. That means the applicant must present a convincing case for issuance of a concealed handgun carry permit or license to that applicant beyond the mere recitation of the fact that and proof of the fact that he or she is under no disability.But, what constitutes “NEED” sufficient to support issuance of a handgun license to a person not under disability often differs from one jurisdiction to the next. Contrariwise, in “SHALL ISSUE” States, a showing of need to carry a handgun isn’t required. So long as a person isn’t under disability, the licensing authority will issue a handgun carry permit or license to that person. The licensing authority doesn’t have discretion in the matter to deny a person, not under disability, from lawfully carrying a handgun in “SHALL ISSUE” jurisdictions. That means the licensing authority will issue a person a handgun carry license or permit to that person as long as that person is under no federal or State disability.

IS CONNECTICUT A “MAY ISSUE” OR A “SHALL ISSUE” JURISDICTION?

Is Connecticut a “MAY ISSUE” State or a “SHALL ISSUE” State? You might think the matter would be clear enough from a review of the firearms’ licensing laws of a State and, from a purely logical point of view, you might think a State has to be either one or the other; not both; and not neither. In Connecticut, however, fuzzy logic takes over. It isn’t clear, as you will see as we discuss the actual application process.

ONCE A PERSON RECEIVES HIS OR HER COVETED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE, THAT PERSON MUST ALWAYS BE ON GUARD NOT TO FORFEIT IT.

Even after a person secures a license, he or she must be mindful of the laws governing firearm’s use. Keep uppermost in mind: What is so very difficult to obtain is, on the other hand, extremely easy to lose. As in any other jurisdiction that issues handgun carry permits, the holder of Connecticut handgun carry permit will forfeit the handgun carry permit, and his firearms, if that handgun carry permit holder violates Connecticut firearms laws in any manner. Violations may be as innocuous as failing to meet renewal of handgun carry permit deadlines. Or, violations may be as serious as mishandling or misusing firearms or falling into one or more disability categories, after issuance of the handgun carry permit, such as conviction for domestic violence.Keep in mind, too, that many jurisdictions do not wish for civilians to own and possess firearms. Those jurisdictions argue that firearms in the hands of the average law-abiding, rational citizen, notwithstanding, serves only to reduce public safety—and public safety is, ostensibly at least, the primary concern of State legislatures when they enact firearms' laws. The right of the individual American citizen to keep and bear arms often takes a back seat to and is often perceived as inconsistent with the State's concern to maximize public safety, even though, in truth, there is no inconsistency between firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens and public safety. In fact, firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens promotes public safety as many scientific studies demonstrate. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens, then, does not detract from public safety, contrary to those who assert that it does. Such jurisdictions that abhor the presence of firearms in the hands of the average law-abiding citizen, and, so, are openly averse to the notion of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, yet assert inconsistently and hypocritically the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their State Constitutions or otherwise assert that right in State Statute--mirroring the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--even as they enact laws to constrain and constrict and restrict its application. How often does the public hear antigun zealots in State Legislatures and in Congress assert speciously and incongruously, that "of course we support the Second Amendment," even as they roll out another set of purported "common-sense laws" to curb the exercise of that very right--as if to convince the public that the assertion of the right is enough to dampen criticism that they mean no less than to restrict the exercise of that right and, eventually, to destroy it altogether.Since the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as a codification of the natural right to keep and bear arms cannot be denied, those jurisdictions that rather not issue firearms' licenses and permits, do so only grudgingly, if at all. Thus, they have no desire to make the process simple, or painless, or cheap, or quick. The firearm licensing process, across the Country, must be simplified. Congressional enactment of an effective national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law would go a long way in simplifying the process.This takes us to the third reason we are doing this series. As Donald Trump has now taken the oath of high Office—he is no longer simply President-elect Donald Trump; he is President Donald Trump. There is a high probability that Americans will see national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation enacted in the foreseeable future, in some form. If so, the present tortuous exercise one must engage in, applying for and obtaining multiple handgun carry licenses from multiple governmental jurisdictions, will no longer be necessary. A law-abiding citizen will have in his or her possession, then, one license that will permit the handgun license holder, to carry, lawfully, a handgun, concealed on that person, in every jurisdiction—or, at least, will allow that person to carry a handgun lawfully in many more jurisdictions than is currently the case as several jurisdictions have established reciprocity agreements with one or more other jurisdictions. Many, though, have not.Ideally, the issuance to a person of one valid concealed handgun carry license would work much like a motorist’s license. One valid motorist’s license or operator’s license issued in one State, allows the holder of said valid license to drive his vehicle lawfully in every other State. Of course, driving an automobile on State roads and highways is a privilege, not a fundamental, inherent right. Yet, the ease by which one applies for and obtains a motorist’s or operator’s license would suggest that driving a vehicle on State or interstate roads and highways is a right. Owning and possessing firearms is, on the other hand, a fundamental, inherent right, preexistent in the people. There’s no question about it. But the difficulties in obtaining a license to exercise that fundamental right coupled with the fact that one must, in virtually all jurisdictions, obtain a firearms’ license or permit, issued by a governing body, to fully enjoy that right in the broadest possible sense, reduces a right to a mere privilege, bestowed by government on the individual. Of course, any privilege given is one that can easily be taken away.Let’s now explore, further, the time-consuming, costly, and, often difficult process of obtaining a handgun carry permit that allows one lawfully to carry a pistol or revolver in Connecticut.

THE CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY APPLICATION PACKET

NOTE: CONNECTICUT PISTOL PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR NON-RESIDENTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN FOR THOSE WHO RESIDE IN THE STATE: NON-RESIDENTS MUST SECURE A VALID HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION BEFORE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED

Mr. Wright’s attorney, working together with a professional security consultant, has done the legwork for Mr. Wright. The attorney first perused the State website. He determined that a non-resident must contact the DESSP for application materials. The initial forms are not provided online. Mr. Wright’s attorney then contacted, by phone, the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESSP.  The phone number of the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police is provided on the State website.Mr. Wright’s attorney spoke with an Officer of the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESSP, requesting handgun carry application materials. The Officer was diligent and did respond immediately to the telephone request as Mr. Wright’s attorney received the application materials a few days later. The application materials consisted of the following: The first document that Mr. Wright’s attorney saw when he retrieved the documents from the manila envelope, was a green sheet, titled, "CONNECTICUT STATE PISTOL PERMITS," subtitled, “OUT OF STATE RESIDENTS.”The sheet listed “mandatory requirements.” They are as follows:1) Copy of permit to carry a pistol or revolver, issued by another jurisdiction. 2) DPS 46 Application Card for State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers, signed and completed 3) DPS 799-C Application for non-residents, completed, signed and notarized 4) DPS 129-C, completed, signed and notarized with 2 by 2 color passport photo attached 5) Fingerprint card, signed and completed, including fingerprints 6) Cashiers check or money order for $70.00 payable to: “Treasurer, State of Connecticut”—for Application7) Cashier’s check or money order for $50.00 payable to: “Treasurer, State of Connecticut”—(for CT fingerprint processing) 8) Cashiers check or money order for $12.00 payable to “Treasurer, State of Connecticut” (for FBI fingerprint processing) 9) Documentation of successfully completing a Firearms Safety course for pistols and revolvers that has been “approved” by the Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection as required by CT State Statute 29-28(b). 10) A copy of citizenship (birth certificate or United States Passport). Send a copy, do not send original. 11) Legal Aliens Residents need to provide a copy of their Alien Registration card and 90-day proof of residency within their state. If applicable, a copy of naturalization papers should be sent with application.12) If applicable, include a copy of form DD214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty from military which MUST specifically state discharge status.ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED IN ORDER FOR YOUR APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED. FULL LEGAL FIRST NAME, MIDDLE INITIAL AND LAST NAME REQUIRED. ****INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS PACKAGES WILL BE RETURNED!!!!!*** Questions can be directed to the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit at the address or number below. Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Division of State Police 1111Country Club Road Middletown, CT 06457Telephone: (860) 685-8494 Fax: (860) 685-8496_____________________________________Along with the green cover sheet, the Connecticut Application for State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers, included the following:1) A small, indexed size orange card, titled, “APPLICATION FOR STATE PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS." 2) A blue four page folded instruction sheet, the first page of which has three columns: the first column provides “Instructions for State Pistol Permits” for residents of Connecticut; the second, middle column, provides “Instructions for Non-Resident State Pistol Permits”; and the third column provides instructions for “Eligibility Certificate to Purchase Pistols or Revolves and/or eligibility Certificates to Purchase Long Guns.” The interior two pages and last page of the blue four page instruction sheet is the comprehensive application form proper. 3) In the application packet is a white sheet on which the applicant is to attach a recent passport photograph. Note: the passport photograph must have been taken within six months of the application. 4) There is also included a white Fingerprint Card.Mr. Wright, together with his attorney, and with his professional security consultant looked over the documents and prepared to complete them.Mr. Wright’s attorney first made certain that he had in front of him Section 29-28 of the Connecticut State Statute. The Statute is critical. If in doubt about anything in the application, the Statute is the first critical “go-to” information source to get a handle on Connecticut’s handgun licensing procedures. Beyond State Statute, regulating the issuance of handgun carry licenses,We have provided you, the reader, with the critical portion of this document for non-resident, Section 29-28(b), below, since Mr. Wright isn’t a resident of Connecticut. Note: we have also made a copy of this Statutory section in SUBPART THREE of this Article.The pertinent portion of the Statute reads:Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents. (b) Upon the application of any person having a bona fide permanent residence within the jurisdiction of any such authority, such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit. No state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued under this subsection if the applicant (1) has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association, (2) has been convicted of (A) a felony, or (B) on or after October 1, 1994, a violation of subsection (c) of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d, (3) has been convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, as defined in section 46b-120, (4) has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13, (5) (A) has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding sixty months by order of a probate court, or (B) has been voluntarily admitted on or after October 1, 2013, to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding six months for care and treatment of a psychiatric disability and not solely for being an alcohol-dependent person or a drug-dependent person as those terms are defined in section 17a-680, (6) is subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, (7) is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 29-38c after notice and hearing, (8) is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4), (9) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States, or (10) is less than twenty-one years of age. Nothing in this section shall require any person who holds a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver on October 1, 1994, to participate in any additional training in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers. No person may apply for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver more than once within any twelve-month period, and no temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued to any person who has applied for such permit more than once within the preceding twelve months. Any person who applies for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall indicate in writing on the application, under penalty of false statement in such manner as the issuing authority prescribes, that such person has not applied for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the past twelve months. Upon issuance of a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to the applicant, the local authority shall forward the original application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after receiving a temporary state permit, an applicant shall appear at a location designated by the commissioner to receive the state permit. The commissioner may then issue, to any holder of any temporary state permit, a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the state. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall make available to the permit holder a copy of the law regarding the permit holder’s responsibility to report the loss or theft of a firearm and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with such law. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall forward a record of such permit to the local authority issuing the temporary state permit. The commissioner shall retain records of all applications, whether approved or denied. The copy of the state permit delivered to the permittee shall be laminated and shall contain a full-face photograph of such permittee. A person holding a state permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall notify the issuing authority within two business days of any change of such person’s address. The notification shall include the old address and the new address of such person.”

COMPLETION OF THE DOCUMENTS

Mr. Wright intended to stop by the NYPD Licensing Division headquarters to have his fingerprints taken and he realized that he would need to obtain another colored passport photo since his original passport photo was more than six months old. He would attach the up-to-date photograph to the White Passport Photo sheet that was included in the application packet.Mr. Wright’s attorney, along with his professional security consultant and expert made certain that Mr. Wright had in his possession a certificate that demonstrated that Mr. Wright had in fact successfully passed an approved firearms safety training course that Connecticut law mandate. He would include the necessary documentation that he would be returning to the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police. The “Green” instruction sheet indicated that he can submit a copy of his certification. Prior successful completion of an approved firearms safety training course is a condition precedent to further processing of one’s application for a Connecticut handgun carry permit.Some jurisdictions that issue concealed handgun carry licenses, such as New York, do not require that the applicant successfully complete s firearm’s safety training course as a precondition to the issuance of the license. That is curious. One would think that a jurisdiction that has instituted a substantial number of stringent requirements for issuance of a concealed handgun carry permits or licenses would have instituted, as one requirement, evidence of satisfactory completion of a firearm’s safety training course. This is not to suggest that the Arbalest Quarrel is mandating that a jurisdiction ought to require satisfactory evidence of having completed such training; for, any responsible, rational person ought to understand how to properly use a firearm if that person expects to rely on it for self-defense. But personal responsibility is something one would expect from a law-abiding, sane person and citizen, living in a free Republic. Personal responsibility is not, we believe, something that should be imposed on the citizen by government, State or federal. In New York, though, it is unlikely the State Legislature dispensed with the requirement that an applicant for a concealed handgun carry license must have successfully completed a firearm’s safety training course as a precondition for issuance of a concealed handgun carry license because the New York State Legislature felt an applicant would invariably obtain that training anyway. More likely, given the draconian laws and codes in place for issuance of such licenses, one might logically conclude that New York abhors the idea that civilians should be allowed to possess firearms. By dispensing with the requirement that an individual show evidence of having successfully completed a firearm’s safety training course and, further, by avoiding providing the applicant with information on how to obtain that training, if a concealed handgun carry license is issued—perhaps even if a licensee requests that information—New York essentially washes its hands of its own responsibility for any potential mishap that might later occur as a result of an individual’s accidentally harming him or herself or others with a firearm.

THE CONNECTICUT FINGERPRINT CARD

Perusing the other documents, Mr. Wright’s attorney saw that only one fingerprint card was included in the packet, even though Mr. Wright’s fingerprints would be processed by the Connecticut Division of State Police and by the FBI. Mr. Wright must cut two checks for fingerprint processing: one for the State of Connecticut’s fingerprint processing and one for the FBI. Mr. Wright’s attorney thought the application packet should include two cards and since only one fingerprint card was provided in the application packet, Mr. Wright’s attorney wondered whether the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit had forgotten to include an additional fingerprint card. Mr. Wright’s attorney thereupon phoned the Special Licensing and Firearm’s Unit of the Division of State Police for clarification. The Officer with whom Mr. Wright’s attorney spoke informed the attorney that only one fingerprint card was necessary. The Special Licensing and Firearm’s Unit made no mistake. There was no oversight. The Officer acknowledged that, previously, two fingerprint cards were provided in handgun carry permit application packet, but that this was no longer done because it was unnecessary now that one fingerprint card was duplicated electronically for the FBI. Apparently, precision copies of the Fingerprint card are now technologically feasible. So, only one fingerprint card is included in the application materials.Mr. Wright would arrange for the NYPD to take his fingerprints since the NYPD Licensing Division was within the vicinity of Mr. Wright’s main business offices, and Mr. Wright already holds a valid unrestricted New York City handgun carry license. Mr. Wright was aware the NYPD would probably charge him a fee for having his fingerprints taken. Once they were taken, Mr. Wright would return the fingerprint card, together with the other completed documents, to the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police.Mr. Wright, together with his attorney and security expert then perused those portions of the application that Mr. Wright could complete by pen at his desk.

“THE APPLICATION FOR STATE PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS”—AN ORANGE, INDEXED SIZE CARD

Mr. Wright’s attorney and professional security consultant took out the orange, index sized, titled, “APPLICATION FOR STATE PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.” Mr. Wright commenced to complete the card. Mr. Wright was instructed to list his residence address information, including his SSN and MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE NUMBER. Mr. Wright was also required to list his vital statistics, namely: DOB, SEX, RACE, EYE COLOR, HEIGHT, and WEIGHT. The orange index card also included a box with the heading: “REASON FOR PERMIT.” This gave Mr. Wright and his team of experts pause.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENTLY GOOD REASON FOR ISSUANCE OF A VAILD HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT TO A QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL WHO WISHES TO CARRY A HANDGUN LAWFULLY IN CONNECTICUT?

IS CONNECTICT A “MAY ISSUE” OR “SHALL ISSUE” STATE?

Mr. Wright thought the requirement that he state a reason for obtaining a handgun carry permit to carry a handgun lawfully in Connecticut should not be a cause for alarm or consternation. After all, the NYPD Licensing Division required Mr. Wright to provide the Division with a sufficiently good reason to issue Mr. Wright an unrestricted handgun carry license that would allow him to carry a handgun lawfully in the City.The NYPD Licensing Division considered that, if a business person explains he carries substantial amounts of cash to deposit in his or her bank account, on a regular basis on one or more days, during any given week, and, if the business person can satisfactorily prove that he carries substantial amounts of cash to deposit in a bank—which is established through voluminous documentation—and if the NYPD Licensing Division Officer determines to his personal satisfaction that the amount of cash a business person has on his person that he carries to a bank on a regular basis, in the regular course of his business, is substantial, then, in that case, the Licensing Division Officer may determine that sufficient cause exists for the issuance of either a restricted or unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. The issuance of a restricted or unrestricted New York City concealed handgun carry license by the Licensing Division Officer is not a simple, pro-forma checklist procedure. It is always, case-by-case. So, the Licensing Division Officer is given substantial discretion in the matter of issuing a concealed handgun carry license that allows a person to lawfully carry a concealed handgun on his person in the City. Essentially, the NYPD determines that the carrying of substantial cash places a person at more than usual risk of attack. But, what constitutes a substantial amount of cash is not predetermined.Mr. Wright wondered whether the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of Connecticut was looking for a similarly sufficiently good reason to issue a permit to an otherwise qualified individual. Mr. Wright’s attorney was not so certain. A small block on a small index sized card was hardly room enough to explain in detail the assets that Mr. Wright carried with him on a daily basis that placed his life in jeopardy of assault. And, from a review of the materials in the application packet, there was no indication that Mr. Wright must provide substantial documentation pertaining to his business operations, unlike the voluminous documentation he had to provide to the NYPD Licensing Officer. What, then, was the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit looking for? Was this a “trick” question? Would it be enough for one simply to posit: “self-defense?”Clearly, if a person were applying for a handgun carry license to lawfully carry a handgun in New York City, “SELF-DEFENSE” would be a patently insufficient reason for issuance of a concealed handgun carry license in New York City. If that was the best reason for issuance of an NYPD concealed handgun carry license an applicant for a handgun license could come up with, then that person should spare him or herself the time, and energy, and expense of bothering to apply for a concealed carry license. The NYPD Licensing Officer would perfunctorily deny issuance of the license to that person.An applicant for a handgun carry license must demonstrate need to carry a handgun. Self-defense isn’t considered sufficient need to carry in New York City and in several other jurisdictions in the State of New York, for New York is a “MAY ISSUE,” State and “MAY ISSUE” in New York and especially in New York City and in many other jurisdictions in New York, and that means very few individuals will obtain a valid concealed handgun carry license. Indeed, Mr. Wright’s attorney was told, bluntly, when he spoke with one licensing Officer for  Nassau County, Long Island, New York, that the only individuals who can truly hope to obtain a concealed handgun carry license are judges and politicians. That is quite an admission! Such blatant comment implicates due process and equal protection concerns. But, we have to commend the officer's blunt honesty for admitting the truth. We suspect the officer wasn't pleased with what he evidently received as orders from superiors to deny issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses to law-abiding American citizens who are deemed to be mere ordinary folk.  But, concerning Connecticut, what was the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police looking for in the way of proof of need to carry a handgun?Mr. Wright’s attorney was concerned that improperly setting forth an acceptable reason in an otherwise seemingly innocuous portion of documentation materials could preclude Mr. Wright from obtaining a Connecticut handgun carry permit. The issue boiled down to whether Connecticut is a “MAY ISSUE” State or a “SHALL ISSUE” State.If Connecticut is truly a “MAY ISSUE” State, this means that no applicant is issued a handgun carry permit as a matter of right. In other words, THE STATE MUST LOOK TO NEED BEYOND THE MERE DESIRE TO CARRY A GUN, and the licensing official is generally given substantial discretion in the matter. Would this present a problem for Mr. Wright? How should he “fill-in” the box on the orange card that asked Mr. Wright to state a reason for applying for a Connecticut concealed handgun permit? Mr. Wright’s attorney decided he wouldn't second-guess what may constitute an appropriate response and, so, realized that the best course of action would be to contact the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Connecticut Division of State Police, directly, and ask the question, point-blank, to ascertain what it was, exactly, that the State was looking for in terms of recognizing sufficient need for issuance of a handgun carry permit to a qualified applicant—an applicant who is not otherwise under some disability--a disability that would preclude that person from possessing a firearm and therefore mandates rejection of one's application for a Connecticut handgun carry permit.Mr. Wright’s attorney learned through his discussion with the Officer with whom he spoke that, unlike New York City, the stated need of “SELF-DEFENSE” is an adequate reason for issuance of a handgun carry permit to a qualified individual in Connecticut. In fact, Mr. Wright’s attorney surmised, from the brief conversation he had, with the Officer of the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, that, going into detail or setting forth any reason other than “SELF-DEFENSE” might raise a red flag as to one’s mental stability. One should not say—indeed one should never say on an application for an kind of firearm's permit or license that: “I FEEL THREATENED BY AFRICAN AMERICANS,” or “I FEEL THREATENED BY WHITES,” or “I FEEL THREATENED BY PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM.” In other words, KEEP IT SIMPLE. IF  “SELF-DEFENSE” IS REASON ENOUGH FOR ISSUANCE OF A HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT IN CONNECTICUT, THEN DO NOT ATTEMPT TO EMBELLISH THAT REASON. In fact, “SELF-DEFENSE” is a salient reason any law-abiding American citizen would have for carrying a handgun.No more need be said in respect to one’s NEED for a handgun and no more ought to said than “SELF DEFENSE,” as one’s stated and real need for a handgun carry permit. Indeed, we wonder that, if ‘SELF-DEFENSE’ is the one primary, adequate reason for carrying a handgun, why would a jurisdiction instruct a person to state a reason that is obvious on its face--redundant really? It may be that Connecticut is looking to weed out individuals who do not have a documented history of mental illness but who might nonetheless set forth a need to carry a handgun in Connecticut that, once again, raises a red flag as to their mental stability. Or, it may be based on nothing more than an understanding that, because Connecticut is technically a “MAY ISSUE” State--as the firearm licensing statute specifically states that the Commissioner MAY ISSUE a license--so he doesn't have to, notwithstanding that a person is qualified to carry a weapon because that person is under no disability and meets all other procedural requirements--the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police must instruct an applicant to clearly and categorically assert a reason, on an application document for applying for a handgun carry permit, even if a response is pro forma and perfunctory and even if no further investigation into the stated need is carried out by the governmental authority--the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police--tasked with the processing of all applications for handgun carry permits in Connecticut.Again, the language of the Connecticut State firearm licensing Statute, as the language of the firearm licensing Statutes of all States, dictates whether the State is officially considered a “MAY ISSUE” or “SHALL ISSUE” State.Let’s look at the pertinent language of the handgun carry permit Statute of Connecticut once again:Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents. (b) Upon the application of any person having a bona fide permanent residence within the jurisdiction of any such authority, such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit. . . . Upon issuance of a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to the applicant, the local authority shall forward the original application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after receiving a temporary state permit, an applicant shall appear at a location designated by the commissioner to receive the state permit. The commissioner may then issue, to any holder of any temporary state permit, a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the state. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall make available to the permit holder a copy of the law regarding the permit holder’s responsibility to report the loss or theft of a firearm and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with such law. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall forward a record of such permit to the local authority issuing the temporary state permit. The commissioner shall retain records of all applications, whether approved or denied. The copy of the state permit delivered to the permittee shall be laminated and shall contain a full-face photograph of such permittee. A person holding a state permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall notify the issuing authority within two business days of any change of such person’s address. The notification shall include the old address and the new address of such person.”The “MAY ISSUE” language in the Statute is clear and categorical and sets forth that the applicable licensing authority MAY ISSUE a “TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT,” and, within sixty days of issuance of the “TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT,” the applicable licensing authority “MAY ISSUE” “THE “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER WITHIN THE STATE.”--THE PERMANENT PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER WITHIN THE STATE.So, the Statute is saying that the CHIEF OF POLICE, WARDEN OR SELECTMAN may issue a “TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT” but he doesn’t have to, and thereafter, within sixty days, if the applicant does receive a “TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT,” the applicant must apply for the “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER” and the Commissioner, for his part, may issue the “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVERS, but the State Commissioner, too, is not required to issue the Permit. What does this REALLY mean? We think this means that, if a person, who is not under any disability asserts that he desires a STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER in Connecticut, for no other reason than “SELF DEFENSE” and, if “SELF DEFENSE” is, as the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit Officer honestly says that “SELF DEFENSE” is a perfectly adequate reason for issuance of a STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER in Connecticut, without any further explanatory reason required, and, if the Commissioner thereupon issues a “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER,” without further ado, then, in effect, and for all practical purposes, Connecticut is a “SHALL ISSUE” State and this is a good thing. That would suggest that the only reason the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police requires an applicant for a handgun carry permit to assert a reason for making application for a handgun carry permit at all is simply to comply with the stated language of the State Statute, and nothing more, because such permit will, it is reasonably presumed, always be issued.However, if the Commissioner can, at will, and at whim, issue or refrain from issuing a “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER” at his discretion, then Connecticut is, as State Statute makes plain, a TRUE “MAY ISSUE” State, and a person has no understanding of and can have no understanding of a true reason for denial of his or her application for a STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER because the Statute doesn’t require the Commissioner to give a reason for denying a person issuance of a PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER. The only ultimate recourse for an individual who has been denied issuance of a Connecticut handgun carry permit is to appeal to the Court, arguing bad faith and arbitrary and capricious denial of a PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER. “MAY ISSUE” States always pose “RED HERRINGS” for the law-abiding citizen, who is not under disability, who desires to carry a handgun lawfully in a State.So, until Mr. Wright’s application for a Connecticut PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER is processed, we cannot say whether Connecticut is a true “MAY ISSUE” STATE where the ultimate licensing official has absolute discretion for issuing or refraining from issuing a handgun carry license or permit with little recourse for the applicant apart from administrative review and further court review of denial to issue, or Connecticut is, in effect, a “SHALL ISSUE” State, despite the language of Statute, because a law-abiding citizen, not under disability who complies with all administrative requirements, will invariably be issued a STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER.In the next segment of this article, we will continue our analysis of the application process, when Mr. Wright, with the assistance of his attorney and his professional security consultant and expert complete the detailed, “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” and we look, as well, at the renewal process in Connecticut._______________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

EVEN WITH TRUMP AS PRESIDENT NATIONAL HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS FAR FROM A DONE DEAL

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

PART THREE

WHY DO MANY AMERICANS OBLIGE THOSE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

Americans are fortunate Donald Trump won the election and will soon take the oath of Office. That assumes the Electors in the Electoral College don’t do the old switcheroo and elect someone else. And, make no mistake, there exist rogue elements within the Electoral College. They intend to cast their vote in a manner contrary to the will of the residents of their State. But, casting aside a nightmare scenario, we fully expect the President-elect, Donald Trump, to take the oath of Office as planned, on January 20, 2017.Even so, national concealed handgun carry reciprocity is and will remain far from a done deal. Donald Trump cannot order national concealed handgun carry reciprocity by Presidential edict, and Democrats in Congress will fight to constrain Republican attempts to enact such legislation. There is much resistance to this both inside and outside the Nation’s Capitol Building and we must be prepared for a drawn-out fight. Expect the new Senate Minority Leader, Democrat, Charles Schumer, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat-Connecticut, outspoken ardent--in fact, virulent--critics of the Second Amendment, to lead the charge against national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. Recently, both of these Senators, well aware of the American public's push to strengthen the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms--now that Hillary Clinton is politically dead and Donald Trump will soon occupy the White House--have blared out their intent to filibuster any Republican effort to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. The antigun movement has suffered an extraordinary setback and those of us who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deeply engraved in our Bill of Rights, must press our advantage.But, we Americans who cherish our Bill of Rights and, especially, our sacred right to keep and bear arms, must overcome decades of resistance to gun ownership and possession. The seeds planted by the antigun groups have sprouted weeds throughout our Country. These weeds must be cut and their roots pulled out. There has been significant resistance to the very preservation of our sacred Second Amendment and the antigun forces will see national concealed handgun carry legislation as an unconscionable expansion of the right guaranteed to Americans under the Second Amendment, and not as a mere exemplification of our natural right to keep and bear arms. Resistance resides in the psyche of those individuals who resent the very idea of guns in the hands of civilian Americans; and such resistance that insinuates itself into the psyche of individuals is worse—far worse—to the preservation, let alone strengthening, of our Second Amendment, than any one piece of antigun legislation. We say this because psychological conditioning has, potentially, greater consequences and far more reaching and damaging impact on the preservation of our Second Amendment than any one piece of restrictive federal or State gun legislation.Antigun legislation, on federal, State, or local level, is more a symptom, the effect of insidious psychological conditioning on the collective American psyche. But for the weakening of the American psyche and spirit, such legislation would never—could never— achieve a foothold in our laws, in our legal system. That it does so is illustrative of the power of propaganda and demonstrative of the ruthlessness and power of forces at work in our Nation that seek to destroy our sacred Second Amendment.Already antigun groups are marshaling their forces in Congress. They are stiffening their resolve to fight and defeat any attempt to implement national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. How might antigun groups and powerful, wealthy, ruthless, collaborators, here and abroad, who fund and support those groups, effectively thwart our efforts? We get an inkling through a look at the past strategies utilized by antigun groups.Antigun groups make substantial use of slogans. Slogans convey messages. Slogans allow for the creation of associations in the mind of the target audience. The public is familiar with two of these: “commonsense gun laws” and “gun laws we can live with.” Antigun groups use slogans to attract members to their cause.Organizational names of antigun groups carry antigun messages too. Consider Michael Bloomberg’s group: “Everytown for Gun Safety.” How did the well-heeled Bloomberg come up with that name? Did he invent it or did an advertising firm, retained by Bloomberg, come up with that through brainstorming sessions and group study of the effectiveness of the name as a device to shepherd the masses to the antigun cause? If the latter, we wouldn’t be surprised.Slogans are examples of memes. What is a ‘meme?’ A meme is a mental virus.Antigun groups like “Everytown for Gun Safety,” and the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” inject memes insidiously into the public psyche through their tool, the mainstream media.“Everytown for Gun Safety” and the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” are themselves examples of memes—of mental viruses. Antigun groups know the value of memes in shaping, molding, and manipulating public thought processes. They employ memes assiduously. It is part of their strategy, their plan for undermining our cherished Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms.Antigun groups like “Everytown for Gun Safety,” and “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” inject deadly memes into the public psyche, not unlike a heroin junkie who injects poison into his veins. The mainstream media is the syringe antigun groups employ to inject their venom, antigun memes, into the public’s psyche.The word, ‘gun,’ invariably factors into the memes of antigun groups. They employ the word, ‘gun,’ constantly and, whenever they do, they use the word, 'gun,' as a pejorative, as an invective. This is no accident. Their attack on guns--and on the very word, 'gun,'--is always carefully planned and calibrated, to leave no doubt in the mind of the target audience, the American public, that guns have--as they see it--no redeeming value. The public is expected to accept antigun group presumptions about guns at face value, without criticism, without scrutiny, no less so than a member of a cult is expected to accept, at face value, as self-evident true, cult dogma as spouted by the cult leader.Memes, utilized by antigun groups, induce, in those susceptible to the messaging, bizarre and ludicrous thoughts about guns.Antigun groups use memes to instill in the public psyche a phobic reaction toward guns. The antigun groups are very good at this. They have been at it for a long time. They have honed their skills well.The messaging operates both overtly on the conscious mind and subliminally on the subconscious of those individuals—and there are many—susceptible to reception of the message. Antigun groups, through the mainstream media, suggest that guns are more than mere inanimate objects. They suggest that guns are sentient beings—evil sentient beings.Antigun groups create the impression that the “the gun,” is a scourge on society—more a scourge on society than the lunatic, the psychopathic Islamic terrorist, or the common criminal, that wields “the gun” to harm others.The mainstream media propagates and bolsters dangerous memes about guns. It does so endlessly, relentlessly, vigorously, tediously, boisterously, indefatigably, shamelessly.The result: many Americans develop a morbid, unnatural, fear of guns. Those adults, susceptible to such messaging instill their pathological fear of guns in their children. Antigun groups intend to inculcate in the mind of each American, beginning in early childhood, an irrational fear and loathing toward “the gun.” The unreasonable fear of guns has a name. It’s called hoplophobia.The imbecilic notions antigun groups attribute to guns and the lunacy antigun groups project on the public about guns percolate and permeate throughout society. The antigun groups, through the mainstream media, thrust their lunacy on the public, creating hysteria in sensitive, susceptible individuals. Many individuals are immune. But many others are not. Not content to project their lunacy toward guns on adults, antigun groups shamelessly, unabashedly project that same lunacy onto impressionable children.The lunacy pervades our public school systems. Were they successful, antigun groups wouldn’t need to fight to repeal the Second Amendment. The public, molded and shaped like clay from early childhood, would demand it.How pervasive is this lunacy? Consider: in the 1950’s a child could bring a toy stainless steel cap gun to school and no one would raise an eyebrow—not parents, not school teachers, not school administrators—but not so today.Today, a child who so much as points a finger, suggestive of a gun, at another student at school, is suspended. Is that not strange? Click here for one example. Is this an anomaly? Unfortunately, no. The instances are legion. An internet search picks up many examples.School officials call their draconian measures zero-tolerance policy. But, zero-tolerance policy toward what: that we must fear our own shadow and instill such fear in our children too? Is not such draconian, bizarre action by school officials indicative of aberration in their own psyches rather than an indication of aberration in the psyches of school children? Yet, school officials find fault with the children, not themselves—removing them from school, suggesting, perhaps, these children undergo psychiatric counseling. Really?Antigun groups promote the nonsense, the lunacy, perpetrated by public school systems. Antigun groups proclaim that a harsh response toward gun possession is necessary. They argue such response bespeaks precautions both public schools and society at large are obliged to take and are obligated to take for the good of society, for the good of the societal collective—applying the dubious ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism to the body politic.But, why? What is their motivation? Antigun gun groups say that draconian measures are necessary because we “live in a different world, today;” “we live in a more dangerous world.” We do? How so?Are we to conclude the threat of global thermonuclear war during the 1950s—over a half century ago—against an adversary like the Soviet Union and its allies, the Soviet Bloc Nations—infinitely more sophisticated and threatening than the Islamic radical savages we contend with today—bespoke a peaceful time, a tranquil era for Americans? Not so for those of us living during that period. And, we did not fear the gun then. Why should we fear the gun now? No need then; no more so now. The absurdity of antigun group assertions, when seen in this comparative light, is plain.What Americans are doing in response to such visible threats that do exist, toward criminals and Islamic terrorists, is contrary to the expectations and wishes of the antigun groups. Americans are arming themselves with—horror of horrors—guns; and they are doing so in record numbers.The self-arming of Americans is alarming to antigun groups. The self-arming of Americans isn’t the response antigun groups want; it isn’t the response antigun groups expect. But it is occurring.Yet, if we take the antigun groups at their word—if the world is a dangerous place today—we would expect Americans—resilient and resourceful Americans—to take personal responsibility for their own well-being. True that was in the past. True that is now. True that will always be so long as our Bill of Rights remains sacred. Why should the response of many Americans to threats to personal safety—acquisition of a firearm—be so unexpected even if unnerving to antigun groups?Perhaps antigun groups take too many of their cues from their international benefactors. Such people cannot appreciate the singular uniqueness of Americans’ Second Amendment. They cannot understand the import of notions of individual, personal responsibility and personal fortitude upon which our Bill of Rights is grounded.Most Americans realize personal safety and well-being devolve upon themselves, not on any greater authority, and not on the police. The court cases, Hartzler vs. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) and Riss vs. New York, 22, N.Y.2d, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968), make this point clear—a point antigun groups acutely ignore, postulating, misleadingly, disingenuously, that the police do serve the residents of their respective communities and that is enough, that is sufficient to provide for the residents of the community all the protection the residents need. But is it?Police departments do serve residents, yes. But, residents are served as a collective body. The police are required to provide for the welfare of the community as a whole. But, must they provide protection to individuals within a community, apart from offering protection to specific public officials? The answer is, “no.” They need not do so and, in fact, do not.Americans understand that possessing firearms ensures their own individual safety and well-being as is each American’s right, and each American’s duty to self and family. The police are not required by law to provide that task even if particular departments had the money and the manpower to do so. Even, then, there would be good reason for the police not to do so, as case law makes clear. Hence, the duty to provide for one’s personal safety rests invariably, inevitably, on the individual. Our Second Amendment codifies that sacred, natural right.A firearm—the gun—is the most effective means of ensuring one’s safety and well-being when one’s life is threatened. Still, the antigun groups attack our Second Amendment. They attack the sanctity of each American’s individual life. Their attack on the right of each individual American citizen to defend his or her life with the most effective means of doing so is facially inconsistent with our Bill of Rights. Their position is, rationally, altogether inexplicable, and, on moral grounds, indefensible and irreverent.Their attack against the Second Amendment of our Constitution is no less an attack on our Nation State and no less an attack on our National Identity insofar as their position is an affront against the sanctity of our Constitution; for our Constitution is the foundation of our Nation and the clearest expression of our National Identity. Yet, the concepts of ‘national identity’ and ‘nation State’ are anathema to powerful, ruthless internationalists—creatures that seek an end to the natural independence and sovereignty of our Nation State and of all nation states; an end to national heritage and history; an end to national identity; an end to each nation’s right to self-governance; an end to the right of each of us, as individuals, to be and remain individual.One only need concentrate on the collective horror the EU experience and experiment has wrought on individual Nation States: the insidious attack on notions of National Identity and National Sovereignty—to realize what can yet befall us. The Nations of Europe fell for the lies of EU proponents. They thought they could maintain their political identities even as they ceded their economic authority. They were wrong. But, there is now a most welcome backlash.We might learn from their example. Better it would be if we stay clear of the worst of entangling alliances as “free trade” agreements require, as they compel—as they move us inexorably closer to an EU style arrangement with other nations—leading inevitably to the destruction of our Nation State, our National Identity, our Constitution.The mere existence of our Second Amendment operates as a visible threat to those invisible, insidious forces, lurking in the shadows. These denizens of hell seek no less than the abject surrender of our National Sovereignty. They seek no less than the subordination of our laws to those of foreign courts and foreign tribunals. They seek no less than the shredding of our unique Constitution. The strengthening of our Second Amendment is something these powerful, ruthless interests cannot abide. They will use their tools and puppets—including the mainstream media, antigun groups, various members of Congress, and the ignorant, frightened, misguided sheep among us—to constrain any attempt to implement national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Passing such legislation is a major step toward preserving our singular way of life as an independent sovereign Nation and preserving the two most sacred pillars upon which our Nation rests: one, that government operates at the behest of the American people, not the other way around; and, two, that the Bill of Rights codifies natural rights that forever secure in the American citizen, sacred rights existent in that American as an individual.In our Country, the individual must never hear to be told that he must sacrifice his sacred right of self-defense to the seemingly greater need, the greater good, of an amorphous collective mass—that his right of personal self-defense through possession of a firearm manifests as a danger to the collective security of the masses and must, therefore, be curbed, restrained, denied.We have our work cut out for us. The depth and breadth of that work will become clear as we post further articles on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity._________________________________Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TRUST PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP—HOLDER OF AN UNRESTRICTED NEW YORK HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE—TO STAY TRUE TO HIS WORD TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE GUN RIGHTS FOR EVERY LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN.

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE

PART ONE

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY HANDGUNS—LET’S GET CRACKING ON THIS!

In the past eighty years the American people have seen their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms slowly whittled away through enactment of a multitude of restrictive federal and State gun legislation. Such gun rights that remain are treated more as a privilege, granted by Government, than as a right, embodied in the People, as codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights.With the slow, inexorable, insidious movement toward de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, many Americans grow increasingly unaware of the loss of their most cherished right.Those who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms find themselves frustrated. They see themselves treated like second class citizens.Now, no rational, sensible person inside of government or outside it would deny a person his or her natural right of self-defense. Yet, by prohibiting the average law-abiding American citizen from carrying a handgun in his or her own defense, Government is, nonetheless, effectively denying the American citizen his or her natural right of self-defense. For, a handgun is, in many life-threatening situations, the most effective means available for ensuring one’s life.The right of self-defense is a corollary to the Second Amendment, as the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, pointed out in the seminal Heller case. Yet, many States, including the District of Columbia, routinely ignore the import of Heller and, in so doing, denigrate the import and purport of the Second Amendment.The State Governments of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Hawaii, and others, dole out handgun carry licenses sparingly, if at all, to a privileged few.And, who are those Privileged Few?

THIS IS WHAT WE SEE:

• Politicians can carry a handgun concealed because they make the laws.
• Police can carry a handgun concealed because they enforce the laws.
• Retired Police Officers can carry a handgun concealed because that is their entitlement.
• State and Municipal Judges and U.S. Supreme Court Justices can carry a handgun concealed because they interpret the laws.
• The Rich and Famous can carry a handgun concealed because restrictive gun laws are generally waived for them.
• Private Bodyguards can carry a handgun concealed because they protect the Rich and Famous.

AND—Criminals can carry a handgun concealed because they simply disregard the laws.BUT YOU—THE AVERAGE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN—Cannot carry a handgun because you obey the laws, and are routinely denied the right guaranteed to you in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!WHAT DO YOU THINK?We would like to get your opinion.THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW:The President-elect, Donald Trump, championed the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We trust that Donald Trump will not soften his stance once he takes the Oath of Office and that he will honor his promise and commitment to the American People.Even so, Americans must not rely on our President-elect alone to secure our Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Americans must make national handgun carry a reality. To accomplish that means we must make national handgun carry a priority.To effectively preserve and protect the Second Amendment we must strengthen it. The true strength of the Second Amendment, as a fundamental right, rests in the full, unrestricted exercise of it. Congressional draft legislation to effectuate national handgun carry would do just that. National handgun carry impetus is, to date, the best exemplification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as our founders understood that right and had intended it to be exercised.Congressional draft legislation to effectuate national handgun carry does exist. Pending are three House bills, H.R. 923, H.R. 986, H.R. 402, and one Senate bill, S. 498. What is the status of these bills? They sit stalled in Congress. They have been suspended in Committee for over a year. But, as President-elect Donald Trump will soon assume the mantle of the U.S. Presidency, we must get Congress cracking on them. There is no longer any reason to sit idle.Those Congressmen fearful of incurring the wrath of Hillary Clinton, had they acted sooner on the national handgun carry legislation, can certainly rest easy now. Hillary Clinton’s political ambitions along with her antigun agenda are dead.Clinton’s political dreams and her antigun agenda both died when she lost the U.S. Presidential election. There is now no excuse, especially by Congressional Republicans—if any excuse previously existed—for foot dragging; nor is this a time for the American people to rest on their laurels now that Donald Trump has secured the U.S. Presidency. There is much work to be done and much in Obama’s un-American legacy to be undone.And, don’t for a minute think the antigun forces are going to forbear their destructive activity to defeat the Second Amendment just because they lost their most strident and powerful benefactor, Hillary Clinton. We must hit them hard. Getting national handgun carry legislation passed will be the most effective means at our disposal to defeat them and to defeat their destructive agenda.The Arbalest Quarrel is doing its part to get the ball rolling on national handgun carry legislation. The Arbalest Quarrel has, since its inception, been a strong, unwavering advocate of the Second Amendment. We have pointed out vociferously and unceasingly that the Second Amendment is not to be ignored or trifled with.The Arbalest Quarrel is currently working with several organizations and with public radio to get the message out that the American people want national handgun carry legislation.We want national handgun carry legislation passed quickly, and we want national handgun carry legislation passed with no strings attached.President-elect Donald Trump, the U.S. Congress, and the average law-abiding American citizen—all of us—need to work on this together and straightaway to see federal legislation enacted to level the playing field among the several States.All law-abiding American citizens of legal age should be allowed to carry a handgun concealed in every State of the Union. That is consistent with the true import and purport of the Second Amendment.Will you help us help all Americans preserve, protect, and strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right? Please provide us with your thoughts.

[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

COMEY BUCKLES UNDER—A SECOND TIME!

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONGRESS HAVE BOTH FAILED THE NATION. IT’S UP TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOW TO RIGHT THE WRONG.

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

“Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate: ‘To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods.’”~“Horatius at the Bridge,” from “The Lays of Ancient Rome,” by Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay (1800—1859)Note to readers: You may read the entirety of this Poem at Bartleby.com. The Shadow Government comes out of the “shadows.” The Democratic Process is an illusion. It’s a sham. The media, controlled by the Shadow Government, continues to smear Donald Trump. It does so on behalf of its owners. The mainstream media’s owners cannot “buy” Trump. He won’t take their money. He won’t do their bidding. Trump represents America, not the internationalist financiers who seek to buy up Nation States, creating, as they hope, a single, unified corporate empire—their New World Order. So, not surprisingly, ‘nationalism,’ is, today, an obscenity.The mainstream media castigates Trump. It does so incessantly. It does so emphatically and relentlessly. But Trump has committed no crime. For all the nonsense spouted against Trump, the mainstream media has not said Trump is a criminal. Why not? The answer is simple. It has not said this because it cannot. Trump isn’t a criminal.That same mainstream media trumpets Hillary Clinton. This creature, though, is a criminal. She is an uncommon criminal because no one has committed more crimes, more often, and with more relish and audacity than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s crimes against this Country and against its citizenry are serious. Her crimes are legion. They will continue should she become U.S. President. She would not, then, suffer punishment. Rather, she would be rewarded for her crimes. She is a very successful criminal.The crimes of Clinton’s confidantes, hangers on, and toadies—such as John Podesta and Huma Abedin—are also serious and many in number. These are Clinton’s Captains in crime. Rest assured, they will serve their master, the Queen of Crime, well, if their master secures the Presidential suite.F.B.I. Director James Comey understands the horror this Country faces if a sociopathic criminal and her battalion of flunkies take control of the machinery of Government. Comey is the one man who could have prevented Clinton from running for President. If Clinton ascends to the throne, she can yet fall, unceremoniously, if honest, forthright, and courageous individuals in the FBI, in the Justice Department, and in Congress see to it that Clinton’s days in the Highest Office in the Land, are few—very few—in number. Likely though—and sad to say—there are few in Government who will stand up against this criminal should she gain the White House. Best, then, to see that she does not.The international financial banking cartel knows this. These Captains of Finance run the Shadow Government. Had Comey recommended indictment of Hillary Clinton, that singular act would have thrown a wrench in their plans to destroy America.One person, in a Nation of over 324 million, could have prevented Hillary Clinton from continuing her march to the U.S. Presidency. That person was James Comey, Director of the FBI. The international financial banking cartel realized that something had to be done to stop Comey. Something was done. Someone got to Comey. Clearly, someone threatened Comey.No matter. Comey did what he could in light of the threats. He warned the American people of the coming disaster of a Clinton Presidency. He did so in his statement, of July 5, 2016, to the American people. He delivered his statement one day after Independence Day. Consider the import of his statement to the American people. Consider its timing—one day after our National Holiday, proclaiming our independence from tyranny.Consider the thought that went into Comey’s statement to the American People.Consider the irrefutable proof pointing to Clinton’s felonies. But Comey did not recommend indictment. Yet, his arguments for not recommending indictment were lame. Comey obviously intended for them to be lame, ridiculous even, a stark counterpoint to his message of Clinton’s clear guilt.Comey told the American people in the clearest language he could muster, apparently fearing the suffering of retribution had he spoken more plainly, that Clinton has committed serious crimes against this Country; that she had committed them many times over; and that she had committed them over an extended period of time.We must assume that powerful, evil forces compelled Comey to forbear recommending indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton. For, had Comey recommended indictment of Clinton, she could not rationally continue her bid for the U.S. Presidency. She would like to, of course. She would do so, indictment or not if she could. Hillary Clinton has no shame. But it would be unseemly. She would have to step down. The Democratic Party would be compelled to demand she step down.Still, more damning information about Clinton’s crimes came out in recent days. Copies of emails Clinton had destroyed, and thousands more, wound up on Anthony Weiner’s computer.Weiner is a disgraced U.S. Congressman. He was a close friend of Hillary Clinton. He remains, at the moment, Huma Abedin’s wayward husband. Abedin and Weiner have been separated since August 2016.FBI officials, in their probe, investigating Weiner for sex crimes, found 650,000 emails, implicating Huma Abedin, Clinton’s confidante and associate in the mishandling of classified information. They turned those emails over to Comey. Comey informed Congress.Powerful, corrupt, evil international financiers—the puppet masters who control the Clintons and who control our present President, Barack Obama—must have fretted over this. They realized they must do something. Comey had thrown another wrench into their plans for dismantling America. Would he now recommend indictment?Clearly, indictment or no, so long as the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s sordid conduct and dealings continued, she would live and operate under a cloud of suspicion. That was not something she would or could abide. That wasn’t something her benefactors could or would abide. What crimes have they committed—these sinister individuals in the shadows—that we can only obtain a glimmer of through the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton?These corrupt, evil, extraordinarily wealthy and powerful international financiers and power brokers intend to crush this Country. They intend to crush the Nation’s Constitution; to crush this Nation’s heritage; to crush this Nation’s culture; and to crush this Nation’s spirit. Their goal for a one world government would go off schedule, would go off kilter, if their puppet, Hillary Clinton, failed her bid for the U.S. Presidency.They had to do something. Something they did. They attacked the F.B.I. Director. They attacked the Nation’s Messenger.They attempted to smear Comey’s reputation. We speculate they found a willing accomplice. But that accomplice wasn’t a Democrat. Their accomplice, curiously, wasn’t a Democrat. He’s a Republican. Fancy that. The Republican’s name is Richard Painter. Painter filed an ethics complaint against Comey.Painter “served as the chief White House ethics attorney under President George W. Bush, and he’s now professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.”We know the Bush family detests Donald Trump. That’s no secret. The Bush family believes Trump stole the Republican Party nomination from Jeb. Donald Trump was supposed to be Jeb’s foil, not the other way around. The Bush family obviously supports Hillary Clinton. The Bush family says: “GOP be damned!”If we are to believe Painter, he is saying his motivation for filing a complaint against Comey is to ensure ethics in Government. We are to believe that no one suggested or urged Painter to file a complaint against Comey. The American people are to believe he did this on his own. Sure!Richard Painter filed his Complaint, on October 29, 2016. He filed it with the Office of Special Counsel and with the Office of Government Ethics. Painter says he filed a formal Complaint, claiming Comey violated the “Hatch Act.” Painter says, in his Complaint, that Comey “was going beyond what he needed to do. And so one could argue that Director Comey had animosity against Clinton, wanted her to lose. But that’s only one way to violate the Hatch Act.” Painter, continues, “The other is where you have a government official who - they are pressured by somebody else who wants to influence the election to perform an official act in their capacity as a government employee that will have a likely effect on the election, and there is no other good reason for that official action.” It is odd that neither NPR nor the New York Times--the mainstream news organization that published Painter's self-serving article, explaining his rationale for filing his Complaint--asked Richard Painter whether the Bush family or anyone else suggested he file a complaint against Comey. Apparently, no reporter posed this question to Painter. If, though, a reporter for NPR or with the New York Times did ask Painter whether anyone urged Painter to file a complaint, neither reporter bothered to mention that fact in his written piece on Painter.Yet in Painter's article, published in the Times article, we do have this: “For the sake of full disclosure, in this election I [Richard Painter] have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order.”  Clearly, Painter would not take much persuading.Painter is also an obsequious apologist for Hillary Clinton. He is quick to condemn Comey. But he says Clinton has committed no crime. Really?We can surmise that Painter’s motivation for filing a complaint against Comey extends beyond the stated desire to promote ethics in Government. That point aside, let’s consider the merits of Richard Painter’s arguments.We discuss Painter’s arguments in Part Two of this Article.

PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

WHAT DOES THE HATCH ACT SAY?The “Hatch Act” was named for the sponsor of the original bill, Senator Carl Hatch, Democrat, New Mexico, in 1939. Then, as now, the import of the Act is to preclude federal bureaucrats from becoming involved in political campaign activities. The Act in its present form, diluted from the original Statute, is codified in 5 U.S.C.S. § 7323. The Statute is titled, “Political activity authorized; prohibitions.”The applicable portion of the Act Painter ostensibly relies on says:“(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. . . .”Now, in his letter to Congressional leaders, Comey says “the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Comey also informed FBI employees of his action and the reason for it.The legal issue that Painter raises in his complaint is whether, through his letter to Congress, James Comey has “use[d] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”Specific intent to influence is required to support a charge under the Hatch Act. The FBI Director was simply doing what his duties require him to do. He was investigating violations of federal law. The fact that the FBI was investigating a person who happens to be running for Public Office doesn’t obviate the Director’s duty to investigate violations of federal law whether a person is running for political office or not. In the instant case, the FBI was investigating serious crimes, felonies, and multiple counts that Hillary Clinton and her henchmen and her henchwomen had committed over a period of several years.It is specious to make the argument, as Painter does, that the FBI is to forbear investigating violations of federal law simply because a person happens to be running for political office. But, that, in its essence is the foundation of Painter's argument that Comey violated the Hatch Act. In fact Painter undermines whatever merit he claims for having filed his Complaint by saying, “I do not know whether the Director of the FBI personally wanted to influence the outcome of an election, although the content and wording of this week’s letter is of concern.” So, Painter paints his Complaint against Comey on bald conjecture and opinion. Painter knows his Complaint has no legal basis.We can infer, then, that Painter filed his Complaint against Comey in bad faith. Painter, an expert on the law is not ignorant of the import and purport of the Hatch Act. We must, then, return to Painter’s motivations. Did someone approach Painter, asking him to file an ethics claim against Comey? That is certainly possible, even probable. Since Painter doesn’t support Trump, he would be a willing partner in filing a spurious claim against Comey to cast false aspersions on the FBI Director. Painter’s objective, then, in filing his Complaint, is clear. He seeks to prop up Clinton—to dupe the American people. He attempts to cast a vile criminal, Clinton, in a good light, by drawing attention to Comey, attempting to cast a basically honorable man in a bad light. Painter’s purpose? He seeks to draw votes, in these final hours, to Clinton, and away from Trump.We are not alone in our judgment that Painter filed a dubious Complaint against James Comey.A prominent legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, also took Painter to task. Turley points out that nothing in Painter’s complaint supports a reasonable inference that Comey intended to influence the outcome of the election through his notification to Congress. Turley’s legal analysis of Richard Painter’s complaint is instructive. Turley says,“Comey has kept Congress informed in compliance with oversight functions of the congressional committees but has been circumspect in the extent of such disclosures. It is troubling to see Democrats (who historically favor both transparency and checks on executive powers) argue against such disclosure and cooperation with oversight committees. More importantly, the Hatch Act is simply a dog that will not hunt.Richard W. Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House from 2005 to 2007, has filed a Hatch Act complaint against Comey with the federal Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. He argues that “We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway.”However, Comey was between the horns of a dilemma. He could be accused of acts of commission in making the disclosure or omission in withholding the disclosure in an election year. Quite frankly, I found Painter’s justification for his filing remarkably speculative. He admits that he has no evidence to suggest that Comey wants to influence the election or favors either candidate. Intent is key under the Hatch investigations.  You can disagree with the timing of Comey’s disclosure, but that is not a matter for the Hatch Act or even an ethical charge in my view.Congress passed the Hatch Act in response to scandals during the 1938 congressional elections and intended the Act to bar federal employees from using “[their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” Comey is not doing that in communicating with Congress on a matter of oversight.”In his Complaint to the Office of Special Counsel and to the Office of Government Ethics, Richard Painter also asks the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics to investigate the Director of the FBI to ascertain whether the Director violated 5 CFR § 2635.702 which forbids use of public office for private gain. The Statute says, in principal part that:“An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.”Beyond the naked request, Painter offers no reason at all for claiming the FBI Director has gained anything personally, from investigating violations of federal law. Isn’t the purpose of the FBI to do precisely what the FBI Director did: investigate violations of federal law?In his Complaint, Painter says, “Violations of the Hatch Act and of this ethics rule [5 CFR § 2635.702] are not permissible in any circumstances, including an executive branch official acting under pressure from persons such as the president and politically motivatedmembers of Congress.” Apart from stating the obvious, Painter says nothing that would paint a picture of wrongdoing on Comey’s part. Curiously, Painter has painted a most exquisite painting of Hillary Clinton’s violation of 5 CFR § 2635.702. Wasn’t the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation predicated on substantive and substantial evidence that Hillary Clinton used the Department of State as a mechanism through which she doled out favors for cash? Did she not use her position as Secretary of State to establish a grand “Pay to Play,” scheme reaping in tens of millions of dollars? Would she not extend that “Pay to Play” to the White House? Imagine the vast stores of money--the huge hoard of cash--Clinton could accumulate through the sale of the Office of the President of the United States? Such bribery and corruption this Nation has never before been seen! If Painter is truly concerned about Ethics in Government, why did he not file his Complaint against Hillary Clinton? The evidence supporting claims of Clinton’s ethics violations would fill volumes. He could certainly have made a much stronger case for ethics violations against Clinton than he has actually done, attempting to besmirch the FBI Director who was doing what was required of him: enforcing the Nation's laws. Letting Congress and the American public know that the FBI is investigating a person for criminal wrongdoing--a person who seeks the highest Office in the Land--is certainly not an ethics violations under federal law. He gains nothing personal from that: neither wealth nor position. He certainly isn't campaigning for Trump. One may just as well argue that, keeping the investigation and the findings a secret from the American people, amounts to campaigning for Clinton--a point that Jonathan Turley makes. The American people have a right to know what they are getting. If some Americans wish to vote for a vile criminal, then they should do so with both eyes open. For those Americans who vote for Clinton bear a measure of responsibility for the damage she can and would cause to the Office of the U.S. President, and to the Nation, and to the Nation's citizenry, and to the Nation's Constitution. Those Americans who vote for Clinton cannot be heard thereafter to plaintively say--in the event Hillary Clinton actually secures the Office--that they didn't know! They can't thereafter be heard to apologetically ask, "how could we know?" They can't justifiably say any of these things. They can't do so for the simple reason that the Director of the FBI, James Comey, has, explicitly as he can, forewarned them. He has forewarned all of us. Richard Painter should not be casting blame and aspersions on Comey. Comey isn't responsible for Clinton's criminal conduct. Hillary Clinton, herself, is responsible for her criminal conduct. The FBI didn't investigate Clinton because of a personal distaste for her. The FBI investigated Clinton because there existed and there does exist probable cause that she broke federal law; that she committed felonies; and that she did committed felonies many times over; and that she committed felonies over an extended and extensive period of time. Is Hillary Clinton still committing felonies? Possibly she is. Would Hillary Clinton commit felonies were she to secure the Office of the President? Undoubtedly, she will. She has a criminal nature. Holding high public Office doesn't change that. Holding high public Office can't change that. A zebra never changes its stripes. Holding high Office--the highest Office in the Land--would only allow Clinton to continue her criminal behavior. Even more, the Office of the U.S. President will allow Clinton to amplify that criminal behavior in a manner and to an extent that only a writer of horror fiction can imagine, except for the fact that the writer of such horror won't be writing fiction. He or she will be writing fact.

ALAS, NO HORATIUS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Comey could have been America’s “Horatius at the Bridge.” Alas, at the Eleventh Hour, he failed the Nation and the American People. Comey buckled under to the forces that seek to push through a criminal for President.We then receive a bombshell from Fox News. Fox News reports, on November 3, 2016, that an indictment of Clinton is almost certain. Then, one day later, the same news network hits the public with another bombshell. Fox news not only retracts its statement that an indictment is almost certain but apologizes for making it.Fox News apparently heard that Comey would not recommend an indictment after all. The American public is then hit with the third bombshell, on November 6, 2016. Although it would ordinarily take weeks if not months to sift through all the emails found on Weiner’s computer, James Comey says the FBI won’t recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton. It seems that whoever threatened James Comey, originally, reminded Comey that the threat still stands.Understand, if Trump becomes President, Clinton likely will be indicted on one or more charges of violations of federal law. If the U.S. Department of Justice cannot or will not indict and prosecute Clinton, Congress will likely enact legislation appointing independent counsel to investigate, indict, and prosecute both Bill and Hillary Clinton and their Foundation. Likely, Obama would be caught up in the investigation. Many other powerful, influential people would be caught up in the dragnet.

DO AMERICANS STILL LIVE IN A FREE REPUBLIC?

We infer that a quiet coup of our Government has occurred and only a Trump Presidency will be able to flush it out. Those who have much to lose have taken steps to thrust a Clinton Presidency down our throats.So, we come full circle. Powerful interests in Government—Centrist Democrats and Republicans—working on behalf of each other, and on behalf of powerful, wealthy, influential, and wholly corrupt international financial interests both here and abroad, do not want to see their power diminished and defused. They do not want to see their personal goals and aims for a one world government—one they have worked long and hard for—undermined and jeopardized.The destructive course they have set for our Nation will be set aright only by a Trump win in this election. The Bushes and Clintons—and their silent, powerful, secretive backers—have pulled out all the stops.They intend to seat, in the White House, the most venal, and vain, and vile individual ever to hold public office, Hillary Rodham Clinton. That says as much about them as it does about her.Only we, Americans, can bring this frightful, terrible juggernaut to a screeching halt. We have flushed these denizens of the night out into the light of day—these vampires of the night that would deny us our Birthright, that would break our Will, that would suck the lifeblood of our Nation. We cannot rely on Congress to preserve and protect our Nation. We cannot rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to secure our sacred Bill of Rights and to maintain the supremacy of our laws over those of other Nations and over those of extrajudicial foreign bodies. And, we certainly cannot rely on the Imperial Presidency to safeguard our freedoms.It is up to each and every American citizen to remind those who hold high Office in Government that they serve us, and they do so at our pleasure; that we do not serve them at their pleasure.“We are our own destiny. If we are victims at all, or conquerors, we have done it in our minds and our will, or with our faulty judgments or our illusions. If we permit others to exploit us, in private life or in government, we chose it. Or we made the fatal error of acquiescence, and for that we should be condemned. The world forgives everything but weakness and submission. It forgives everyone but a victim. For there is always battle, even if you die in it. In any event death comes to all men. How you died was your own choice, fighting or submitting.” ~Taylor Caldwell, “Captains and the Kings,” Part One, Chapter 17, page 178 (Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972).We are at a definite crossroads. The founders bequeathed to us a Bill of Rights; and they made clear to all other Nations and to all foreign interests that we are an independent sovereign Nation composed of a free people—a people who control their own destiny. Our founders are watching us now. They are wondering whether we, Americans, their descendants, are worthy of retaining the Nation and the Constitution they bequeathed us.

[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TINKER, TAILOR, TERRORIST, TRAITOR

PART ONE OF FOUR PARTS

INTRODUCTION

Barack Obama’s destructive Administration is rapidly drawing to a close. Our Nation’s Constitution, its institutions, and our security have survived relatively intact. If Hillary Clinton succeeds Obama, our Nation will not survive. She will dismantle our Bill of Rights. She will destroy our economy. She will endanger our citizenry. Clinton will subordinate our laws and jurisprudence to that of other Nations and international tribunals. She will misuse our military, financing unwinnable wars with our tax dollars, sacrificing the lives of our soldiers on military campaigns and escapades that have nothing to do with defending our freedoms or preserving our National Security. Clinton will engage in Nation building, while dismantling our own Nation. She will distribute hundreds of billions of dollars to other Countries, underwriting their debt and serving their needs, while destroying the credit of our own Country and ignoring our Nation’s needs. Clinton will rewrite our Nation’s history. She will thrust alien ideas of culture, morality, religion, civil governance, philosophy, and jurisprudence into the Nation’s psyche. Clinton will undermine our National Sovereignty, our National pride our uniqueness. She will compel uniformity in thought and deed. Hillary Clinton will become the Imperial Presidency.Hillary Clinton does not have the best interests of our Nation at heart. She never did. She never will. Hillary Clinton and her family prove, through their deeds, that they serve only their own personal, selfish interests and those of their secretive benefactors both in this Country and abroad. Hillary Clinton’s needs are not our Nation’s needs. Clinton’s desires and goals are not our Nation’s desires and goals. She used the Department of State as a vehicle to amass personal wealth. She will use the Office of the U.S. Presidency in the same way, dispensing ever more favors to those willing to fill her personal coffers. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.This Nation has had enough of the Clintons and of all other family dynasties. Hopefully, the American People will see through the mask of this Viper, Hillary Clinton, before it is too late. Americans must refrain from voting for Clinton. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.

TREASON IS A CRIME AGAINST COUNTRY. THE HORROR OF TREASON IS ETCHED IN STONE FOR ALL TO SEE.

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!" ~ISAIAH 5:20—21Has Hillary Rodham Clinton committed treason? To Clinton’s benefactors and supporters, just asking this is heresy. They would like the question to go away. It won’t.The question of treason lies simmering like molten magna just below the Earth’s crust. It lies dormant, but potent. Only a few take notice, but should.Many say Hillary Clinton is a traitor. They hurl the word at her as invective, as an epithet. They are fervent in their denunciation of Clinton. But, truthfully, calling a person a traitor, if mere epithet, as invective, means nothing more than saying, “I hate you; go to Hell!” A mere assertion of indignation of moral outrage toward one—understandable though it be—carries no legal import or significance.A few others provide a rational basis for leveling the charge of treason against Clinton. But, a rational basis isn’t automatically a legal basis. It is the legal ground for charging Hillary Clinton with treason we must ponder. Treason is a most serious charge. For, treason is a crime against our Nation’s sovereignty. Treason is a crime against our Country. Treason is a crime against the founders of our Republic. Treason is a crime against our Constitution; and against our Bill of Rights; and against our institutions; and against our system of laws; and against the Rule of Law. Treason is a crime against our fellow Countrymen. Treason is a crime against those who gave their blood for our Country, that we may live, free—free from the control of those silent, secretive, seditious, and evil, corrupting influences and forces that seek to undermine the inviolability of our Nation’s sacred heritage, and of its precious birthright. Treason mocks the sanctity of our Nation’s past. Treason undercuts faith in the stability and security of our Nation at the present moment. Treason dashes our Nation’s hopes and dreams, leaving us fearful for our Nation’s future. Treason is Treachery incarnate to our Nation.Despicable behavior warrants our condemnation, surely. But, unless our laws forbid hateful behavior, such behavior isn’t subject to prosecution. Treason is forbidden conduct. Treason is prosecutable. The crime of treason is codified in our Constitution and in Statute. The crime of Treason is etched in stone.

DOES THE DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR OF THE ODIOUS HILLARY CLINTON AMOUNT TO TREASON?

Does concrete evidence exist in the public domain that might, legally, support a charge of treason against Hillary Clinton?A few commentators assert that Clinton’s conduct amounts to treason. Do their claims stand up to scrutiny? Do those claims hold up to analysis? Is there merit to charging Hillary Clinton with treason?The mainstream media won’t weigh in. It won’t touch the subject. Those media organizations and commentators not aligned to mainstream media that have broached the subject are few. So, there is little public outcry, only a palpable silence.But treason won’t go away. It is the four hundred pound silverback gorilla in the room. Does the gorilla exist? Or, is it shadow and mist? Let’s see.

CLINTON IS A CRIMINAL: OF THAT, NO REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTS. TREASON OR NOT, CLINTON MUST ACCOUNT FOR A MULTITUDE OF FELONIES. BUT NEITHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOR CONGRESS CARES ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

We know Clinton has committed serious federal crimes. They include mishandling classified government information, lying to federal investigators; public corruption in high Office.These three federal crimes are not misdemeanors, much less mere infractions. They are felonies, the most serious of crimes. The public knows of them. If convicted of any one or more of them, Hillary Clinton would face both large monetary penalties and lengthy imprisonment in federal prison. Rudy Giuliani has pointed to fifteen other federal crimes warranting indictment of Clinton. Giuliani served as an Associate Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, and as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and as a Mayor of New York City. He knows whereof he speaks. The mainstream media should listen to him and roundly condemn Hillary Clinton. The mainstream media chooses not to. Instead, it applauds her; it hails her; it worships her. It defiles the sacred right of the Press, engraved in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, our founders lovingly, lavished upon it.So, here we are. The Justice Department didn’t indict and prosecute Clinton and the mainstream media did not demand it do so. Why not? The F.B.I. Director’s stated reasons for recommending no indictment against Hillary Clinton remain weak and fallible and are clearly implausible. The Attorney General is an abject disgrace to her profession and to her Country. The F.B.I., within the Department of Justice, may yet come to our Nation’s rescue. James Comey, Director of the F.B.I., and the Bureau’s field agents of the F.B.I., may be our Nation’s Horatius at the Bridge.We have learned the Bureau may recommend indictment of the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. See article in RealClear Politics.  Likely, the Bureau would recommend indictment of the Foundation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. Understand, this does not mean indictment of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton in their individual capacity—at least not yet. But the Justice Department’s indictment of and prosecution of the Foundation, as a corporate entity, on federal RICO charges would be a good start!Evidence of Clinton’s criminal conduct is massive; the time frame of the criminal conduct, vast. Why didn’t the Justice Department indict Clinton on federal felony charges? We draw one inference: Political constraints, or threats, hindered the Justice Department’s legal duty to our Country, to our laws, and to our Constitution.Americans who committed any one or more of the crimes Hillary Clinton committed have suffered swift and severe retribution. Yet, Clinton, herself, emerges, and remains, to date, unscathed. That’s deeply perplexing. The scale of Clinton’s crimes dwarfs those of other Americans.Hillary Clinton must answer for her crimes. A double standard jeopardizes the integrity of our Nation, and the sanctity of our Republic. A double standard erodes the rule of law. A double standard mocks our Constitution; it mocks our system of laws; it mocks our jurisprudence; and it mocks the very idea of judicial fairness.The Executive Office of the President is beyond redemption. The Office of the Attorney General may yet redeem itself with an indictment of Hillary and Bill Clinton on federal felony charges. Congress, too, might redeem itself. It can do so with enactment of the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, H.R. 5271. But Congress must debate the Act on the Floor of the House and hold a public vote of its members. At the moment Congress has done nothing. It shows abject weakness in the face of the worst Constitutional crisis to face this Nation in decades.In Part Two we consider, one, the elements of treason, and, two, against whom federal prosecutors can bring a charge of treason.

PART TWO OF FOUR PARTS

THE DYNAMICS OF A TREASON CHARGE

“But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments. For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, ‘None seeth me.’ Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, ‘I am, and none else beside me.’ Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know.” ~ ISAIAH 47:9—11, King James Version

WHOM MAY FEDERAL PROSECUTORS CHARGE WITH TREASON?

Federal prosecutors may charge with treason those American citizens who betray their Country. A citizen owes loyalty to his Country. That is self-evident. Treason is treachery to one’s Country. But, may prosecutors charge non-citizens with treason? Non-citizens don’t owe their loyalty to our Country. They aren’t expected to.Some say Barack Obama isn’t a United States citizen and, so, prosecutors cannot indict him on treason. But is that true? No; it isn’t true. Obama is subject to our Nation’s treason law, citizen or not. A common misconception is that a person must be a citizen of the United States to face a charge of treason. That’s untrue. Non-citizens who reside in the United States must adhere to all laws of the United States while here. Federal prosecutors can charge noncitizens with treason as they may citizens. How do we know that? The U.S. Supreme Court says so.Over a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that aliens, whether here legally or not, aren’t beyond our treason law. The Supreme Court ruling is more than one hundred years old, but it is still good law. The U.S. Supreme Court said, “The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.” Carlisle vs. United States, 83 U.S. 147 (1873). The high Court, in Carlisle, added, “. . . it is well known that, by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.” Id.

TREASON IN U.S. LAW

Treason comprises: levying war against the sovereign United States or adhering to the Nation’s enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Treason is a federal crime; a felony. The crime of treason appears in both our Constitution and federal Statute. We see it in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution. We see it in the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 2381. Treason is treachery to Nation. Treason is the supreme betrayal to Country. Long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made that point poignantly clear.“Treason is the most serious offense that may be committed against the United States.” Stephan vs. United States, 133 F2d 87 (6th Circuit, 1943), certiorari denied, 318 US 781 (1943), citing, Hanauer v. Doane, 79 U.S. 342, 79 U.S. 342, 20 L.Ed. 439, 12 Wall. 342 (1871). “No crime is greater than treason.”

WHAT DOES 'LEVYING WAR' MEAN?

The U.S. Supreme Court explained the meaning of ‘levying war,’ in a two-hundred year old case: Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ex parte Monti, 79 F Supp. 651 (DC NY 1948). The Supreme Court’s comprehensive explanation of ‘levying war’ has stood the test of time. The high Court said, “What is the natural import of the words ‘levying war?’ And who may be said to levy it? . . . Taken most literally, they are perhaps of the same import with the words raising or creating war, but as those who join after the commencement are equally the objects of punishment, there would probably be a general admission, that the term also comprehended making war, or carrying on war. . . . If for example, an army should be actually raised for the avowed purpose of carrying on open war against the United States and subverting their government, the point must be weighed very deliberately, before a judge would venture to decide that an overt act of levying war had not been committed by a commissary of purchases, who never saw the army, but who, knowing its object, and leaguing himself with the rebels, supplied that army with provisions, or by a recruiting officer holding a commission in the rebel service, who though never in camp, executed the particular duty assigned to him.” The Court added: “Taking this view of the subject, it appears to the court, that those who perform a part in the prosecution of the war may correctly be said to levy war and to commit treason under the constitution.” Let’s not obscure the meaning of the words, ‘levying war,’ by drawing a distinction between a formal Declaration of War and use of military force without formal Declaration. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that Congress has sole authority to declare war. Yet, not since World War II did Congress declare war against a foreign actor. Congress agreed to a President’s use of the armed forces since then with no Congressional declaration of war. George W. Bush set up a war on terror to be sure. We are in armed conflict with Islamic extremists.Disagreement among legal experts exists over whether a charge of treason can stick without a formal Congressional declaration of war against a foreign actor. But, “if a congressional authorization to use military force can authorize the President to detain enemy combatants absent a declaration of war, such authorizations surely must also satisfy the enemy requirement of the Treason Clause. In short, if a person can be treated as an enemy combatant without a declaration of war, it would make little sense for that same person not to be considered an enemy for the purposes of the Treason Clause.” Article: Did The Court Kill The Treason Charge?: Reassessing Cramer v. United States And Its Significance, 36 Fla. St. U. L. Rev., Paul T. Crane, Solicitor General of the United States, 2008-2009.American citizens who join forces with radical Islam have levied war against the United States. Federal prosecutors can charge those citizens with treason. Yet, in the last sixty years, federal prosecutors charged and prosecuted only two treason cases: the latest in 2006; the earlier one in 1952. Id.A federal grand jury indicted Azzam al-Amriki Gadahn aka “Azzam the American,” on charges of treason in 2006 for giving aid to al-Qaeda. “The indictment alleged that Gadahn, an American citizen, ‘knowingly adhered to an enemy of the United States, namely, al-Qaeda, and gave al-Qaeda aid and comfort, within the United States and elsewhere, with intent to betray the United States.’ This charge was based on Gadahn’s participation in several videotapes produced by al-Qaeda between October 2004 and September 2006, in which he appeared with al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, espoused his support for the terrorist organization, praised the attacks of September 11th and the bombings in London and Madrid, and threatened future attacks against the United States. Notably, Gadahn was not in United States custody when the indictment was issued and currently remains at large.” Id. Fifty years earlier, federal prosecutors charged an American, Anthony Cramer, with treason. “The treason prosecution of Anthony Cramer has its roots in the infamous Nazi Saboteur Affair. In 1942, seven German soldiers traveled by submarine and secretly landed on the east coast of the United States with plans to destroy American industrial war facilities. The saboteurs were eventually caught, tried by military tribunal, and sentenced to either death or imprisonment. The Supreme Court denied the saboteurs’ habeas corpus petitions in Ex Parte Quirin. Anthony Cramer was not a saboteur but rather a friend of one.” Id. The lower federal Court convicted Cramer of treason. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. Cramer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated the charge of treason.Still, “although the Court vacated Cramer’s conviction, the government did not let him go free. While treason charges could have been brought again, the two sides reached a plea agreement on a different charge. Cramer pled guilty to violating the Trading with the Enemy Act and was sentenced to six years in prison.” Id.Apart from “levying war” against the United States, a person also commits the crime of treason if that person gives aid and comfort to our Nation’s enemies. What does the phrase, ‘giving aid and comfort,’ mean? The U.S. Supreme Court explained what the phrase, ‘giving aid and comfort,’ means in the case, Kawakita vs. United States, 343 US 717 (1952), rehearing denied, 344 US 850 (1952). The phrase, “aid and comfort,” is broad. It refers to any act that strengthens the enemy, and at once weakens the power of the United States to resist or to attack its enemies. But there’s a “kicker.” To satisfy the element of the crime, the act must be overt. “One may think disloyal thoughts and have his heart on the side of the enemy. Yet if he commits no act giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he is not guilty of treason. He may on the other hand commit acts which do give aid and comfort to the enemy and yet not be guilty of treason, as for example where he acts impulsively with no intent to betray.” Kawakita vs. United States, 343 US 717 (1952). “To give aid and comfort to our Nation’s enemies requires an act and an intent to act a desire to betray our Country.” Id. Further, “two witnesses are required, not to the disloyal and treacherous intention, but to the same overt act.” Id.Treason is notoriously difficult to prove in Court even if legitimately prosecuted.This takes us to Part Three: the penultimate, but not ultimate question. Did Hillary Clinton, commit treason?

PART THREE OF FOUR PARTS

THE PENULTIMATE QUESTION

DID HILLARY CLINTON LEVY WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR OTHERWISE GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO OUR NATION’S ENEMIES?

DID HILLARY CLINTON COMMIT TREASON?

“And Joram said, Make ready. And his chariot was made ready. And Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out against Jehu, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite. And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, ‘Is it peace, Jehu?’ And he answered, ‘What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?’ And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, O Ahaziah.’ And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot.” ~2 KINGS, CHAPTER 9:21—24, King James Version

WHEREFORE DOES TREACHERY EXIST? DOES IT EXIST IN THE PEOPLE WHO TOPPLE A TYRANT? OR, DOES IT EXIST IN THE USURPER WHO PROCLAIMS, ‘I AM NOW THE LAW OF THE LAND AND RULE BY DIVINE RIGHT! OBEY ME OR FALL, FOR SUCH TREACHERY THAT EXISTS IN THE LAND IS TREACHERY TO ME, ONLY. NO OTHER TREACHERY CAN THERE BE.’

If Hillary Clinton obtains the mantle of U.S. President, she will proclaim that an attack against her right to reign as U.S. President is an attack against the Nation and, so, constitutes treachery to Nation. She will shred the U.S. Constitution—the Supreme Law of the Land that proclaims rulership in the People, not in those who hold high public Office. For those who hold Office—however lofty that Office may be—are but servants of the People, nothing more. Yet, Hillary Clinton will usurp the power the People rightfully hold. She will proclaim that “She,” not “We, the People,” is the rightful and true Ruler of our Nation.Hillary Clinton will substitute the Constitution for the law “She” makes. Hillary Clinton will say that her law is right, and just, and good, and superior to our old Canons. That may happen. Don’t think it cannot. If so, a Tyrant will rise in our midst. This Tyrant will rise through deception, through deceit, through the connivance of the Press, and through the ignorance of the People.No Greater Horror can beset this Nation than to seat a Deceiver in the Oval Office.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE OF CLINTON’S TREACHERY TO NATION

We look at a few specific assertions, referencing specific events that occurred when Clinton served as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. We analyze these assertions to determine whether they adequately support a charge of treason. The first is this:“While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she supported a covert exchange of weapons to Libyan rebels, some of whom then conducted the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi.” See article in HGN. Under the Supreme Court’s treatment of treason this would not support a successful prosecution for treason because, even if true, the intent to betray the Nation—the guilty state of mind—is missing, or, at least, the state of mind cannot be gleaned from the aforesaid assertion.Nothing in the assertion, if true, suggests Clinton knew the Libyan rebels that she and Obama armed had planned to attack Americans. Even if Clinton suspected these Libyan rebels might turn those weapons on Americans, that presumption still does not support a charge of treason. For, treason, under our Constitution and under federal Statute, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, requires a specific state of mind—a specific intention, a specific guilty mind or mens rea, to harm our Nation—thus, satisfying the “knowingly adhering” to our Nation’s enemies requirement. Negligence, gross negligence, or even reckless disregard for the safety of Americans is, simply, not enough to support a charge of treason, much less sustain a conviction on treason. Did Clinton know or suspect the rebels she had armed posed a potential threat to our Nation and to its citizenry? Perhaps she did. But, that presumption, too, does not support a charge of treason, reprehensible though her actions be if Clinton recognized a potential threat to Americans, posed by the rebels she armed, and decided to arm them anyway. Did Clinton know, in advance, that the Libyan rebels she armed would, in fact, attack Americans at Benghazi, or, at least, did Clinton arm the rebels with the expectation and hope they would attack Americans? Both inferences are a considerable stretch on the basis of the mere assertion that Clinton had armed the rebels who did eventually carry out an attack on Americans. But, if this scenario were true, a charge of treason would stick. A prosecutor could then show intent—that Clinton had adhered to our Nation’s enemies—intent sufficient to support a charge of treason, necessary to secure a conviction. But, a prosecutor cannot legitimately draw either one of the two aforesaid inferences from the evidence given. Those inferences simply don’t follow logically, rationally, from the mere assertion that Clinton had armed Libyan rebels who did eventually carry out an attack on Americans in Benghazi. In point of fact the Obama Administration still provides weapons to so-called “moderate” Islamic rebels who, from one day to the next, may no longer be “moderate,” and who, thereafter may use our own weapons against us. Or, these “moderate” Islamic rebels may sell those weapons to “non-moderate” groups of Islamic rebels, that is to say, extremist Islamic rebel groups who, thereafter, use those weapons—our weapons—against us. Perhaps Clinton believed that the Libyan rebels she had armed were “moderate” Muslims, who posed no probable threat to Americans at the time she armed them, from what she knew about them; and that she could not, at that time, and did not, at that time, reasonably anticipate they would turn violent. She could make that claim and probably would make that claim in her defense were she tried for treason. The claim is plausible and difficult to controvert, if one buys into the notion that the term, 'moderate,' as applied to a Muslim rebel group makes sense.If Clinton did want Americans killed at Benghazi, we can only speculate as to a reason. Perhaps she sought to demoralize Americans—destabilizing our Country, weakening our resolve, making us malleable, so that she, on behalf of her wealthy, powerful, sordid benefactors, might reshape our Nation in a manner they wish--a reconfiguration that requires the destruction of our independence, and of our Constitution, and of our sovereignty—drawing us into the orbit of a one world governing body, a new world order. But these speculations would not support her conviction on treason.Was Clinton negligent in providing arms to these Libyan rebels? Sure. Again, the Obama Administration provides arms to Islamic groups across the Middle East. That's his policy. He does this all the time. Obama tells us his Administration supports arming only “moderate” rebel groups. But, the word, ‘moderate,’ is a dubious and fluid concept. President Obama uses it deviously to suggest such rebel Muslim groups are our friends. They aren’t. They have their own agenda. “Moderate” Muslim rebel groups turn on us regularly, constantly; and, within a Muslim rebel group, one faction may be "moderate" and another faction may be "hostile." Who can really say? These rebel groups, "moderate" or "hostile" do use our weapons against us. The Benghazi tragedy illustrates that point well. If the group Clinton armed were deemed, "moderate," at the time she armed that group, that Muslim rebel group certainly  turned "hostile" once it took up arms--our own weapons--against us!Muslim rebel groups hate us. None, we can trust. That's the only safe bet. The appellation, ‘moderate,’ applied to some groups at any particular point in time is no more than a political nicety. Obama uses it for expediency, for propaganda purposes to deceive the American public. It means nothing. Our Nation should be circumspect in arming any Muslim rebel group. Rebel groups that seem friendly toward us one day or, at least, benign, can turn hostile toward us, the next, and do. We should not supply these groups with weapons they can turn against us, ever. Obama’s entire foreign policy is suspect. The policy is based on ill-formed goals. Military tactics and strategy in the Middle East change daily, even hourly. We, Americans, are caught up in an expensive and unending, seething maelstrom the Bush Administration--that of George W. Bush, not that of his father, George H. W. Bush--created through his ostensibly preemptive--actually, aggressive and premeditated--war in Iraq--a war the Obama Administration worsened through its tentative handling of the conflict.Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have behaved negligently, at the very least, in the conduct of our Nation’s foreign policy. Their actions may support a claim of gross negligence. Their actions may even support both a claim of reckless indifference to the security of our Nation, and reckless indifference to the lives of our citizens. But, their policy formulations, endangering our Nation as they do, do not support a charge of treason, on the basis of negligent conduct, gross negligent conduct, or even reckless disregard for the safety and security of American lives they have a duty to protect. So a charge of treason against Clinton and Obama cannot rest on the specific act of having armed Libyan rebel groups that attacked and killed Americans, in the absence of evidence of specific intent on the part of Obama and Clinton--a deliberate desire to kill Americans through the act of arming Libyan rebel groups.Did Clinton fail to provide adequate military support to State Department personnel in Libya after our Ambassador made several requests for protection? If so, does that support a charge of treason?Some commentators point to Clinton’s failure to provide adequate military support to State Department personnel in Libya after our Ambassador made several requests for protection. See Politifact article.Although reprehensible, that assertion, too, if true, does not support a charge of treason. Once again, on its face that assertion shows negligence, gross negligence, or even reckless disregard for the safety and security of Americans. That assertion doesn’t entail a clear, irrefutable intention, on Clinton’s part, and, by implication, on Obama’s part, to kill Americans. So, that fact does not support a charge of treason. Did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama refuse to send troops to protect our people once the attack against Americans in Benghazi was underway? Does that fact support a charge of treason against Clinton and Obama?The tacit premise here is that Clinton and Obama were aware that an attack against our people was occurring, and they deliberately told our military to “stand down.” If true, would this might support a prima facie case of treason against Hillary Clinton and against the President Obama? One thing is clear. If federal or special prosecutors charge Clinton with treason, they should charge Obama too. For, they operated in concert. So, Obama has a clear vested interest in having Clinton succeed him. He faces more than loss of his legacy—poor as it is—if Clinton is defeated in this Presidential election. For, if prosecutors charge Hillary Clinton with treason, they will charge Barack Obama with treason, too. Their actions in the Middle East are inextricably linked.Let’s suppose that Clinton and Obama had knowledge of the Benghazi attack in real time, while it was unfolding, and that they did nothing to protect Americans. Still, federal prosecutors would have a difficult time prosecuting the case against Clinton and Obama to a successful conclusion. The reason is that the legal issue here is one here of first impression: “Does the omission to act, where a legal duty to act exists, constitute an overt act, sufficient to support a charge of treason?” Remember, treason, according to U.S. Supreme Court decisional law, requires an overt act of betrayal to the Nation.Federal prosecutors must prove that Obama and Clinton knew Americans were under attack and intentionally did not provide military assistance to those Americans. But, even in this scenario, conviction on treason is, at best, uncertain.In their defense, Obama and Clinton would argue they did not know of the attack on Americans at Benghazi as it was unfolding in real time. If true, a treason charge would collapse. If false, then failing to send troops to protect our Ambassador and his staff does amount to an “omission to act” where there is a clear duty to act. There’s no question about it. But, then, the follow-up question is this: does a failure to act amount to an overt act of betrayal to Nation? Are the two equivalents? It may seem so, and but this is not a legal certainty, distasteful though such omission to act is to our conscience. Obama and Clinton would claim that failure to act—even where duty demands they act—does not mean they gave direct aid and comfort to our enemies. Is an act of omission equivalent to an act of commission, under the law of treason? That’s unclear. How would a court of competent jurisdiction decide that question? We don’t know. What we do know is that: “The Constitution has left no room for constructive treason and Congress could not and has no undertaken to restrict or enlarge the constitutional definition.” Stephan v United States, 133 F2d 87 (CA6 Mich 1943), certiorari denied, 318 US 781, 87 L Ed 1148, 63 S Ct 858 (1943), rehearing denied, 319 US 783, 87 L Ed 1727, 63 S Ct 1172 (1943). This raises hairy logical, linguistic, and legal issues concerning the meaning of "constructive knowledge" and "actual knowledge" and "constructive intent to commit a crime" and "actual intent to commit a crime."Evidence exists, according to The Daily Caller, that the Clinton Foundation received money from Arab Countries, namely and specifically, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, that are giving financial and logistical support to extremist Sunni groups, including "Islamic State." If true does that support a treason charge against Clinton? Once again, the critical question goes to whether Hillary Clinton has given aid and comfort to our Nation's enemies. Islamic State and other extremist groups definitely are our Nation's enemies. If Hillary Clinton accepted money from Nations with knowledge that these Countries were supporting the Nation's enemies, like Islamic State, that fact, although, despicable, probably doesn't support a charge of treason, for she is receiving support--money--from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She isn't giving money to those Countries with the intent that such money be used on behalf of Islamic State and other such extremist groups. She is taking money from Countries that are construed as allies or, at least, as benign. That is to say, that, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar may be actively supporting our Nation's enemies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not, they themselves, are not treated as enemies of the United States. But, reasonably, they should be so treated. The fact that Clinton does receive illicit monies from Countries, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, does show that Clinton doesn't give a damn about the welfare of our Country and its citizenry so long as her Foundation is making a profit. That fact, alone, also makes abundantly clear that Hillary Clinton is hardly a person to be entrusted with our Nation's secrets; and she is hardly the person to be entrusted with designing foreign policy for our Nation; and she is hardly the person to be entrusted with protecting the security of our Nation. But, does that fact alone--receiving money from Nations who do assist our enemies--support a charge of treason against Clinton.  Probably not. But, give Hillary Clinton time and rest assured she will weaken this Country's defenses as she cares not for the well-being of our Nation. She cares not for the preservation of our Bill of Rights. She cares not for the safety and security of our Nation's citizenry.So, where does all this leave us? If solid evidence to support Clinton’s indictment on treason exists—and, hence, evidence, by logical extension, to support Obama’s indictment of treason, too—that evidence lies buried in the bowels of Government. The Justice Department may in fact have that evidence. The American public, unfortunately, does not. But, if a charge of treason can’t feasibly stick against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, that doesn’t end the matter. We have terrorism Statutes. We ask: Can a charge of terrorism be brought against them? To our knowledge, no one has considered this. We do. The question is not beyond the pale. We take it up in Part Four.

PART FOUR OF FOUR PARTS

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION

IS HILLARY CLINTON A TERRORIST?

WHAT MONSTERS HAVE WE AWAKENED THAT DARE THREATEN THE EQUANIMITY OF OUR PEOPLE AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR NATION?

“It is absolutely necessary, for the peace and safety of mankind, that some of earth’s dark, dead corners and unplumbed depths be let alone; lest sleeping abnormalities wake to resurgent life, and blasphemously surviving nightmares squirm and splash out of their black lairs to newer and wider conquests.” ~H. P. Lovecraft (At the Mountains of Madness, 24 February to 22 March 1931)

CAN WE NOT CHARGE HIGH PUBLIC OFFICIALS WITH TERRORISM WHEN THEIR POLICIES ENDANGER: THE SECURITY OF THE NATION; THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THE CITIZENRY; THE STABILITY OF THE SOCIAL ORDER; AND THE PRESERVATION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE?

A plethora of federal terrorism statutes exist today. Prosecutors could charge Muslim Extremists who commit acts of terrorism here with treason. We have seen many Islamic extremist attacks against Americans, stretching back to the 1970s.Many of these criminal acts fall under the category of treason. But the perpetrators are charged under other criminal statutes. These include the crime of Terrorism, codified in law in 2001, with passage of the Patriot Act. The Nation’s “Terrorism” statutes fall under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331 et. seq.Might not prosecutors bring a charge of terrorism against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Neither President George W. Bush nor Congress intended these Statutes to apply to high Government Officials. The idea of applying our terrorism laws against the U.S. President or Cabinet level officials under one or more terrorism charges is, admittedly, singularly odd, incongruous, and bizarre. After all, we expect the U.S. President and his Cabinet to protect the Nation and its citizenry from terrorism, not to lend their power and authority to terrorism’s promotion. How might federal prosecutors apply terrorism statutes to our own Government officials? Under what set of facts or under what circumstances might federal prosecutors indict high Government officials on a charge of terrorism? Let’s take a look at one of the Terrorism Statutes. 18 U.S.C. § 2331 says in part, “The term ‘international terrorism’ means activities that—(A)  involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;(B)  appear to be intended—(i)  to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(ii)  to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or(iii)  to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and(C)  occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;(2)  the term ‘national of the United States’ has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;(3)  the term ‘person’ means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;(4)  the term ‘act of war’ means any act occurring in the course of—(A)  declared war;(B)  armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or(C)  armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and(5)  the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that—(A)  involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(B)  appear to be intended—(i)  to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(ii)  to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”This Nation is fully capable of containing the criminal actions of individual Islamic extremists who seek to disrupt the lives of our citizenry and the tranquility of our Nation. Horrible as such criminal conduct is, its impact on the foundation of our Country’s laws, our Country’s Constitution, and our Country’s institutions is nonetheless, narrow.A U.S. Government Official’s terrorist acts, though, disrupt the foundation of our Republic. We see a paradox in this. The public presumes that domestic and foreign policy objectives mandate, inter alia, combating Islamic terrorism. But, suppose policy objectives promote the converse? Suppose the U.S. President and his Cabinet design and implement policies destructive to the Nation’s survival? If the policy threatens or intimidates the citizenry, then the President and his Cabinet are the terrorists. This may seem incongruous, but the possibility exists.18 U.S.C. § 2331 discusses terrorism apropos of actions of those on Government, of those affecting the conduct of Government. But, officials of Government, from the highest to the lowest, are servants of the People. True power and authority rests in the American people not in Government. So, if Government officials design and implement policies deliberately causing harm to or provoking harm in the citizenry, those officials are terrorists and they do fall under the purview of the terrorism laws. Through sanctimonious words and pseudo moral imperatives the President, Barack Obama, and his hopeful replacement, Hillary Clinton, implement policies detrimental to, anathema to the well-being of the Nation. They conduct their treacherous acts through the sanctity of the Office of the Chief Executive. That makes their treachery easier to hide. But the horror these reprehensible creatures unleash on our Country is far greater than any horror one or more loathsome Islamic terrorists desire to unleash upon us, and more insidious, too, since public officials can hide their evil deeds in the cloak of their Office. Radical Islamic terrorists cannot. Obama and Clinton turn the inviolability of high public office into a travesty, into an abomination.Consider: by implementing policy bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into this Country whom the F.B.I. and other counterintelligence officials cannot reasonably examine for potential threat to our Nation and to our citizenry, the U.S. President, Barack Obama, has endangered the American citizenry. Once here, they spread like locust over the landscape of our Country. They are difficult to locate; difficult to keep track of. Far better it would be to keep them from crossing our borders. Problematic enough it is to have to deal with illegal infiltration by Islamic extremists into our Country were our borders closed to Muslims. It is quite another matter where Presidential edict allows infiltration easily through lax immigration policies or policies specifically designed to contravene immigration laws enacted by Congress. Obama has permitted tens of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East to enter our Country—notwithstanding the problems Muslim refugees have caused for Europe. Clinton intends to allow hundreds of thousands more Muslims to enter our Country. That is insane.Hillary Clinton intends to continue Obama’s policy if she becomes President. She has admitted as much. Indeed, she revels in it. Both Clinton and Obama hide their goal—undermining the stability of our institutions and threatening the social order.Their policy doesn’t stand rational scrutiny, even as it is cloaked in high-sounding moral rhetoric. For, their domestic policy threatens the safety and well-being of the American citizenry. Such policy is, arguably, an act of terrorism perpetrated against the American citizenry. They mask their treacherous aims under the color of high Office, under the cloak of moral necessity, and under the guise of bald exigency. They are safe from potential harm their seemingly high-minded policies cause. The average American is not. Europeans have learned well the dangers posed by Muslims. What is the response of Obama and Clinton? Americans are expected to take upon themselves the same dangers that Europeans face. It is the right thing to do, so Obama and Clinton say. Application of the dubious ethical scheme of Consequential utilitarianism supersedes the duty owed to our Nation under our Constitution. Terrorism indeed, swathed in an infant’s soft blanket.

CONCLUSION; IMPORTANT REITERATION

Barack Obama’s destructive Administration is rapidly drawing to a close. Our Nation’s Constitution, its institutions, and our security have survived relatively intact. If Hillary Clinton succeeds Obama, our Nation will not survive. She will dismantle our Bill of Rights. She will destroy our economy. She will endanger our citizenry. Clinton will subordinate our laws and jurisprudence to that of other Nations and international tribunals. She will misuse our military, financing unwinnable wars with our tax dollars, sacrificing the lives of our soldiers on military campaigns and escapades that have nothing to do with defending our freedoms or preserving our National Security. Clinton will engage in Nation building, while dismantling our own Nation. She will distribute hundreds of billions of dollars to other Countries, underwriting their debt and serving their needs, while destroying the credit of our own Country and ignoring our Nation’s needs. Clinton will rewrite our Nation’s history. She will thrust alien ideas of culture, morality, religion, and into the Nation’s psyche. Clinton will undermine our National Sovereignty, our National pride our uniqueness. She will compel uniformity in thought and deed. Hillary Clinton will become the Imperial Presidency.Hillary Clinton does not have the best interests of our Nation at heart. She never did. She never will. Hillary Clinton and her family prove, through their deeds, that they serve only their own personal, selfish interests and those of their secretive benefactors both in this Country and abroad. Hillary Clinton’s needs are not our Nation’s needs. Clinton’s desires and goals are not our Nation’s desires and goals. She used the Department of State as a vehicle to amass personal wealth. She will use the Office of the U.S. Presidency in the same way, dispensing ever more favors to those willing to fill her personal coffers. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.This Nation has had enough of the Clintons and of all other family dynasties. Hopefully, the American People will see through the mask of this Viper, Hillary Clinton, before it is too late. Americans must refrain from voting for Clinton. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.

[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SHOULD SCHOOL TEACHERS BE ARMED? THE UFT DOESN’T THINK SO, BUT...

UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS TELLS MEMBERS TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON, BUT ARBALEST QUARREL’S STEPHEN L. D’ANDRILLI RESPONDS, SAYING: “NOT SO FAST!”

In the November 3, 2016 issue of United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”), a New York City affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers ("AFT") the editorial board of the publication posted comments to an article that appeared in the September 8, 2016 edition of its publication, “Teacher.” The title of the article is: “Hillary an ally worthy of your vote.”The author of the article, RTC Chapter leader, Tom Murphy, urges UFT members, as the title of the article makes plain, to vote for Hillary Clinton.Tom Murphy says Clinton, the Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, supports American labor, suggesting that Donald Trump, as a Republican, and as the Republican Party nominee for U.S. President, does not. Tom Murphy is dead wrong in his observation.Stephen L. D’Andrilli called Tom Murphy out.Stephen is one of three founders of the weblog, the Arbalest Quarrel. Stephen was a licensed New York teacher and receives the UFT publication, “Teacher.”Stephen has previously commented on other articles posted in “Teacher.” He does so whenever necessary to set the record straight.Stephen does not sit idly by as our Country falls prey to powerful, secretive, corrupting interests, bent on destroying our Nation and our Nation’s Constitution, especially when those destructive interests create, through the media, a false aura of protecting the Nation and the Nation’s Constitution.The UFT editorial board published Stephen’s reply to Tom Murphy’s September 8, 2016 article, but did so changing the comment. Stephen wasn’t aware of this and never authorized the changes.The last two paragraphs of Stephen’s comment, as published in, “Teacher,” were heavily edited, and the last paragraph of the comment was deleted, altogether. The unauthorized editing by the editorial board dilutes the strength of Stephen’s message, warning UFT members of the danger posed by a Clinton Presidency. The unauthorized editing also explains why Stephen’s comment appears oddly truncated at the end, as published in “Teacher.”Clearly, the UFT editorial board intended to dilute Stephen’s message before allowing it to be sent to UFT members, who number in the tens of thousands.This should not surprise anyone. For, the leadership of the American Federation of Teachers (“AFT”) of which the “UFT” is an affiliate, endorses Hillary Clinton for U.S. President.Stephen’s unedited, unabridged comment as sent to the UFT publication, is set forth below.

_____________________________

“This responds to Tom Murphy’s article, titled, “Hillary an ally worthy of your vote.” But, is she?Mr. Murphy assumes Clinton supports Labor, suggesting Trump does not. Yet, big money supports Clinton, not Trump. Sanders pointed to the obvious incongruity of Clinton’s relationship with Billionaires.Clinton says she doesn’t support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact but previously said she did. She referred to it as the “gold standard” of trade deals. She helped draft it. Free trade deals benefit International Capital, not American Labor. President Obama and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support them. American unions do not. They’ve devastated American labor. Trump never supported them and won’t sign them into law. Clinton will. No political analyst doubts that.Hillary Clinton’s inconsistent messaging isn’t the only reason she isn’t worthy of your vote. A more insistent reason exists. Evidence supports a finding that Hillary Clinton is a criminal. She mishandled classified defense information. That violates 18 U.S.C. § 793. She lied to the F.B.I. That violates 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The Clinton Foundation accepted bribes in return for State Department favors. That violates 18 U.S.C. § 201. They’re all felonies.Although the F.B.I. didn’t recommend indictment that doesn’t mean Hillary didn’t break federal law. She did. Yet, mainstream media endlessly, mercilessly attacks Trump, not Clinton. The F.B.I., though, never had cause to investigate Trump for criminal wrongdoing, only Clinton.A person under a cloud of committing felonies isn’t worthy of any American’s vote for U.S. President. That’s unseemly, even grotesque!”

__________________________________

[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL IS NOW A SPONSOR OF “LOCK N LOAD” RADIO

The Arbalest Quarrel wishes to inform its readers of a website they should take a look at if readers are not already aware of it. The website is “lock N load” with Bill Frady.All American citizens interested in firearms and concerned about preserving their sacred Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms will find this show an excellent source of information not available anywhere else.The site includes a daily podcast. The creator of the website and radio show is Bill Frady. The website sets forth, in part:“Lock N Load with Bill Frady is presented by Genesis Communications Network. With 126 million gun owners in the US today, Lock N Load has something for everyone. From reports about the politics of gun ownership, and those who would take the right away, to trends within the gun industry, self-defense, gun gear, tactical training and all of the colorful personalities within the gun community. Starting out as a podcast/webcast Lock N Load has burst into the syndicated radio offerings as the only daily terrestrial radio show available covering the topic. This daily show keeps the listeners of Lock N Load current on the breaking news and trends within the 2nd Amendment advocacy and tactical training arena as it happens.”We have found Bill Frady’s podcasts to be an invaluable source of information on both firearms and gun rights. We are sure you will find Bill’s podcasts a valuable source of information as well.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATS AND CENTRIST REPUBLICANS ARE THE PROBLEM. THERE IS A SOLUTION: IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT OF H.R. 5271

THE TIME TO DEAL WITH HILLARY CLINTON IS BEFORE SHE ENTERS THE OVAL OFFICE; NOT AFTER, FOR, BY THEN, IT WILL BE TOO LATE, BOTH FOR CONGRESS AND FOR US, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. INDICTING AND PROSECUTING HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON NOW FOR HER SERIOUS CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT WILL MAKE IT LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBILE FOR CLINTON TO SECURE THE U.S. PRESIDENCY BECAUSE SHE WILL HAVE TO FORFEIT THE NOMINATION EVEN AS SHE INSISTS THAT HER NAME REMAIN ON THE BALLOT. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY COULD NOT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, ALLOW HILLARY CLINTON TO REMAIN AS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE FOR THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IF SHE WERE INDICTED AND PROSECUTED ON FELONY CHARGES--CHARGES THAT WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY RESULT IN CONVICTION AND THEREAFTER INCARCERATION IN FEDERAL PRISON TO SERVE TIME--MANY YEARS TIME--FOR HER CRIMES AGAINST THE NATION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

PART ONE

 “Et tu, Brute? Then, fall Caesar!” ~William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” Act III, Scene I (Assassins in the Roman Senate conspire to murder Caesar and they carry out their murder of Caesar).

HAS THE U.S. CONGRESS JOINED THE ASSASSINS WHO DARE DESTROY OUR COUNTRY, OUR COUNTRY’S CONSTITUTION, AND OUR COUNTRY'S INSTITUTIONS? IF SO, WHAT MOTIVATES CONGRESS? WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF OR FOR ITS INACTION? IS IT SIMPLY TIMIDITY—IS CONGRESS AFRAID TO TAKE ACTION? OR, IS IT TEMERITY—IS CONGRESS RECKLESSLY INDIFFERENT TO THE DANGER POSED BY HILLARY CLINTON? OR, WORST OF ALL, IS IT CONSANGUINITY--IS CONGRESS, IN FACT, OF THE "SAME BLOOD" AS CLINTON--NEITHER TIMOROUS, NOR TEMERITOUS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BUT CONSANGUINEOUS--SHARING AN INCESTUOUS POLITICAL KINSHIP WITH CLINTON, WORKING QUIETLY, SURREPTICIOUSLY, IN THE BACKGROUND, IN THE SHADOWS, TO ASSIST THE ASCENT OF A MONSTER TO THE WHITE HOUSE? WHETHER IT IS THIS, THAT, OR THE OTHER, WE, AMERICANS, LOSE OUR COUNTRY, OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR INSTITUTIONS, OUR HERITAGE, OUR VERY IDENTITY AS A UNIQUE PEOPLE. FOR CONGRESS WILL HAVE SHOWN IT HAS CONDONED AND PARDONED CLINTON'S CRIMES AND WILL HAVE, AS WELL, LAID THE FOUNDATION FOR A MONSTER TO COMMIT YET FURTHER CRIMES AGAINST THIS NATION, AGAINST ITS PEOPLE, AGAINST THE NATION'S CONSTITUTION AND SYSTEM OF LAWS, AND AGAINST ITS INSTITUTIONS. OUR NATION'S FIRST BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, WILL HAVE, THROUGH ITS ACTION OR INACTION, ABETTED THOSE WHO HAVE MURDERED OUR NATION, MURDERED ITS PEOPLE, MURDERED ITS CONSTITUTION AND LEGAL SYSTEM, MURDERED ITS INSTITUTIONS--ALL THE HORRORS IMAGINABLE AND MANY HORRORS UNIMAGINABLE, HAVING PLACED A MONSTER IN A POSITION WHERE ITS BOUNDLESS BLOOD LUST--UNCHECKED--WILL BE UNLEASHED TO FULL EFFECT.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a criminal--a criminal of the worst sort--less so a person, she has become a creature--one that has betrayed its Nation. This creature has betrayed its Nation many times over--would do so many more times in the future, if given the chance. Of that, no doubt exists. But few in Congress care to prevent this creature's rise, its ascendancy to the U.S. Presidency--the ultimate horror, the ultimate travesty ever to face the American people, as a Nation.Clinton has committed serious federal crimes, felonies. Three we know of: mishandling classified government information, lying to federal investigators; public corruption in high Office. If convicted of any one or all of them, Hillary Clinton would face both large monetary penalties and lengthy imprisonment in federal prison. The Justice Department has come down quickly on offenders who have committed the same crimes. And, the Justice Department has come down hard on offenders who have committed the same acts. But, the Justice Department takes no action against Hillary Clinton. It takes no action against the one person who, as U.S. President, can and would harm this Nation, horribly, irreparably. Why?The enormity of Clinton’s misconduct dwarfs those of others whom the Justice Department indicted and prosecuted. Yet the Justice Department gives Clinton a pass. It does so despite the clarity, the cogency, and completeness of evidence of Clinton’s criminal misconduct. It does so despite the sheer volume of evidence pointing to Clinton’s criminal misconduct. It does so despite the eagerness of Clinton to commit criminal misconduct. It does so despite the multivarious nature of Clinton’s commission of crimes. It does so despite the profuseness of her crimes over extended period of time. It does so despite the repetitiveness of specific criminal acts over an extended period of time. And, it does so despite the vast time scale in which Clinton’s criminal misconduct took place. What is Clinton’s response? Just this: she covers up her misconduct by destroying evidence and lying to the F.B.I. investigators. She also urged her underlings to do the same, and they complied. Under 18 U.S.C. Appendix § 3 C1.1, titled, “Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice,” a trial court could extend Hillary Clinton’s prison sentence for covering up her crimes. But, Clinton walks away free as the wind. She is contemptuous of our Nation’s laws. Why shouldn’t she be? The Justice Department shows the Nation that Hillary Clinton is Above the Law, that she is Too Big to Prosecute.The Justice Department has failed to mete out justice. It has failed to mete out justice despite clear evidence of crime. It has failed to mete out justice despite clear evidence of multiple instances of crime. It has failed to mete out justice despite clear evidence of extraordinarily serious crimes.

THE PRESIDENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE F.B.I. DIRECTOR ARE CLEARLY CULPABLE OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT IN FAILING TO BRING HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON TO JUSTICE.

An interesting editorial appeared in The Wall Street Journal, on October 24, 2016, titled, “‘Rigged’ Was Hillary’s FBI Case.”  The author, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, said “that Hillary Clinton is her party’s nominee and her way to the White House only because the Obama Administration decided to waive the law on handling classified material—and the FBI went along in order to assure that its designated heiress would succeed to the presidency.” Jenkins added, “Mrs. Clinton was verbally convicted by the FBI chief for mishandling classified information yet somehow not formally charged.”On one point Jenkins is dead wrong. The Obama Administration cannot “waive” application of federal criminal statute. If Obama did so, he violated his oath of Office, set forth in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution.“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”If Obama waived application of federal criminal statute, he also violated Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. That Section says the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Were Obama to “waive” a Congressional Statute means he places himself above the law—that he is a law unto himself. To waive any portion of the federal criminal code is an impeachable offense. Article II, Section 4, says, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”Jenkins also says that “somehow” the Justice Department didn’t charge Clinton with a crime. We know how and why Justice Department Officials didn’t charge Hillary Clinton for violations of federal law. Political constraints—possibly threats—hindered the Justice Department’s legal obligations to this Country; to its system of laws; to the Constitution, and to the citizenry.Hillary Clinton emerged unscathed because the Executive Branch of Government would not indict and prosecute her for her felonious conduct. Events suggest the U.S. President Barack Obama, and the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and the F.B.I. Director, James Comey acted, in concert, to preclude indictment and prosecution of Clinton. They did so knowing Clinton should face indictment and prosecution.If the Attorney General indicted and prosecuted Clinton for her crimes, Clinton would have to step down. She could not remain the Democratic Party’s nominee for U.S. President. Obama and Lynch intend for Clinton to remain in the race. Those two must have compelled Comey to go along. He did. Perhaps he did so reluctantly. But Comey did go along. He therefore bears responsibility for his actions, no less so than Obama and Lynch.These three individuals, Obama, Lynch, and Comey, have undermined our Free Republic, one ruled by law, not by men. These three individuals have undermined our Constitution and our system of laws. These three individuals risk the lives of 324 million plus American citizens; for, Clinton’s domestic and foreign policies will undercut the security of this Nation.These three individuals, Obama, Lynch, and Comey have, through their actions, enabled a criminal to hold the highest Office in the Land. How outrageous is that?Obviously, Obama, Lynch, and Comey worked in concert, making certain Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the White House wouldn’t be foreclosed. These three individuals, all trained and well-versed in the law and in our jurisprudence, knew that Clinton should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of federal law. But they didn’t act properly and reasonably, as our system of laws demand. The conclusion to draw: Obama, Lynch, and Comey conspired to foreclose prosecution of Clinton. Are other powerful, secretive, corrupt people or groups involved in this conspiracy? To place a criminal in the White House requires the effort of many.But, this much we know: Obama, Lynch, and Comey are high Government Officials. They are the faces we see, regardless of those directing them, behind the scenes. These three owe a duty to faithfully execute the laws of our Nation. They have, instead, trampled on our Constitution, on our laws, on our jurisprudence. They have disgraced themselves in the eyes of our Nation and we call them out for it.

EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT OBAMA, LYNCH, AND COMEY HAVE CRIMINALLY CONSPIRED NOT TO INDICT OR PROSECUTE HILLARY CLINTON, DESPITE CLEAR AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF CLINTON’S SERIOUS CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT. OBAMA, LYNCH, AND COMEY HAVE, THROUGH THEIR CONSPIRACY TO REFRAIN FROM METING OUT JUSTICE WHERE JUSTICE IS DEMANDED, HAVE KNOWINGLY MADE IT FEASIBLE FOR A CRIMINAL TO GAIN HIGH PUBLIC OFFICE—THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND. THUS, THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS, OBAMA, LYNCH, AND COMEY, HAVE CONSPIRED TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THIS COUNTRY AND AGAINST ITS PEOPLE. CONSPIRACY IS A FEDERAL CRIME.

Conspiracy, itself, is a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 371 says, “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”Evidence supports a charge of criminal conspiracy against the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and against the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and against the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey.So, Clinton isn’t the only criminal here. To seat a criminal in the Office of the Chief Executive of the United States requires criminal machinations by many, many people and organizations.The Obama Administration is itself a criminal enterprise. Therefore, it cannot police itself. This Country requires independent counsel, appointed by the Judiciary and answerable to Congress, not to the Chief Executive. Independent counsel would indict and prosecute Hillary Clinton for her crimes. Independent counsel wouldn’t stop there. Counsel would investigate Obama, Lynch, and Comey. Independent counsel would investigate how far this criminal conspiracy to seat a criminal in the Oval Office goes. Independent counsel would indict and prosecute all such persons for criminal conspiracy.But, no mechanism for appointing independent counsel now exists. We must correct this. We must do so at once._______________________________________

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? DEMOCRATS AND CENTRIST REPUBLICANS REFUSE TO ENACT H.R. 5271! THEY ALL NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE UNDER OUR LAWS.

PART TWO

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created the independent counsel position. The Act ensured ethics and integrity in Government when the U.S. Department of Justice failed us.The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 had a built-in sunset provision. It would lapse at the end of five years unless reauthorized by Congress.Congress reauthorized the Act in 1982, 1987, and 1994. But the law lapsed in 1999 after Congress, under pressure from both Bill Clinton’s Administration and the Democratic Party, allowed it to lapse. Fifteen plus years passed, and then two Congressmen, Republicans, Michael Turner and Rick Allen, sought to revitalize ethics and integrity in Government. They introduced the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, H.R. 5271, on May 20, 2016. What happened to the Act? The Arbalest Quarrel tried to find out. See our article of August 27, 2016, titled, “The Foundation of Justice Undone By The Foundation, Clinton.”  We haven’t heard a word. Apparently, the Act languishes in Committee. Republicans, no less so than Democrats, have no interest in mandating integrity in Government. The result: Hillary Clinton, a person who shouldn’t run for any elected Office may become the 45^th President of the United States.It defies belief that any rational human being would support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for U.S. President. It is absurd she could be the next U.S. President. Clinton’s ascent to the Presidency makes a mockery of that Office, and of our Country; and of our Constitution, and of our system of laws. Clinton will shred the Constitution. The shredding of our Constitution will begin with loss of our sacred Second Amendment.Gangsters preside over our Executive Branch. Congress must act against the treachery that seeks to destroy our Country from within. Congress must enact the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016. They must do so immediately. Understand: We are witnessing a coup d'état of our Government. It’s not occurring noisily, through a military seizure of Government, but quietly, insidiously, by elements that lurk in the shadows. We must fight this despicable effort to wrest control of Government from the People.You must help us. You must do so for the good of our Country, its Constitution, and its People. And, you can help. Please read, the “Take Action Notice,” below._________________________________

IMPORTANT TAKE ACTION NOTICE

You can make a real difference for Donald Trump and deliver a knock-out blow to Hillary Clinton’s bid for the U.S. Presidency.Hillary Clinton has committed many serious crimes against the U.S. and has avoided justice due to widespread corruption in the Obama Administration. Too little has been said about this by the mainstream media and nothing has been done by Republican Centrists and Democrats in Congress to bring her to justice.  But it’s not too late if we act now!We must prevent a travesty of justice. An independent special prosecutor to properly investigate Clinton’s crimes would have an immediate impact on her election campaign. It would literally stop her in her tracks and plug-the-hole on her campaign. Thereafter, a special prosecutor could investigate others who have conspired to wrest control of the United States Government from the People of the United States, by placing a criminal in the Office of the U.S. Presidency.But, Congress must enact a law enabling appointment of independent counsel.Draft legislation exists. It is H.R. 5271: the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016. Congressmen Rick Allen and Michael Turner sponsored H.R. 5271. But it apparently rests dormant in Committee. This draft legislation must be debated and voted on by the full House, in full view of the American Public, and this must take place without further delay.The American People must know whether Government still reflects the will of the People. Congress cannot sit idly by. But, at the moment, it looks like Congress is doing just that. Congress is sheepishly allowing the Government to be wrested from control of the People.Don’t let Congress off the hook! Each member of Congress must take a stand.If you sincerely care about the direction our Nation is seek to hold onto your rights and liberties, you must act to compel Congress to act.What is required is easy and won’t take more than a minute of your time.Here’s what you need to do:Call and/or email your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative. Tell them to call for an emergency session to enact H.R. 5271 and bring back ethics in government. Let them know you will not vote for them if they do not support this bill.The number to call is: (202) 224-3121. A recording at the U.S. Capitol Office will ask you for your State and zip code. It will then ask you to press #1 for your U.S. Senator and/or #2 for your U.S. Representative. Within seconds you will be connected to a staff assistant.To email go to: www.house.gov and follow the instructions.You can also follow-up by contacting Ammoland Shooting Sport News at www.ammoland.com and leave a comment.Remember, the choice is yours. You can do nothing and pay the consequences of your inaction or you can do your part and make a difference; a big difference!  We, at the Arbalest Quarrel, are doing our part to ensure a “Trump” victory and are counting on you to do the same![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

PART ONE

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

PART THREE

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

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

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

PART SIX

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

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

PART SEVEN

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

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

PART EIGHT

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

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

PART NINE

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

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

PART TEN

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

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

PART ELEVEN

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

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

PART TWELVE

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

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

PART THIRTEEN

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

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

PART FOURTEEN

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

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

PART FIFTEEN

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

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

PART SIXTEEN

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

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

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

PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

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

THE FOUNDATION OF JUSTICE UNDONE BY THE FOUNDATION, CLINTON

The American People Must Demand Integrity In Government

“The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in office.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, Five Star General, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces during World War II, and 34th President of the United StatesBy failing to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton to justice, the U.S. Department of Justice has failed the American People. Only God and Congress can now right a most serious wrong. Corruption has become endemic in our Federal Government. It has become practice. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her husband, Bill, embody corruption. They have twisted a vice into a virtue. The two of them have, in fact, raised corruption to an art form, and their supporters ignore this or are otherwise simply blind or inured to it. But, if allowed to fester, corruption, as a common Governmental practice, can and will bring the Republic. Corruption, if allowed to continue unchallenged, will inevitably destroy the U.S. Constitution, reducing our precious Constitution to empty words on a page, a document with no import, no application--a document reduced to, at best, an historical curiosity, nothing more.The Republican nominee for U.S. President, Donald Trump, understands this. He sees that those who commit crimes—especially serious crimes against our Nation and its People—must be brought to trial and, if convicted, they must be punished. Our system of laws demands this. The condoning of crime by our institutions of Government—especially by those agencies of Government our Nation relies on to root out crime and mete out justice—serves only to make a mockery of the entirety of our criminal justice system. The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, makes use of our tax dollars, of late, pursuing false claims of civil rights violations by State police agencies, yet sees no need to bring to justice one of the worst transgressors of federal law this Nation has seen—Hillary Rodham Clinton—the creature who would be Queen, clamping down on the sacred rights and liberties of all Americans as she illicitly gathers power unto herself, unto her husband, unto her Foundation and, eventually, unto the fruit of her loom. Trump realizes that, since the Justice Department has refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton, even though substantial evidence exists of serious wrongdoing on her part—evidence to support charges of violation of several federal laws—multiple counts of serious misconduct—outside counsel must be brought in to investigate and prosecute Clinton. Indictment of Clinton on felony charges will stop her bid for the U.S. Presidency at once. She will have no choice in the matter. She must forfeit her bid for the White House and shut her campaign down immediately.But insidious, powerful influences both inside our Government and outside it, and inside our Country and outside it, intend to seat their puppet, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the White House—someone they have paid the Clintons handsomely for—that continue to pay the Clintons handsomely for—to do their bidding. Those powerful interests have made certain that the Department of Justice would handcuff itself and, in fact, the Department of Justice has handcuffed itself.Donald Trump knows this. He knows this has happened. That is why he has called for—and rightly so—outside counsel—someone completely outside Government—to step in and handle, anew, the investigation of and prosecution of Hillary Clinton and investigation of and prosecution of the Clinton Foundation on charges of having violated federal Statutes—crimes amounting to felonies.Trump’s heart is definitely in the right place. He knows that failure to bring a high Government Official to justice weakens our Constitution, defeats our system of law and order, and endangers our citizenry; for the condoning of crimes by those in high Government Office will inevitably destroy our Nation as a free Republic—a Republic rooted in rule by law, not by men. But, there is a slight problem with what he asks.

DONALD TRUMP CALLS FOR A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE THE CLINTONS AND THE BILL, HILLARY AND CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION

On August 22, 2016, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for U.S. President called for the U.S. Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s multiple instances of misconduct.  See, for example, the article published by Reuters, titled, "Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate Clinton Foundation."That’s good news to be sure, but it comes a little late—hopefully, not too late. Congress should have seen to the appointment of a special prosecutor long ago. In fact, the Arbalest Quarrel has called for the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel to reopen the investigation into serious misconduct on the part of Hillary Clinton all along, well over a month before Trump mentioned the need to do so. We talked about this in our article titled, "Hillary Clinton Must Be Indicted and Here's the Reason for it."We have insisted on the appointment of outside counsel to renew the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s serious misconduct, consistently, since publication of our article. Major news organizations jumped on the appointment of a special prosecutor issue only after Trump had called for such appointment.For example, Time magazine, on August 22, 2016, reporting on Trump’s call for a special prosecutor, said, that,“Under current U.S. law, independent counsel can be appointed when the Attorney General determines that an investigation by the Department of Justice ‘would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances’ and ‘that under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel.’”That is absolutely false. The Time reporter, Tessa Berenson who wrote the Time piece, titled, “Donald Trump calls for Special Prosecutor to Investigate Hillary Clinton,” evidently has no knowledge of the current and true state of the law involving the appointment of special prosecutors or independent counsel to investigate serious misconduct of high level Officials in the Executive Branch of the federal Government. In her article Berensen says, “Under current U.S. law, independent counsel can be appointed when the Attorney General determines that an investigation by the Department of Justice ‘would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances’ and ‘that under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint and outside Special Counsel.’”Berensen is, apparently, citing to “Ethics in Government Act of 1978.” But, the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978,”--an Act that compels integrity in public officials who work for the Executive Branch of the Federal Government--lapsed in 1999, in accordance with the sunset provision embodied in the Act, since Congress failed to extend its operation for another five years, commencing from the date of its expiration in 1999. So, Contrary to Tessa Berenson’s remarks, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot, at the present time, turn over federal investigations and prosecution of serious violations of federal law to special prosecutors or independent counsel even if the DOJ had wanted to; and, as we know, it doesn’t. And, Congress, for its part, cannot compel the Justice Department to turn over, to special prosecutors or independent counsel, federal investigations and prosecution of serious violations of federal law by high level Officials of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government even if it seeks to do so; and, at least two U.S. Congressmen wish to do just that.Once again, and we emphasize: The authorization for the appointment of special prosecutors or independent counsel to take over investigations of serious violations of federal law committed by high level Officials of the Executive Branch of Government, along with the power to prosecute those charged with commission of felonies under federal law, died in 1999, when Congress allowed the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” to expire, in accordance with the sunset provision originally written into the law--hence the need for the Act's reauthorization. The Arbalest Quarrel wrote a comprehensive article on this, titled, “The Un-Justice Department Gives Hillary a Free Pass.” We posted the article, on August 4, 2016, on our site, well before Trump, or anyone else, for that matter, discussed, in a cogent, serious and comprehensive matter, the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate, inter alia, the serious misconduct of Hillary Clinton, relating to her use of private email servers to conduct official Government businessAfter the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” lapsed, U.S. Representative, Mike Quigley, attempted to resurrect the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” and similar bills, by sponsoring, on March 25, 2010, the “Transparency in Government Act of 2010,” 111 H.R. 4983. The bill went nowhere, apparently dying in Committee.On June 23, 2011, Mike Quigley tried again. He, along, with another Democrat, Jackie Speier, sponsored, on June 23, 2011, the “Transparency in Government Act of 2011,” 112 H.R. 2340. That effort, too, went nowhere. The bill died in Committee.Yet, a third time, on March 13, 2014, Representative Mike Quigley reintroduced the bill as the “Transparency in Government Act of 2014,” 113 H.R. 4245—and the bill died in Committee, a third time.Then, a fourth time, Representative Mike Quigley—along with Representative Jackie Speier and, now, a third Democrat, Krysten Sinema, introduced "the Transparency in Government Act of 2015, 114 H.R. 1381." That bill was no more successful than the previous three—never getting out of Committee.Even so, had any one of these four bills passed, the most important provision of the original Act—the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute serious misconduct by high level Executive Department officials—was nowhere to be seen in any of the bills Mike Quigley sponsored.Now, on May 17, 2016, six months before the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016, two Republicans, Mike Turner and Rick Allen introduced a bill that, if passed, would truly resurrect “the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.” They introduced the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016,” 114 H.R. 5271. That bill, if passed does require the DOJ to turn over the investigation and prosecution, of cases involving serious misconduct of Executive Branch Officials, to outside counsel, namely, independent counsel, commonly referred to as “special prosecutors.” The Arbalest Quarrel insists that Congress debate this bill and vote on it before the U.S. Presidential Election—an Election that is rapidly approaching—less than three months away. If the full House votes on this bill, the American people will see, first-hand, those U.S. Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, who demand accountability and integrity in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and those who do not. If the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016” passes, Congress will itself have the clout necessary to bring Hillary Clinton to justice. It need not rely on the Executive Branch—through its Justice Department—to police itself—something the Department—as has become depressingly, indeed, excruciatingly clear—cannot or will not do.Independent counsel need not constrain him or herself to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton alone. Counsel will have the power and authority of Congress to investigate and prosecute the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation, along with the principals, Bill and Hillary Clinton, for possible violations of the federal RICO Statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961. Congress, through independent counsel, will be able to bring down the entire corrupt Clinton Dynasty. You would think Congress would have acted well before we came to this point in time—the Eleventh Hour.Sometimes, though, as we know all too well, Congress needs a kick in the behind to get moving. For those Congressmen and Congresswomen who wish to sit on the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016,”—Republicans as well as Democrats—we hope that, with a little encouragement from the citizenry, they will be compelled, however grudgingly, to take a stand. This is no time for Congress to remain passive and silent. Their timidity is painfully obvious to all Americans. Let Americans assert: “We see you cowering in the shadows.”To spur Congress to act on the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016," the Arbalest Quarrel has formally written Representative Mike Turner, and has copied the cosponsor of the bill, Rick Allen, and has copied, also, other influential Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, whom, we believe, truly seek to bring the Clintons to justice and who seek to prevent the occurrence of a travesty and horror—one that would see a likely felon become President of the United States.In our letter, we have asked Representative Turner to give us an update on the status of his bill, and we have urged him to move on this bill if it is stalled in Committee—as, apparently, it is. We seek to remind Congress that this is no time for dawdling.The letter, which the Arbalest Quarrel sent to Representative Turner by Federal Express, has been, we have confirmed, received by the Congressman’s Office.We provide readers with the content of the letter we sent to Representative Turner, in the Part three of the present article.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL’S LETTER TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN, MIKE TURNER

We provide, here, in full, our recent letter to Representative Mike Turner, Republican, Ohio, sponsor of the “Independent counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016.”  The letter reads:August 23, 2016Via Federal ExpressThe Honorable Michael TurnerThe United States House of Representatives2239 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515Re: H.R. 5271Dear Sir:I am an attorney who specializes in Constitutional law. With my colleagues we publish the Arbalest Quarrel, a unique, informative website, specializing in formal analyses of State and federal firearms’ legislation and court decisions. Our articles are published throughout the Nation, in major magazines, read by millions of people.We are writing to you in reference to H.R. 5271, a bill you sponsored and that Representative Rick Allen cosponsored. You introduced the bill on May 17, 2016. The public knows the bill by its short title: the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016.” If enacted, H.R. 5271 would reauthorize Chapter 40 of Title 28 of the United States Code. H.R. 5271 amends Section 599 of Title 28. Your bill also amends the sunset provision of the previous bill: the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.” Specifically, the present bill amends the expiration date of the previous bill, codified in Section 591(b) (7) of Title 28, from five years to eight years.H.R. 5271 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on the day you sponsored it, May 17, 2016; and we know, too, that H.R. 5271 was also referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, on May 20, 2016. What we don’t know—and what we would like to know—is the status of H.R. 5271 at this time.You sponsored H.R. 5271 over three months ago. The bill appears to be languishing in Committee and Subcommittee. The United States Presidential Election is around the corner. Have the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice acted on H.R. 5271? If not, why not? Do you anticipate H.R. 5271 passing Committee? If not, when do you and Representative Allen anticipate that both the House Committee and the Subcommittee will pass the bill so it may be debated in Chamber and, eventually, voted on before the full House? We implore both you and Representative Allen to spur action on H.R. 5271 if it is deliberately being held in abeyance.We know that both you and Representative Allen share our concern. Were that otherwise, you would not have sponsored H.R. 5271. The American people have dire need of it.Without passage of H.R. 5271 Hillary Rodham Clinton will escape justice. Worse, were Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States, the American people will have elected a person who likely violated federal law during her tenure as a Cabinet level official, Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and who likely continued to violate federal law thereafter. Historical records will document that the American people had elected, for the first time in our Nation’s history, a person whose corruption is manifest before that person assumed the highest Office in the Land.Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 793. Title 18 of the U.S. Code is titled “Crimes and Criminal Procedure.” 18 U.S.C. § 793 falls within Chapter 37. Chapter 37 is titled, “Espionage and Censorship.” 18 U.S.C. § 793 is titled, “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.” Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 793 because substantive and substantial evidence exists that she mishandled, either intentionally or through gross negligence, classified Government information during her tenure as Secretary of State. If convicted of mishandling classified Government information, Hillary Clinton has committed a felony. She cannot serve as President of the United States.Hillary Clinton likely violated, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. That Section falls within Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code, titled, “Fraud and False Statements.” 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is titled, “Statements or Entries Generally.” Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 because substantive evidence exists that she lied to the F.B.I., during the Bureau’s criminal investigation. If convicted of lying to F.B.I. agents, Hillary Clinton has then committed a second felony. She cannot serve as President of the United States.Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 201. That Section falls within Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code, titled, “Bribery, Graft, and Public Corruption.” 18 U.S.C. § 201 is titled, “Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses.” Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 because substantive and substantial evidence exists that, while serving as Secretary of State, both she and her husband utilized the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation as a conduit through which wealthy donors—including individuals, foreign governments, NGOs, and multinational corporations—obtained favorable treatment at the expense of the American people and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and in contravention of our laws.Evidence suggests that Hillary Clinton used the Clinton Foundation as an extension of the United States Department of State, doling out favors for money, reaping a personal fortune through the influence she wielded as Secretary of State. If convicted of bribery, graft, or public corruption, Hillary Clinton has committed a third felony. She cannot serve as President of the United States.Will accountability exist in the federal Government or not? The “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016” would provide the clout to bring accountability to Government, reinvoking the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978.Congress reauthorized the 1978 Act—an Act, compelling integrity in the Executive Branch of our Government—four times. Congress did not, though, reauthorize the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” a fifth time, in 1999. Congressional failure to reauthorize the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” occurred, curiously, during the impeachment of the 42^nd U.S. President, Bill Clinton. The U.S. Senate instituted impeachment proceedings against President Clinton on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.Need exists for immediate enactment of the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016.” Only through passage of H.R. 5271 into law will remediation be possible. The U.S. Department of Justice will not perform its duties. Therefore Congress must step in.H.R. 5271 should be debated openly in Congress; and it should be voted on by the full House. The American people must know those Legislators in Congress who demand integrity in the Executive Branch of the federal Government and those Legislators in Congress who do not.Sincerely,Roger J. Katz, Attorney at LawCo-founder, Arbalest Group, LLC.cc: The Honorable Rick AllenThe Honorable Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government ReformThe Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Judiciary CommitteeThe Honorable Trey Gowdy, Chairman, Select Committee on Benghazi______________________________You can help us and yourselves, and you can help our Nation, our system of laws, and our sacred Bill of Rights by contacting your Representatives in Congress. Contact them today. Tell them that you will not let them sit this one out. Reluctance to take a stand, to act, is not an option, not now, not when so much is at stake—more so now, than ever before. The future of this Nation hangs in the balance. Tell your Congressional Delegation that you are aware a bill is pending in Congress, the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016,” that will give Congress the clout it needs to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her husband, and the Clinton Foundation—the entirety of the Clinton Dynasty—to justice.Tell your Representatives in Congress that you demand integrity in the Executive Branch of Government and that, since, the Executive Branch refuses to police itself and is obviously content to allow corruption in the Executive Branch to continue to exist and, in fact, to grow unchecked, Congress must step in and put a stop to that corruption and Congress must step in and put a stop to that corruption now.Congress must do so to prevent even the possibility that Hillary Clinton might set foot in the Oval Office.The possibility of a Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidency is too horrible even to contemplate. Let a Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidency be consigned to fiction—to a novel in the genre of horror, such as Mary Shelley’s classic, “Frankenstein” or Bram Stoker’s, “Dracula.”Do not allow a Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidency become a Reality, for she and her family and the family’s Front Group--the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation-- will prey on all of us, and bleed us dry. Make no mistake. That is what is in store for us. That will happen if Americans fail to prevent it from happening.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE OPERA WON’T BE OVER ‘TILL THE FAT LADY SINGS’—IN FEDERAL COURT—AND THE OPERA ISN’T OVER YET.

AMERICANS MUST SMOKE OUT RENEGADE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS

“It’s déjà vu all over again.” ~Yogi Berra, Baseball legend and cultural icon. In November 2014, in an article posted both here and on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, the Arbalest Quarrel predicted that centrist Republican Senators—more concerned about promoting themselves and maintaining the status quo than in serving Americans and acknowledging the needs and desires of their base—would create dissension, tearing the Republican Party apart, thereby handing the U.S. Presidency over to a thoroughly despicable individual: Hillary Rodham Clinton. We said,“Unfortunately, there are already disturbing signs from some centrist Republican Senators that, when dealing with Obama, compromise and conciliation will be the strategies employed. Confrontation is the strategy centrist Senators will reserve for their own Tea Party base. They intend to keep the base in line. Should that occur, these centrist Republicans will certainly tear the GOP wide open, and they may very well hand the White House over to Hillary Clinton in 2016.”The first part of our prediction has, we are sad to say, already come true. Centrist Republican Senators and Centrist House Republicans have torn the Party apart as we predicted. If those Republicans don’t mend their fences, and do so quickly, Hillary Rodham Clinton will take the White House. No doubt about it. In that event, our second prediction will, as well, also prove true. That will be absolutely disastrous for our Country and for the Nation’s citizenry even if those average Americans, who relish a Hillary Clinton Presidency, think that this would be something to applaud. Such Americans are wrong in their thinking, but they will realize their error too late—much too late—to rectify that error. And all Americans will suffer the horrific consequences of the erroneous beliefs of those Americans who had supported Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House.Mainstream newspapers are already proclaiming a Democratic Party victory this November. The mainstream newspapers believe—or, if not, are nonetheless, sowing the seeds in the mind of the electorate, through application of yellow journalistic exploitation and distortion, that a Hillary Clinton victory is inevitable. But, as Yogi Berra also sagely said—as the above title to this article may possibly be attributed to: “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.’” And, the matter of bringing Hillary Rodham Clinton to justice isn’t over just yet—not by a long shot. But it is up to those Americans—Americans who hold sacred our unique and priceless Constitution, who truly believe in the sanctity of our system of laws and of our jurisprudence, and who demand that the “rule of law” be applied and adhered to, not simply mouthed as one would an empty, trite platitude—to demand that Hillary Rodham Clinton be brought to account for serious misconduct against our Nation, against our Nation’s Constitution, against our Nation’s laws, and against our Nation’s citizenry.What can we Americans do to preclude a catastrophe from occurring in November 2016? One thing will definitely operate as a wrench thrown into Hillary Rodham Clinton’s plans to secure the U.S. Presidency: Clinton’s indictment on federal criminal charges. Is this still possible? You bet, but only if more Republicans in Congress grow a backbone. Americans must see that they do.The mainstream media, working overtime on behalf of the Democratic Party machinery, says an indictment of Hillary Clinton on federal criminal charges won’t happen—that Hillary Clinton’s indictment on felony charges is essentially “old news” and“water under the bridge.”The mainstream media refers to and relies on the July 2016 statement of Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, when Lynch said: “Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State.  I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.” The Justice Department has closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s misuse of private email servers to conduct sensitive Government business. It did so by simply handing the public a short, perfunctory statement, essentially washing its hands of the entire matter.Clearly, the United States Department of Justice refuses to mete out justice, failing to follow through on the F.B.I.’s manifest obligation to the American people as set forth on the F.B.I.’s website: The Bureau’s Public Corruption program focuses, inter alia, on: "Investigating violations of federal law by public officials at the federal, state, and local levels of government." Yes, the investigation of Clinton’s serious misconduct may be over for the U.S. Department of Justice, but that investigation is not over for the American people—not by a long shot.What can be done? Well, we know that at least a few honorable Republicans in Congress—and we may forget about the dishonorable Republicans who explicitly or implicitly support a Clinton Presidency and we may certainly forget about the Democrats in their entirety—are trying to do something to bring Hillary Clinton to account for her misdeeds and clearly criminal conduct even as the U.S. Justice Department has failed to do so—even as the U.S. Department of Justice has in fact failed our Nation and has failed the American people.These honorable, concerned Republicans have duly requested a copy of the F.B.I.'s interview notes of Hillary Clinton—the F.B.I.’s Form 302—although Americans have learned that those notes will not be released to the public.The Director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, has, at least, responded appropriately to those Congressional Republicans who requested a copy of the F.B.I.’s notes of the Hillary Clinton interview. He has, we have learned, dutifully turned over the F.B.I.’s investigative summary, “Form 302,” to Congress. This, apparently, is rarely done; the F.B.I. doesn’t ordinarily turn its closed investigative files over to Congress.Not surprisingly, the mainstream media, an obvious tool of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”)—and a tool, too, of other secretive, nefarious individuals and organizations both here and abroad—manifests a concern over the general release of F.B.I. agents’ notes through Form 302, even the limited release of notes to members of Congress. Clearly, foreign and domestic power brokers and corrupting interests and influences, along with the DCCC, want to see their puppet, Hillary Rodham Clinton, seated in the Oval Office. They do not want Congress, much less the U.S. citizenry, to view the F.B.I.’s criminal investigative files on Clinton. That’s very American of them, isn’t it? So, Congress has obtained the F.B.I.’s Form 302—the document summarizing the F.B.I.’s interview of Hillary Clinton. That is an impressive first step. But, it is only a first step. By itself, it isn’t enough to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton to justice.The Report will undoubtedly demonstrate—as strongly implied in the F.B.I. Director’s unprecedented statement to the American people, delivered to the American people on July 5, 2016—that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, lying, criminal scoundrel who should be indicted on federal criminal charges. Even so, the United States Congress can do nothing to compel the Justice Department to do its job—to indict Hillary Clinton on federal criminal charges. Congress can do nothing, at this point, because the Department of Justice has closed its case on Hillary Clinton, and, at the moment, only the Justice Department has authority, under the law, to bring action against Hillary Rodham Clinton on federal criminal charges. And that places this Nation in a bind.The U.S. Department of Justice does not—notwithstanding the most serious matter to face our Nation in recent times—choose, as it should, as is required of it, to uphold the law. And that places this Nation in a bind. The U.S. Department of Justice apparently answers to some secretive cabal of crafty and treacherous outsiders who will do whatever it takes to prevent a Donald Trump Presidency; and the best way to prevent that—in fact the only way to prevent that—is to guarantee that no individual or entity has legal standing to bring federal criminal charges against Hillary Clinton and that the one entity that, at present, does have legal standing to bring federal criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Department of Justice, a Department that falls within the purview of the Executive Branch of Government, is prevented from doing so. Barack Obama, through the puppet masters who pull his strings, has, one may reasonably conclude, seen to that.The U.S. Department of Justice apparently answers to evil forces intent on seating their puppet—Hillary Rodham Clinton—in the White House. The U.S. Department of Justice apparently answers to those ruthless, wealthy, powerful individuals and entities who seek to place, in the highest Office of the Land, a person they can control; a person whom they have controlled in the past; a person whom they can count on controlling in the future; a person whom they have paid hard cash for; a person whom they know will always do their bidding—who will do what they, the puppet masters demand, even though such demand is in contravention to and in defiance of the laws of our Nation, and in contravention to and in defiance of our sacred Constitution, and contrary to the well-being and security of our citizenry.Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband Bill will, as ever before, operate to the detriment of our Nation, lining their pockets with cold, hard cash, titular rulers to the puppet masters who control them, selling our Country out and throwing its citizenry down the drain, even as they claim, duplicitously, that they have the best interests of our Nation at heart and that their policies are designed only to effectuate what is best for our Nation. Nonsense!Something more must be done to prevent Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton from stepping foot in the White House—apart from the mere hope that the American public will come to its senses on election-day and preclude a Clinton Dyarchy from taking root. But, what can Congressional Republicans do to follow through on Comey’s release of the F.B.I.’s Form 302 to Congress? What must they do? Just this: Congress must appoint independent counsel to reinvestigate Hillary Clinton’s misconduct and to prosecute Clinton on federal criminal charges if independent counsel finds probative evidence to indict her. Two Republican Congressmen have already taken the necessary steps to see that this is carried out.Ohio Republican Congressman, Michael Turner sponsored, and Georgia Republican Congressman, Rick Allen, cosponsored, a bill, the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016,” H.R. 5271. If enacted, the bill—introduced in the House, on May 17, 2016, over three months ago—would allow for the appointment of outside counsel to reinvestigate the serious misconduct of Hillary Rodham Clinton, involving, one, Clinton’s mishandling of classified Government information; two, Clinton’s prevarication to Government officials engaged in official criminal investigative work; and, three, Clinton’s likely criminal use of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, as a vehicle for the funneling of cash bribes to the Clintons in exchange for favors she was in the position to deliver, as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and likely, has delivered.But, what is the status of H.R. 5271? No one seems to know. The mainstream media isn’t asking, and Congress isn’t saying.Take it from a liberal Op-Ed writer for the New York Times, though, to point out why Republicans, en masse, aren’t bending over backwards to enact H.R. 5271. The reason is this: Centrist Republicans are flocking to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s corner. This is unheard of—something truly bizarre. Yet, true all the same. Many Congressional Republicans want Hillary Clinton to succeed Barack Obama as President of the United States. Lest there be any doubt about this, take a look at Frank Bruni’s opinion piece, titled, “Hillary’s Summer of Love,” that appeared in the New York Times Sunday edition, on August 7, 2016. Bruni asserts in critical part: “Dozens of prominent Republicans have come out and said that they’ll vote for her [Hillary Clinton] or consider it, including, just last week, the Silicon Valley titan Meg Whitman, the Jeb Bush confidante Sally Bradshaw, and Maria Comella, a former spokeswoman for two of Trump’s most pugnacious promoters, Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani. You can expect that list to grow. The Clinton campaign clearly does. As Bloomberg Politics and The Washington Post reported last week, Clinton’s aides have gone so far as to set up something of a special operation — a defection watch — to monitor news accounts and any other public hints that a Republican leader is thinking of renouncing Trump, so that someone on Team Clinton can reach out and ask him or her to take the next step. The Times’s Jonathan Martin revealed that Clinton herself called Whitman a month ago. The breadth of G.O.P. affection for Clinton shouldn’t be overstated. The grudging nature of it can’t be overlooked. If Trump stormed off and a more appetizing Republican was put on the menu, these Clinton converts would most likely revert to their usual diet. And there’s a real limit to the number of Republicans who will publicly embrace her.But many, many more Republicans are privately rooting for her. By making clear that they won’t vote for Trump, they intend to throw the election her way. After decades of demonizing her and all those Benghazi hearings, a noteworthy contingent of Republicans are giving her a degree of active and passive help that less polarizing Democratic presidential nominees never received.”You can bet the Bushes, who audaciously and contemptuously snubbed the Republican nominee for President of the United States, Donald Trump, through their failure to appear at the Republican National Convention, held in Cleveland, Ohio in July 2016, certainly rank among those secretly supporting a Hillary Clinton Presidency.With many Republicans covertly, and, in some cases, even overtly, actively supporting a Hillary Clinton Presidency, should there be doubt in anyone’s mind why the bill, H.R. 5271, rests, apparently, dormant in Committee. House Republicans will not, apparently, allow it out of Committee. If that is true, then those House Republicans are secretly colluding with House Democrats to keep the bill stalled in Committee. We do not need to speculate why certain Republicans would wish to do this since Bruni has provided us with a depressingly clear answer: they want Hillary Clinton to win the election. No question.Certain House Republicans—the Centrists—don’t want an open debate. And, they don’t want a vote on the bill. Why is that? For this reason: if the bill proceeds to the Floor of the House for a full House vote, and some Republicans vote, “nay,” those Republicans are, then, clearly acknowledging their acquiescence in Executive Branch corruption. They are on record of saying they willingly accept corruption in the Executive Branch of the United States Government. We say this with conviction and logical validity because H.R. 5271, if enacted, resurrects the Ethics in Government Act of 1978—in Act this Nation sorely needs to get the Nation back on track—to get this Nation on the right footing, to gets this Nation where it is supposed to be, as the founders of our Nation expected to be—one that demands that the federal Government abide by the Constitution our founders drafted and adopted. Our Constitution mandates integrity in its public officials.This Nation’s Government cannot ably do the business of Government, on behalf of its citizenry, if corruption exists in Government. Corruption in Government cannot, indeed, must not be tolerated. Corruption in Government must never be tolerated. For, if corruption is tolerated, it grows exponentially, infesting and negatively impacting everything and everyone it touches, including, and especially, the U.S. Department of Justice—a Department in whom Executive Department Officials are compelled to be held accountable to the people.If the U.S. Department fails to indict those officials of Government who have been entrusted to serve the people—and, we have seen that the Department of Justice has failed to serve the people, in whom power and authority ultimately reside, then the Department of Justice has committed a double sin.The U.S. Department of Justice has not only allowed corruption in Government to foster, it has condoned it. In condoning the presence of corruption in high level Executive Department Officials, the U.S. Department of Justice has tarnished its image as a bulwark of law and order, and has undermined the very system of law upon which this Nation derives stability and continuity. The U.S. Department of Justice has converted our Constitution to little more than a doormat, to be thrown out at the pleasure of the corrupters of Government who demonstrate no regard for it anyway.When the U.S. Department of Justice fails the American people, by turning a blind eye to the worst sort of crimes of Federal Officials, it behooves the Legislative Branch of Government to step in. And, Congress has, in the past, done so, demanding integrity in the Executive Branch, when the U.S. Department of Justice fails to police Executive Department Officials, itself.Congress enacted the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as a response to the Watergate Scandal. The Act compels integrity in the Executive Branch of Government. If Congress doesn’t compel integrity in the Executive Branch of Government, then Congress is complicit in the corruption that besets the Executive Branch. The “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016” resurrects the Ethics in Government Act of 1978—the very Act Congress failed to reauthorize in 1999, during the Senate’s impeachment of U.S. President Bill Clinton, on federal corruption charges. Corruption, Americans see, runs in the Clinton family. Must the American people suffer another conniving Clinton in the White House—actually two of them—a real two-fer for the American people: two duplicitous monsters for the price of one. Isn’t that nice?Centrist Republicans are willing to acknowledge their tacit—and in some cases, of late, even explicit—support of and endorsement of Hillary Clinton. That is most disturbing, to be sure. But, none of these Centrist Republicans wishes to be on record as saying he or she is content with corruption in public Office—in fact complicit in allowing corruption in public Office to exist—even though they are—to a person—certainly intelligent enough to know that Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her husband, Bill, are as corrupt as the worst individuals can possibly be.Indeed, the very name, ‘Clinton’ is synonymous with ‘corruption.’ Thus, for any politician, Democrat as well as Republican, to refuse his or her support of the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016” is to expressly acknowledge support for corruption in the Executive Branch of Government. Perhaps, the two Parties have become two sides of the same coin after all.The Centrist Democrats silence their progressive wing and the Centrist Republicans silence the Tea Party Wing, and neither Party is answerable to its base. Neither Party ever wished to be answerable to its base. The goals of the Centrists in both Parties are essentially the same: the dissembling of our Country and our Country’s Constitution in the pursuit of neoliberal policies and Globalist interests, to the detriment of the economic well-being of both workers and businesses in this Country, and in contradistinction to the very sovereignty of this Nation.The Centrists of both Parties are Statists and internationalists at heart. They are not nationalists. They think of nationalism as “old-school.” They tend to think of the very notion of National Sovereignty as a relic of a bygone age. Their policy goals reflect this. The Centrists of both political Parties are content with matters just the way they are and are content with the way matters are slowly and quietly proceeding; and, while seemingly playing off their base—one against the other—the Centrists of both political Parties are secretly working together, selling our Country out for pennies on the dollar.The Centrists of both political Parties support illegal immigration. The Centrists of both political Parties support disastrous trade policies. The Centrists of both political Parties support an influx of millions of Islamists into our Country, notwithstanding that Islamists can’t be properly vetted. Centrists support the WTO and the IMF. The Centrists of both political Parties emulate the EU, and are quietly, secretly working toward the creation of an EU styled Corporate-Governmental structure in this hemisphere.The Centrists of both political Parties support the continued existence of the central banking system—the scourge of Western Civilization, engineered, back in the eighteenth century, by the undeniably powerful, extremely secretive, deathly sinister, and unbelievably wealthy Rothschild clan (reportedly having a net worth running into trillions of dollars).The European Rothschild family is unaccountable to anyone, yet silently controls everyone. The family’s tentacles wrap around continental Western Europe and extend to Asia and to the Americas. The Rothschild family dictates policy to its puppets in Europe and even in this Country. It operates silently, insidiously and is not any true, meaningful sense answerable to Congress—as its presence is opaque. But the effects of its sinister operations are evident through the actions of the Centrists in Congress and in the White House.The Centrists of both political Parties support the spending of trillions of dollars on interminable, unwinnable wars—the true purpose of which is hidden from Americans—wars that have nothing to do with our National Security, but wars that, in fact, have, in the waging of them in the first instance, threatened our National Security. The Centrists of both political Parties truly care nothing about preserving our Nation’s sacred, Bill of Rights—a document also seen by the Centrists as a relic of a bygone era—an era they would wish better forgotten—a relic that must at some point in the not too distant future, be shredded. How can Centrists in Congress care about our Bill of Rights? Their actions forever belie their words. They seduce the ignorant and gullible and frightened among us—all the while working on behalf of the puppet masters—the Rothschild clan—to rend the very fabric of this Nation.The Arbalest Quarrel will not stand idly by as mere witnesses to the travesty of Hillary Clinton’s run for the U.S. Presidency. We won’t rest even as many Americans appear resigned to a Hillary Clinton Presidency—the Rothschild’s choice to occupy the White House. Evil begets evil.Because we won’t allow this matter to rest, we have drafted a letter to the sponsor and cosponsor of H.R. 5271. We will be mailing it shortly. We are asking the two U.S. Congressmen, Turner and Allen—the sponsor and cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 5271—to provide us with the status of their bill. We are imploring these men to take action now, to move this bill along.We intend to force the Republican Centrists’ hands in this. If Centrist Republicans don’t wish to see passage of this bill, then we want do know who they are. We want for both them and those in the Democratic Party to be on record as having opposed a bill that compels integrity of Executive Department Officials.If these Centrist Republicans don’t wish to see passage of this bill, then they are worse than their Centrist Democratic Party counterparts. They are hypocrites. They pretend to preside over a Party that holds to the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution when they, in fact, do not. We intend to smoke them out.Apparently these Centrist Republicans feel no sense of duty to Party or to their base, no sense of guilt, having, as they do, the gall to blatantly support Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. President. Yet, they obviously do feel the need to refrain from actively opposing a bill that is designed to preclude corruption in Government. Hence, they would rather such a bill not come up for debate, much less a vote—at all.We insist that these Centrist Republicans take responsibility for their actions. If these Republicans honestly support Hillary Rodham Clinton—a likely criminal and the most corrupt politician to run for the Office of the U.S. Presidency in recent times, if ever the most corrupt politician—then we insist that they be placed on record, consistent with their support of a corrupt politician, of having actively opposed enactment of a bill designed to curb corruption in Government. You can do your part too. Contact your Representatives in Congress. Demand that they bring H.R. 5271 to the House Floor for debate and for a Floor vote. We must act now to preserve our precious Constitution and our Free Republic. If Hillary and Bill Clinton secure the White House, we can bid our Constitution and our Republic, “goodbye,” forever.Once we receive confirmation of receipt of our letter by the addressees, we will post the letter on the Arbalest Quarrel website.Hillary Clinton and her supporters in Congress—Republicans as well as Democrats—think that Hillary Clinton has the 2016 U.S. Presidential election wrapped up. They are welcoming this creature with open arms. For true Americans, though, a Hillary Clinton Presidency is as welcome as a plague of cholera.For the sake of our Nation’s continued sovereignty and for the sake of our unique and precious Constitution, we intend to upend the Clinton applecart. For the sake of our Nation’s citizenry and for the sake of Americans unborn, we intend to wipe that smug look off Hillary Rodham Clinton’s face.We, at the Arbalest Quarrel, have worked, and we will continue to work, tirelessly and unceasingly to prevent a Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidency. We have done so and will continue to do so to the best of our ability.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.