TURMOIL IN AMERICA OVER THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

ESSAY: A NATION ON THE PRECIPICE OF DISASTER: IF TRUMP LOSES THIS ELECTION, AMERICANS LOSE THEIR COUNTRY; IT'S AS BASIC, AS SIMPLE AS THAT!

OUR NATION-STATE IN THE MIDST OF A HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE STATE OF AFFAIRS!

The headline of the Sunday November 8, 2020 home edition of The New York Times reads: “Biden Beats Trump.”Really? If that headline and many similar ones coming out of mass media are true, then a free Constitutional Republic and independent, sovereign nation-state is on its deathbed and the stonemasons can start carving the Nation’s gravestone setting forth the date of birth and the date of death of that once great Nation-State that once proudly existed but exists no more:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ JULY 4, 1776 TO JANUARY 20, 2021

Yet, a goodly chunk of the American electorate says, “Hold Your Horses! Not so fast! .” How many American citizens who voted for Trump in the 2020 general election is uncertain at this point. Pew Research says the number stands at just under 70 million Americans. The BBC says the number stands at over 70 million Americans. Indeed, even the seditious USA Today itself acknowledges the number stands at more than 71 million Americans that voted for Trump. Any of those numbers is a record, but less than the 75 million votes cast for Biden, also a record, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, as of November 7, 2020. But are the Biden numbers an overcount? Are the Trump numbers an undercount?Did Biden really win the 2020 U.S. Presidential election or is the Press just pulling the wool over the public’s eyes, as it has done for the last four years in its incessant attacks on Trump, expecting the public to accept the old adage: “saying so means it’s so”?Let us all take a long, deep breath and look at a few critical facts.First, Donald Trump has not conceded the election and should not; not with the sleazy manipulation of and the addition of conceivably millions of illegal mail-in ballots for the Neoliberal Western Globalist elites’ Candidates of choice and the Manchurian Candidates of choice, Joseph Biden, and Kamala Harris.The jubilation felt by Biden supporters—fueled in no small part by false declarations of a Biden/Harris victory by the mainstream media—is a bit early in the day. United States Presidential elections aren’t decided by the media. They can recite raw numbers and make all the declarations they want—God knows Americans have been subject to enough of the nonsense spouted by the mainstream media, for the past four years—but in most cases the result of a U.S. Presidential election isn’t even known on election night, and the Press doesn’t have the authority to decide elections anyway. And, in at least one instance, a Press headline was dead wrong. Rutgers reported,“There have been incorrect or premature claims of victory before, but usually the candidates know enough not to go overboard. Al Gore placed a concession call to George Bush on Election Night in 2000, and then had to withdraw his concession. (The concession is a formality, not legally binding.) With New York governor Thomas E. Dewey, he was predicted – wrongly – to beat President Truman in 1948 and newspapers ran headlines with the wrong news.” Second, the process for declaring a winner is an involved and lengthy one as well it should be given the enormity of the impact on the Nation, and it is precisely stated in Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution.Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.Third, there have been catalogued instances of fraud pertaining to both the casting of votes and the counting of them in this election. The DOJ is looking into this and the Arbalest Quarrel fully supports Attorney General William Barr in his efforts to ensure the integrity of our federal elections.And, President Trump has filed several lawsuits at least one of which is up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump has often warned of and accurately predicted the very disturbing happenstance that has transpired. There must be and there will be accounting. Trump is doing this less for himself than for the good of the Nation, our Constitution, and our people, consistent with the Oath of Office he took four years ago. The Arbalest Quarrel fully supports Trump in his worthy and critically important efforts to defend the integrity of our federal elections and, therewith, the preservation of our free Constitutional Republic and the sanctity of our citizenry's sacred fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, natural rights and liberties, bestowed on us by the one loving omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and morally perfect and beneficent Divine Creator.

THE INTEGRITY OF OUR FEDERAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL PROCESS MUST BE GUARANTEED AND PRESERVED

Trump has every right to question whether some States—principally Arizona, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Maine, and Pennsylvania—had conspired to secure the number of “mail-in” ballots necessary to get Biden to the magic number of 270—manufacturing the requisite number to tip the State over to Biden. Were each of these States truly diligent and honest in the implementation of their vote counting procedures and in deciphering lawful ballots? Recall that before the election—with paltry news coverage by the mainstream Press and the major networks—Democrats and those ruthless forces adamant in getting Biden and Harris into the White House, whatever it takes, filed a substantial number of lawsuits, 245, as reported by CBS News, to change election laws through Court action, not through the State Legislatures, just weeks before the election. But, under our Constitution, only the State legislatures, not the Courts, nor State Governors, nor State Bureaucrats, and that includes State elections officials', have the authority to enact laws, or implement their own procedures, governing the election of a U.S. President, and the election of Legislators, namely, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. See U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, supra.Democrats deliberately, consciously, unconscionably, diabolically sought to weaken safeguards for fair elections, utilizing the pretext of the Chinese Coronavirus to allow for the casting of millions of unsupervised, unsecured mail-in ballots in lieu of voting at the polls. And, for the most part, Democrats were successful, as activist jurists did weaken election laws, allowing for tens of millions of mail-in ballots to be sent out, with insufficient oversight as to how the ballots that were sent in were to be counted. See CBS news article.And, apart from the poll workers, looking at ballots, hand-counting them, deciding which ones to count and which ones not to count, another equally disturbing issue has cropped up, and that pertains to the machines utilized to tabulate votes.These machines are proprietary. One of the biggest purveyors of voting machines, certainly in past elections, is Diebald, Inc., a Company of questionable repute; a Company that is likely in league with the legion of forces marshalled against Trump. See bradblog. A purported computer “glitch” in voting machines manufactured by another Company, Dominion Voting Machines, gave votes to Biden that were supposed to go to Trump. On November 6, 2020, the website NOQ reported,“The same company that reported glitches with software updates in contested polling locations in Georgia is also behind the software glitch that seemingly reversed 5,500 votes in a county in Michigan.Dominion Voting Systems, which claims to work with 1300 voting jurisdictions including nine of the 20 largest counties in the nation, produced the software used in Michigan that erroneously gave Democratic candidate Joe Biden a 3,000 vote advantage in Antrim County. After the glitch was fixed, it was discovered that President Donald Trump actually won the county by around 2,500 votes.”  Problematic voting, discrepancies in tallying votes, vote harvesting, ballot dumps, statistical anomalies, and the fact that historically, incumbents rarely lose elections—these matters and others—all raise doubts as to the fairness of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. Never before in the history of our U.S. Presidential elections has voting—long residing for one day and one day only, in person, at the polls, been relegated to the mechanism of tens of millions of ballot by mail dumps allowing for early voting—often weeks in advance of the election—and late counting of ballots.President Trump and tens of million of Americans who cast their ballots for Trump have every right to be skeptical of the legality and legitimacy of the results, and with the avid assistance of a complicit seditious Press, may well have insinuated  imposter, Joseph Biden, on the Nation. So, yes, Trump has not conceded the election. But that hasn’t stopped the Leftist rag, Washington Monthly, to caustically remark:“So what would it look like if Trump refused to concede? Is there really a way he could stay in office? It’s unlikely. For starters, successful autocrats rarely lose elections. ‘They take steps to rig it well in advance,’ said Steven Levitsky, a comparative political scientist at Harvard University and the coauthor of How Democracies Die. They pack electoral authorities, jail opponents, and silence unfriendly media outlets. America’s extremely decentralized electoral system and powerful, well-funded opposition makes this very difficult to pull off.” In the above citation, zero in on the two sentences, “. . . successful autocrats rarely lose elections. They take steps to rig it well in advance.” True enough. But who is the autocrat, here? And, who likely rigged the election? Is it Donald Trump or the ruthless, powerful, inordinately wealthy, tight-nit, well-organized, and inherently secretive billionaire neoliberal Globalists who have machinated against Trump from the earliest days of his first term in Office, when they realized that they could not control him, to carry out their agenda, as those U.S. Presidents, had willingly done so before him: Bill Clinton, the two Bushes, and Obama. Again calling a person a name, ‘Autocrat,’ is self-serving and amounts to nothing more than a churlish childish prank. Labeling one with a pejorative doesn’t make it so. There is more than a little sleight of hand going on here.Peering at the last four years of Trump’s Administration provides a picture at odds with the bald assertion that Trump is an autocrat. If Trump were truly an autocrat, he has been a remarkably poor one. Apparently defending the U.S. Constitution as written, and supporting the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans, and placing emphasis on the needs and concerns and interests of our Nation and its people, and disdaining the starting of new wars and continuing old ones defines Trump’s Presidency as an autocracy according to the Press. Very odd, that!Still, the seditious Press routinely pushes the idea that Trump is an autocrat. Although the expression ‘autocrat’ refers to one person, consistent with its usual definition—think of such infamous examples as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others of bygone eras or those in our present one, reigning in third world countries and in failed states—the fact of the matter is that the import of the term has expanded exponentially. Autocracy is where this Country was headed under the Administrations of Trump’s immediate predecessors: a new world order autocracy. See Sheldon Wolin’s profoundly well-reasoned and prophetic work, “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” Yes the specter of totalitarianism, i.e., autocracy, tyranny, is alive and well, and a Biden/Harris Presidency is just the ticket to return the Country back to the game plan to convert our Nation into a totalitarian nightmare.The game plan was well underway and almost completed under Obama’s Presidency and would likely have been completed under the Hillary Clinton Administration—that is—before a wrench was thrown into the well-greased, well-oiled machine chugging toward the dissolution of our Nation-state.The hidden autocratic architects of our Nation’s downfall will be back on track on January 20, 2020 if it is Biden who is inaugurated President of the United States.And, no, Biden and Harris are not, themselves, autocrats, in any real sense, either, although they might appear to be. They are, rather, the willing puppets, the playthings, the chosen actors, of those who sit behind the scenes controlling the play as it unfolds here in the U.S. and on the world stage. The true autocrats are the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists—a few here at home and many others overseas—whom Biden refers to as our “allies.” It these secretive, sequestered Plutocrats who are the real autocrats, the ones calling the shots from afar.Apart from their new essential mainstays, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists have operated and continue to operate through a ragtag assortment of heterogenous groups: Globalist Marxists, Anarchists; Congressional Democrats; Bush Republicans; Radical Left academicians and jurists; tens of thousands of Radical Left federal bureaucrats securely ensconced in the Administrative Deep State; smugly complacent and sanctimonious Hollywood types; Radical Left Technology moguls; members of the central banking community; and, of course, a compliant, sympathetic seditious Press.These elements don’t care that Biden suffers from obvious mental and physical infirmities or that the duplicitous Harris has a loathsome, almost infinite capacity for crass opportunism and self-aggrandizement, who had been, unsurprisingly, rejected as a possible candidate by her own fellow democrats among the polity, during the Democrat Party Primaries. And yet, here they both are, seemingly out of nowhere, selected by the puppet masters as the stars in a new Broadway production, and on the brink of victory if the Billionaire Globalists have their way.The forces that have supported and worked to get these two into the White House find the character qualities of Biden and Harris just what they want, what they need. These two, Biden and Harris, are duplicitous, avaricious, amoral, obsequious toadies of the hidden puppet masters. Biden has sold out our Nation, during his tenure as Vice President under Obama, and both of them would do so now.The ruthless elements that support these two frauds do not represent the interests of this Nation; nor do they respect the Constitution. They are contemptuous of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people. Biden and Harris share their sensibilities.This isn’t to say Trump is a saint. He isn’t, never was. He is impetuous, boastful, prideful, like many successful, ambitious people. But Americans should look past this. When one considers Trump’s many accomplishments, on behalf of the Nation and its people, it is odd that many Americans would discount this, or ignore this altogether. Also see The Gadsden Times report on Trump's long list of major accomplishments. Rather, those Americans, unable to control their temper, having, it seems contracted an acute case of canine distemper, rage nonstop against Trump, eliciting the usual specious, insufferable comment that “Donald Trump doesn’t appear Presidential.” Or, they will echo the erroneous and ludicrous remark heard myriad times in the seditious Press that “Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobe” and, they will, of course, invariably reiterate one comment heard, perhaps, more than any other, that “Trump is an autocrat.” The public internalizes and, as if on cue, obediently parrots back the viral memes they have heard ad nauseum by the seditious Press: lame remarks indeed. Indeed, this seditious Press admits that when looking at those Americans who exhibit open hostility toward Trump, we see that this is predominately characterized and predicated on certain presumed personal characteristics; not on his politics. Many of these Americans will even acknowledge his positive accomplishments or admit their confusion in coming up with an accomplishment they disagree with. Still they voted against him, which says much about the power of the Press to sway public opinion. See AP news accounts. The seditious Press and those others who detest Trump and constantly rage against him fail to mention or even to consider that Trump has  always faithfully executed the laws of the United States, consistent with his duties under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It is far easier for the Press simply to ignore the truth of his faithful execution of his duties or to deny the fact out-of-hand, as as self-evident, true, when in fact the Press is simply a conduit for the expression of false narratives and utter bald-faced lies.Furthermore, Trump has completed or is in the process of completing many of his 2016 campaign promises. See Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “Trump Makes Good On 2016 Campaign Promises and Has Earned a Second Term.”Trump's accomplishments and his decisive attempt to make good on or having fulfilled many of his 2016 campaign promises during his first term in Office says volumes of his ability, intelligence, stamina, fortitude, dogged determination, and personal integrity. These are not only admirable character traits of any American citizen who would serve as the U.S. President; they are character traits that Americans have a right to expect from that citizen who would lay claim to the highest political position in the Land. They are character traits that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have not. But malevolent, malignant elements both here and home and abroad don’t care about any of that. What they want from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are obedient servants; that is to say, obedient servants to them, not to the American people, and to the Nation, and, above all, to the Nation's Constitution, without which the Nation ceases to exist. What these awful, ruthless malevolent, malignant Billionaire Globalist elites want are lapdogs; loyal servants to them upon whom they will lavish all manner of gifts. All that Biden and Harris need do, is obey the commands given to them, as would any obedient dog. These ruthless forces understand that the positive qualities of President Trump, to serve God, Country, people, and the U.S. Constitution, is of no value; it is of no moment; it does not serve their interests. So, it is not what they want. It's not what they ever wanted. It's not what they expect from the President of the United States. It is not what they bargained for. It's not what they expect from their President; their toady. It is not a component of their game plan. Service to God, to Country, to the American people, and to the Constitution, are all detrimental to their plans for a one world government. The system they envision has no use for God, or for independent, sovereign nation states, or for the well-being of the citizenry of those nation-states, or for the system of laws that undergird those nation-states, or for the history, traditions, culture, core values that have come to define the people of those nation-states.The forces that seek to crush Americans into submission have invested much time, money, and resources to disassemble the United States, and they seek a final return on their extensive investment. And that return they expect, covet, and intend to reap, entails completing the program that was rudely interrupted when the electorate voted Trump into Office. The forces that crush know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will give them everything they want; everything Hillary Clinton would have given them had she been elected to succeed the Administration of Barack Obama. Clinton in the White House had been expected. More, it had been, in their minds, ordained. And they were both embarrassed and enraged when they failed to sit their puppet in the Executive suite. With their lapdogs, Biden and Harris, in Office, they will move at warp speed to move well beyond even the illusion of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State. It is time now for the great reset.What these Billionaire Globalists and Corporatists been working so very long and tirelessly for is control over America’s resources; control over the geographical mass; and for inclusion of the tattered remains of the Nation-State, that was once an independent, sovereign Nation-State, into a global economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical amalgamation of those political and social and economic and cultural and juridical constructs that once existed as independent, sovereign nation-states; that had once been subject to their own rules of law; their own customs, their own culture. The success of the Billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites portends a hollowed out America; a diminished America not unlike the diminished nations of the EU. For these ruthless, amoral elements, such things as national pride, national identity, a shared national culture and history, have no place, no purpose. These things are to be tucked away as relics of a by-gone age, much as our historical flags and monuments have already been tucked away, boxed up, and carted off to the dark recesses of a museum or have otherwise been dismantled or destroyed outright. Only the trappings of the Nation will exist, will be permitted to exist, if only for a time: the Nation’s flag, perhaps, even as it is mocked by Radical Left Marxists, and by Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists. Perhaps a few of the Nation’s monuments—those considered innocuous, and that do not harbor even an inkling of national pride or significance—will be allowed to stand; and perhaps a few seals and emblems here and there; and, perhaps, a few documents will be allowed to be kept, albeit as historical curios, oddities, but as nothing more than that.

A DIMINISHED COUNTRY REQUIRES FOR ITS LEADER A DIMINISHED MAN: JOE BIDEN IS THAT MAN

Here we have a man who, as Vice President, in Barack Obama’s Administration, had not the desire to serve his Country but rather had the temerity to serve himself and his immediate family, lining his own pocket and that of his immediate family, by selling favors to and ingratiating himself with foreign adversaries: China, Russia, Ukraine, and other nations. Imagine how much more money Biden would be able to make for himself and his family, will be able to make, selling out our Country as U.S. President, not merely as Vice President of the United States. As the puppet of the neoliberal Globalist elites, Biden will be well taken care of, indeed, just as the Billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites have taken good care of their stooge, Barack Obama, and the Bushes, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. And, once Biden steps down, probably at some point during his first term, the sociopathic disingenuous, hypocritical, duplicitous Kamala Harris will slither in, take over, and, no doubt, run for U.S. President in 2024. 

JOE BIDEN: A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS?

One need not ask how it is that an intellectually deficient, emotionally and physical wreck of a man as he now is—one who has, in any event, when he did have command of his intellectual faculties, accomplished little if anything worthwhile in the half century he had been in politics, and whose own past allegiances and attachments, properly considered, happen to be contrary to the current Radical Leftist cultural milieu—could actually assume the Office of President of the United States? Biden is, on any estimate, extraordinarily ordinary. He is just the sort of man the Globalist elites would want; for he would be exceptionally easy to control; he will be exceptionally easy to control. As he, unlike Donald Trump, will listen to, will adhere to, will happily, eagerly and enthusiastically obey the directives of the experts, who will shepherd him through the intricacies of the Governmental processes, undercutting, erasing, eradicating Trump's myriad foreign and domestic policy accomplishments. The result will be renewed chaos in the Middle East and Africa; the destruction of small business and the American labor force; necessary public reliance on Government welfare assistance to maintain a modicum of survivability and sustenance; erosion of the Nation's sacred, and inviolate, fundamental, natural unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties; persistent, round-the-clock Government surveillance; the rape of our natural resources; hundreds of billions of dollars dropped into States sans adequate oversight; an end to border security; the abolition of any meaningful notion of 'citizen' of the United States; absolute corporatist and monopolistic control over the means of food and materials production, and over the flow of and creation of and distribution of information; degradation of health care; resurgence of a multiplicity of Global economic pacts and treaties that will provide the vehicle for subordination of our Constitution and subordination of our system of laws and jurisprudence; insinuation of Chinese Communist Government as well as Western Globalist elite control over the entirety of our institution of public education, indoctrinating the masses in the ideology and tenets of Collectivism; top-down control of all local, county, and State police forces; relaxing of criminal laws, allowing for waves of habitual criminals and the mentally ill out on the streets to prey on the polity, to keep the public constantly off-guard and in a constant state of fear; the coopting of our military by NATO and the UN; a massive, geometric progression in the accumulation of public debt to feed the insatiable appetite of the billionaire, neoliberal Globalist elites, reducing the Nation's population to an abject and endless state of penury; subordination of the national will to extrajudicial foreign tribunals, NGOs, and international organizations that will be impossible for the U.S. to extricate itself from, which is all by design to make the return to the nation-state construct and ideology of individualism impossible. This is just foretaste of what the American people can expect as the machinery for absolute and iron-clad control over the American people are set into motion during the first few weeks and months of the installation of Biden as the Neoliberal Globalist elite's President.And Joe Biden will be the vehicle through which the downfall of our Nation will occur. Is it really any surprise, then, that Joe Biden would emerge, seemingly impossibly as the Democrat Party's candidate for U.S. President? Could any of the others truly be counted on, so completely, so obediently, to toe the line and, at once, be certain to capture enough of the American vote to mask the subterfuge in vote gathering and tabulating going on behind the scenes? Could Bernie Sanders be counted on to toe the line of the ruthless, secretive Billionaire neoliberal Globalist Corporatists and, as well, be reasonably certain to secure enough honest votes by Americans to hide the subterfuge taking place behind the scenes, involving the millions of  manufactured, dishonest votes surreptitiously introduced into the mix? Who better than Joe Biden to play this role! Could Tulsi Gabbard do this? Or Elizabeth Warren? Or Amy Klobuchar; or Andrew Yang? Or Pete Buttigieg? Or Francis O'Rourke? Or Michael Bloomberg? Who better than Joe Biden has that seeming dignity, solemnity—especially with a little help from a legion of image-makers and handlers? And Barack Obama had his role to play too.Is it really any surprise that Barack Obama didn’t immediately come out in support of his former VP for the Democrat Party’s nominee for U.S. President to take on Donald Trump? Obama would certainly have had his reservations. He would certainly have known that most of the other nominees were in fact more qualified. Was Obama waiting for a cue from his benefactors, the Globalist elites, who had, as well, previously propped him to serve their ambitions? Did Obama therefore wait, obediently for his cue? Still, one might ask how it is that this man, Joe Biden, could garner support from an electorate when he had accomplished nothing useful for the Country, and, who comes with his own "racist" baggage and, yet, is now so close to securing the U.S. Presidency, along with the duplicitous, opportunist, Kamala Harris, in tow, who is chomping at the bit to sit in the Oval Office herself? Well, the Billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites poured a lot of money into this election and were certainly involved in more than a little manipulation in the tallying of votes and in hacking into the voting machines to give Biden a substantial edge, without arousing too much suspicion of underhanded dealing other than what could be plausibly denied. Obviously, elaborately conceived, immaculately planned, hermetically sealed, and extremely well executed chicanery goes a long way in sitting an otherwise distinctly commonplace, mediocre man in high Office—even in the highest Office of the Land.Apparently it is enough to expect from much of the public that they would elect the team of Biden and Harris, not for their policies—which they have kept mostly silent about, even if the public would have had a good inkling of that anyway—but simply because he isn’t Trump. So, apart from machinations at the polls and with mail-in ballots, and with hijacked voting machine software that handed the election to Biden and Harris, is there anything, really, that endears many Americans to this decidedly unexceptional team of Biden and Harris other than the irrational desire to defeat Donald Trump? And that, apparently is enough. And, as a result, this Nation will see the Country eviscerated as various stakeholders—comprising western Neoliberal Globalist Corporatist bosses, and Xi Jinping's Manchurian Communist overseers, and the riff-raff of  the world's Socialists, Communists, Marxists and Anarchists insist on and receive return for their investment in these two.But, average Americans who did cast votes for Biden and Harris, what do they receive for their vote? Sure, they get Trump out of the Oval Office, but what then? Does the Country return to what they think is normalcy? Really? Is it not the case that average Americans have simply been duped? And, if so, How is it that so many educated Americans could have fallen for the charade? The answer to that question rests in something that receives precious little attention but has been central in securing public support for or, at least, public acquiescence to a Biden/Harris Presidency since the outset of the campaign, which, indeed took place not for a period of months, but for a period of years—ever since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office, to serve as the 45th President of the United States.  The American public fell hook, line, and sinker to a massive, rigorous program of brainwashing, of psychological conditioning. The public was the victim of a mammoth Psychological Operations program, or PSYOPS. See recent AQ article, titled, “Americans Embroiled in A Counterrevolution: “The Future Of The Country Rests In The Balance,”  and  AQ article titled, “Treacherous Americans Pose the Greatest Threat to the Survival Of Our Nation,” That many Americans would vote for Biden, given his obvious mental, emotional, and physical failings, along with a lack of integrity and honesty, and with little if any knowledge of what his political, social, economic, and geopolitical policies are, says much about the impact that years of psychological conditioning of the public’s psyche has had on the public’s critical faculties. PSYOPS doesn’t work overnight. It involves a slow, methodical process of conditioning the masses to adopt a particular set of beliefs. More conditioning is required to egg them on to action. The result is that, if enough people can be encouraged to act against their own best interests, a mighty Nation can be destroyed without a gunshot fired. Such is the power of PSYOPS.The father of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays and the proponent and great exploiter of propaganda’s uses, Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels, would be well-pleased if they could but see how their well-honed tool has come to be used to such great effect against the American people.

CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE ENCOURAGED TO FORSAKE THEIR CONSTITUTION SO EASILY?

That segment of the American public that feels in a partying move should step back for a moment and pause to consider the import of 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.’”Are these just empty words?How often has the public borne witness to the lies Biden recited during his two debates with Trump or of the blather Biden’s handlers have recently given him to utter, with, no doubt more vacuous pabulum to come in the days ahead?How often have Americans heard the seditious Press cavalierly and perfunctorily dismiss well-documented instances of massive fraud and corruption on the part of Joe Biden and many other senior level Government officials, through utilization of such curt and snippy expressions as: “unsubstantiated rumors,” or “unsubstantiated accounts,” or “wholly debunked reports” or “no evidence of wrongdoing” or “baseless accusations” or “no violations of law,” expecting the public to take these phrases as gospel, self-evident truths? Too many times to count! So, it should not be surprising to anyone that the Press, along with cable “news” shows like CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR, and the big three television networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC would once again fall back on phrases that have become so hackneyed that they have lost any significance. They have become mere substitutes and stand-ins for, rather than assertions of judgment rendered only after hard-slogging investigation of the truth of a matter. But then, “news” sources today aren’t in the business to report the news, to inform the public. They are in the business to spin yarns; to encourage the public to accept fiction merely posing as fact and to get the public to behave in certain pre-defined ways in accordance with the whim, wishes and wiles of their Globalist benefactors.The job of the Press today has been transformed. The job of the Press isn’t to hold Government accountable to the people; to hold Government in check, but, rather, to hold the people in check; to seduce and prod the public into believing and accepting the prevailing myths and memes of the ruthless, powerful, wealthy, jealous forces bent on tearing our Nation asunder, leaving its people in tatters, and its Constitution in shreds, as it subsumes the vestiges of our Country and those of other western nations in a new, massive transnational corporatist confederation: a new world order. Many in the Press have degenerated into collaborators of, indeed prostitutes for, the Globalist elites.The new job of the Press corps is to project carefully sketched narratives onto the public psyche. These narratives are designed to create in the public mind the idea that the Globalist agenda is a good thing, a positive thing for the Nation, when it is nothing of the sort. It is diseased and is intended to sicken and destroy the sanctity of the American spirit, not lift it up and purify it.This, then, is the new undertaking of the Press corps. And, too, it is the job of the of the functionaries of the Globalist elites whose faces they have presented to the public even as these elites themselves remain hidden, sequestered in monolithic homes and offices around the world. The Globalist elites’ functionaries or overseers have included Henry Kissinger; George W. Bush and the late George H.W. Bush; Bill and Hillary Clinton; the late John McCain; Barack Obama; and now they have enlisted the aid of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.But why these last two, in particular, rather than any of the other Democrat Party Candidates for U.S. President? Why, indeed? Is it not but for the reason that the propagandists for the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” have determined that these two, in their very mediocrity and obsequious desire to please those who bestow on them, shower them continuously with material rewards—money, fame, an illusion of power—have the best chance of defeating Trump? The very expression that Biden has used to describe himself— “political moderate”—is in one sense a bald-faced lie, but in another sense it is true, if one treats the word, ‘moderate,’ as a synonym for ‘mediocre,’ ‘middling,’ ‘passable,’ ‘ordinary.’ For the expression is more characteristic of Biden’s nature and much less an apt, accurate descriptor of his politics, as Biden’s politics—if he has any firm convictions on that score—are, at best, cryptic, or, at worst, simply a nebulous, inarticulable muddle.

A TICKET INTO THE WHITE HOUSE? ATTACH ONE PLACID, UNASSUMING, NONTHREATENING PERSONAGE TO ANOTHER ASSERTIVE, CAUSTIC, PSEUDO-CHARISMATIC BLACK FEMALE

The propagandists and image makers have come to realize that, given the antipathy toward whiteness and maleness that many Americans have come to embrace through carefully nourished psychological conditioning, these Americans are anxious to place a black female in high Office.Kamala Harris is the perfect complement to Joe Biden, as he is a non-descript, non-threatening exemplar of the new male. The propagandists and image makers, on behalf of their Globalist benefactors, had apparently concluded that the best way to maximize votes and the best chance to gain control of the reins of Government and thereby return that control over their benefactors, the Neoliberal Globalist elites, is to plant an unassuming man in the Oval Office. Once that is accomplished, and realizing that there is just so much they can do to keep up the pretense of maintaining a man suffering from the throes of incipient dementia in Oval Office, is to slowly ease him out of Office, replacing him with a younger, energetic, intelligent black female.With their placeholders safely ensconced in Office, the Globalist elites will once again be able to return to their agenda, having complete control over one Branch of the U.S. Government, and having much and perhaps total control of the Legislative Branch of Government as well. That will leave them to contend with the third Branch.While Biden can, as Chief Executive, easily eliminate and will eliminate all of Trump’s executive orders, and as he can and will slowly work, as ordered by his overseers, to unwind Trump’s foreign and domestic policies with the help of a generally, compliant, complicit Congress, it is quite another matter having to deal with Trump’s three U.S. Supreme Court nominees, now firmly residing on the High Court Bench. They will take action to neutralize the impact of a five to four Conservative-wing, Strict Constitutionalist Majority.The Globalists chose their puppets well: basing their selection on outward superficialities, anticipated to be amenable to the public, and inward horrific character flaws, which would be useful to the Globalists themselves. Thus, Biden and Harris are mere placeholders, nothing more. They will be given money, and prestige, and a semblance of power, and, in return, they will obey all directives presented to them by their benefactors. Pretending to serve the interests of Americans, the Nation and the Constitution, they will, instead, subvert all three.That Biden is obviously in mental decline and emotionally more sycophant than leader and that Kamala Harris has all the characteristics of a sociopath: ruthlessly opportunistic, mendacious, unemotional, uncaring—indeed, everything that Hillary Clinton is and that every normal person is not—it is most telling that the worst sort of people can end up in control of the second Branch of Government, subservient to their Globalist overseers; and most happy to serve them as their own goals have now been realized.And, in this realization, we see the faults that inured to Donald Trump—faults unforgivable to the Globalist elites.The Billionaire Globalist elites unleashed the dogs of war on Trump and never let up. Their minions unleashed incessant, unparalleled attacks on Trump and on those closest to him, including his own beautiful, respectful, and devoted family. And they did this because Trump would not toe the line. He refused to accept and work toward fulfilling the Globalist agenda. He would not play the role his predecessors played. In fact, he was antithetical to playing any role.Trump took his “America First” and “Make America Great Again” slogans to heart. These slogans when converted into actionable policy objectives are antithetical to the Globalists’ goal for a one-world system of governance. So, the slogans had to be treated not only as inappropriate catch phrases for America, but as inherently evil; irreligious; even obscene. His policies had to be sabotaged. Trump had to be removed. And the seditious, compliant, obedient Press, and academia, and Big Tech, and the Democrat Party leadership, and Wall Street, and the Government Bureaucracy, and the Bush Republicans, too, all went diligently to work.For the last four years, ever since Donald Trump took the oath of Office as the 45^th President of the United States, the sanctimonious, seditious Press—the foghorn of Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists and Radical Left Marxists—has sought to destroy this man, as their benefactors, the Globalist “elites” demanded. The Press sought to take down this man whom the American people had elected to return America back to Americans. They elected Trump to the highest Office in the Land for the singular purpose of preserving their Nation and the fundamental rights that undergird the Nation. And Trump sought, for four years, to do just that, and, whether motivated principally by personal ambition or by true concern for the American people, the Nation, and the Constitution, in accordance with the Oath he took, the Globalists would have none of it; could stomach none of it; would not abide it. For over two decades, under the Administrations of their puppets, the Secret Society Skull and Bones Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, they quietly, inexorably moved the Nation toward dissolution. Much of the electorate had seen this and understandably rebelled.In a very real sense, then, the impact of the present election shouldn’t be construed as an isolated event, critical as it is; but simply one more tool in the Globalist elites’ armory that was retooled to accomplish the Globalists’ purposes. But, despite tens of millions of people whom the seditious Press was able to turn against Trump, through relentless, unceasing campaigns of disinformation, noninformation, and misinformation, there were tens of millions more who supported him as they did in 2016. Indeed, he brought into the fold, minority groups as well, much to the consternation and dismay of the Globalists and their Democrat Party cohorts.These powerful forces never believed that Trump would or could actually secure the Presidency in 2016, and, so, the allowed, the U.S. electoral process to proceed sans tampering. Much to their chagrin they realized that Trump had secured the majority of electoral votes necessary to snatch victory from their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, the unholy offspring of the forbears. But it was too late to prevent Trump from assuming the U.S. Presidency.These same powerful forces may have attempted, for a short period of time, to encourage, and then cajole to work with them on their behalf as his predecessors had done. When it was clear Trump wouldn’t oblige them, they went to work to remove him from Office, trusting they could do so before Trump’s domestic and foreign policy objectives would cause irreparable damage to their plans for global control. They failed, but not for want of trying.Recall those attempts to bring Trump down during his first term in Office. Those strategies included: a lengthy DOJ probe into purported illegal dealings of Trump’s Campaign Associates with Russia; a House impeachment bizarrely grounded on one perfectly reasonable, aboveboard call between U.S. President Trump and the President of the Ukraine; inappropriate utilization of the 25th Amendment to the United States; and outright sabotage of Trump’s foreign and domestic policies. Yet, despite all these well-planned and executed, time-consuming, costly, mammoth efforts to unseat Trump, that the malevolent, malignant forces had marshalled against Trump, each of them came to naught. If they were to succeed in dumping Trump, they would have to do so through manipulation of the Electoral process.Seen in this light, is the likelihood of massive election fraud, beyond the realm of probability? Is it not, rather, the last-ditch effort of desperate elements at home and abroad to take out Trump, once and for all?Understandably, President Trump, and the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, have every right to be skeptical about events that have unfolded during this election. Indeed, has not Trump warned about this eventuality months before the election, fully aware that the powerful, malevolent forces aligned against him would not permit him to serve a second term in Office, and would be perfectly capable of creating the illusion that their feeble-minded stooge would actually garner the necessary electoral votes to defeat Trump—that Biden would emerge victorious, and that the process would be all nice, tidy, and seemingly legal? And, has not the seditious Press sounded the Halcyon alarm, telling the public that Trump would, after all, contest the fairness of the election, which they knew he would do, must do; and, so, having sounded the alarm in advance, did they not intend to create the illusion that the results of the contest would be fair and aboveboard knowing full well that they are not; that the fix was in; and that Trump was simply a “bad sport;” would always be a sore loser, and was doing what had been expected of him and that the public should not be surprised—turning attention again on Trump and away from their own illegal, reprehensible antics?So the burning question remains. Did Biden receive sufficient legitimate votes to actually turn the tide, or did Trump actually obtain more votes—votes sufficient to get him to 270, as he succeeded in doing in 2016?The Globalists were this time mindful of the uniqueness of America’s Electoral College and they made sure that, with a little nefarious help from friends, from collaborators in the kitchens where a few special votes could be prepared, and where a few more votes could be cooked up in special computer program ovens, Biden would indeed make it over the 270 hurdle.But, again, we note, Trump hasn’t conceded the election. And, again, we say, he should not; must not. There is too much at stake—the very existence of a free Constitutional Republic. And there is clear evidence of wrongdoing even if the Press argues otherwise, and attempts, once again, ever again, to deter, like a carnival magician, the public’s gaze from the truth; declaring Biden the winner, even though the seditious Press has no such power to declare anything; only to report the news  which it rarely does and to draw attention away from critical matters which it always does.  The U.S. Supreme Court has to take a look at a few of those State “kitchens” to see just what has been cooked up and baked.As the seditious Press heralds Biden’s seeming victory, on behalf of the Globalist elites and Xi Jinping’s Communist China, Americans should not fall for this new subterfuge; for subterfuge it is.

ANYONE WHO CLAIMS BIDEN IS THE PRESIDENT-ELECT IS EITHER LYING OR MISINFORMED

Yes, the NY Times shamelessly and irresponsibly blurts out that “Biden Beats Trump,” but it carefully couches its words in a discrete caption in that same November 8, Sunday Times article, when it says: “Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Kamala Harris were declared the victors on Saturday after they widened their unofficial margin in Pennsylvania.” The use of the passive voice in the caption gives an inkling as to the truth of the matter. For one must ask, who declared Biden and Harris victors? The Press cannot really do so, and, in that small caption, it doesn’t say, because it cannot. In fact no one can say for certain, at this point in time, who won the election. Times reporters reiterate the assertion that “Biden was declared the winner,” slyly utilizing the same passive voice to mask the fact that, Biden has won nothing because only the U.S. Senate has ultimate authority to officially certify the winner of a U.S. Presidential election, and the Country is far from that goal. So far, the only declarations of Biden's purported victory in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election have come from the seditious newspapers and from some cable and network pseudo-news shows that raged against Donald Trump's Presidency since the day he took the Oath of Office. But, the declarations of the seditious Press and other seditious media sources don't mean a damn thing except to their base and to other uneducated, uninformed individuals among the electorate who fervently wish to believe that Biden won the election or who otherwise accept, if only reluctantly, the statements of media who deliberately, happily spread the lie, like all the other lies and fabrications they have spun for the last four years that have done nothing to benefit the security and well-being of the Nation and the well-being of the American people and have done everything to harm the Nation and its people.The certification process of a U.S. President is a complex, multi-step process, with several critical steps along the way. See the website, the conversation:“Once a final tally of voters’ in-person, mail-in and provisional ballots has been concluded, all 50 governors prepare their state’s Certificate of Ascertainment, a document listing their electors for the competing candidates.Each state completes that process at its own rate. This year, because of the pandemic, finalizing the electoral vote count will likely take a lot longer. Once completed, copies of the Certificate of Ascertainment are then submitted to the U.S. Archivist.After the governor submits names to the Archivist, each state’s Electoral College electors meet in the state capital – D.C.‘s meet in D.C. – to formally cast their votes for president and vice president on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year, that’s Dec. 14, 2020.On Jan. 6, Congress convenes to count the electoral votes and certify the winner of the election.Because the sitting vice president also serves as president of the Senate, Mike Pence will preside over this count in 2021, just as Vice President Joe Biden did in January 2017 when Donald Trump officially became president-elect. Each state, called upon in alphabetical order, files its votes. . . .At the end of the Senate’s electoral vote count, the vice president announces the results and asks if there are any objections. . . .After the Senate certifies the election results, all the Certificates of Ascertainment and Certificates of Vote then become available for public review at the Office of the Federal Registrar for one year, then transferred to the National Archives for the permanent record. Those who question the outcome of a U.S. election, in other words, can actually double-check the tabulations themselves.Established almost 250 years ago, this complex process is a foundation of American democracy. Many have questioned whether this antiquated system truly represents the will of the people in modern America.But for 2020, it remains the process that will decide the presidential race.” Given these lengthy, involved steps and given the fact of Hillary Clinton’s downfall in the last election, this helps explain why the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites through their toadies in the Democrat Party would like nothing better than to do away with the Nation’s Electoral College and the complex, comprehensive, seemingly, as they see it, messy process required.The Globalists want to adopt a simple process, oft referred to as the national popular vote. On the face of it, absent serious reflection, it may seem, to some, to make sense: one man equals one vote. Tally up all the votes and see who wins. But like so many seemingly simple answers to complex questions, this one hides a den of vipers.First, going to a national popular vote format to decide U.S. Presidential elections invites mob rule. It is easy to manipulate the minds of the masses. It is much more difficult to control the mind of the individual as is necessary with the present Electoral system we have in place.Second, the national popular vote idea isn’t really democratic at all, as it would allow a few major geographic regions to decide America’s future for the greater segment of the Country, denying many States any participation in the selection process at all; hardly fair, then. That is why the framers of our Constitution, having decided against a national popular vote—and they did consider it, along with other mechanisms as it isn’t a recent, novel idea—decided that use of a national popular vote mechanism to select our Nation’s President is not a sensible idea at all.The last four years, and especially the last few months, should convey to any reasonable mind the dangers of mob influence and mob rule. See the website liberty talks. Utilization of a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College is a horrible idea, but one the Democrats and their Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist benefactors have latched onto. Another similar horrible idea, really an extension of the national popular vote scheme is referred to as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If instituted this would destroy the very idea inherent in Federalism, as a few States with extraordinarily large populations, concentrated in a few major urban areas, would decide U.S. Presidential elections. The majority of States and their citizens would be aced out. Votes cast in those States would be reduced essentially to a nullity. This is Gerrymandering extended to the entire Country. Unscrupulous agents of this approach would only need to control small highly concentrated centers of individuals, utilizing them as a convenient proxy for the entire Country. The Neoliberal Globalist elites and their toadies in Congress, in the Press and in the academia don’t want to have to cope with a Nation of tens of millions of critical thinkers. No! They want a collection of sheep that can be and are easily led simple, carefully designed slogans. They then sprinkle those slogans with feigned notions of morality to tug at the public’s emotional strings. Lastly, they repeat these slogans over and over through the echo chamber of a seditious Press. The mob internalizes these slogans into their subconscious. The slogans become part of their sacred belief system, their new religion. They think the ideas implicit in the slogans are their own ideas. They are oblivious to the fact that these aren’t their ideas at all. They are false memories; planted in their psyche by the propaganda masters.Consider some of the relatively old, well-worn slogans, expressions, and verbiage and some relatively new ones that have been projected into the public psyche. Some are straightforward, some simplistic; some complex.These memes, i.e., mental viruses, some of which may become archetypal patterns firmly planted in the collective unconscious, which are designed to create a specific response in the psyche, positive or negative, include:

• Black Lives Matter
• Trump is a Racist, Sexist, Xenophobe, Homophobe, Misogynist . . .
• White Privilege
• White Supremacist
• Critical Race Theory
• Biden is a ‘Political Moderate’
• MS 13 gang members are human beings, not animals
• Trump keeps children in cages
• “People will do what they do”
• Antifascists aren’t Fascists
• Systemic Racism
• Police are Racists
• Christianity is the White Man’s Religion
• America was built on slavery

And on and on and on.Many Americans seem to be more susceptible to these memes; easily sensitized to them; their psyches highly malleable. Thus, they accept policy prescriptions designed to destroy their individuality and selfhood, and withal, their fundamental rights and sovereignty which they willingly cede over to Government.Apart from outright lies, news blackouts, comprehensive misinformation and disinformation campaigns, and construction of elaborate fictional narratives engaged in by the seditious Press, Americans have witnessed massive censorship conducted by the major social media and internet monopolies, namely, Google, Facebook, Twitter, MSN, and Amazon.com. These elaborate, mammoth propaganda campaigns which, together, amount to one huge RICO enterprise have increased exponentially since the day Trump took Office. The American public has been the target and test subject of information distortion the likes of which have never before existed in human civilization. The seditious Press and social media distorts and contorts reality to such an extent that Americans view of their Country as represented to them is the polar opposite that which exists. The idea imprinted on the mind of the public that Trump is an autocrat is but one salient example. One other is presented in the following assertion by, what is referred to as the LGBTQ Community on the website LGBTQNation. On its website, they posted the following, which reads in pertinent part:“During the late 1940s, researchers, led by Theodor Adorno, studied the historical conditions that paved the way for the rise of fascist regimes in the 1920s and 1930s, World War II, and the Holocaust. They theorized about individuals who would support the growth of fascism.They suggested that people of a certain personality type, which they labeled the “authoritarian personality,” were most ripe for extremism, in this case, those most susceptible to anti-Jewish prejudice and anti-democratic political beliefs.They relinquished their autonomy and critical thinking faculties for the prospect of going back to a future reminiscent of a (mythic) idealistic past of economic, political, social, cultural, and personal security, where their “ingroup” won and led, and those “outgroups” served obediently and acquiesced to “ingroup” needs and demands.They relinquished their autonomy and critical thinking faculties for the prospect of going back to a future reminiscent of a (mythic) idealistic past of economic, political, social, cultural, and personal security, where their “ingroup” won and led, and those “outgroups” served obediently and acquiesced to “ingroup” needs and demands.They pledged obedience and allegiance to a powerful leader or social institution. In other words, they surrendered their freedom for the promise of social and personal security, which usually includes the suppression of those outside the circle, the “others.”So why did so many Americans vote to reelect President Donald Trump, a dangerous demagogue?He painted a gruesome image of a post-apocalyptic United States, replete with vicious marauding gangs, gunshots whizzing throughout the inner cities, decrepit crumbling structures and highways, rampant poverty, declining socialist-inspired health care systems, imminent terrorist attacks, ruthless criminal drug-dealing rapist invaders from our southern border.He continued to incite hatred and violence at his rallies, and fear, stereotyping and scapegoating all Muslims and so-called “illegal aliens,” promised to punish women who have had and their doctors who have performed abortions, argued that he would continue to restructure the Supreme Court to an ultra-conservative majority, which would, thereby, reverse both Roe v. Wade and marriage equality.And he perennially pledged to “Make America Great Again.” ” Pay particular attention to the paragraph: “They relinquished their autonomy and critical thinking faculties for the prospect of going back to a future reminiscent of a (mythic) idealistic past of economic, political, social, cultural, and personal security, where their “ingroup ” won and led, and those “outgroups” served obediently and acquiesced to “ingroup” needs and demands.”Autonomy and critical thinking are qualities embraced in the tenets of Individualism, which are the foundation of the fundamental rights and liberties of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, along with the Constitution's Articles that establish a Federal Government of very carefully delineated, limited powers. Those qualities are not existent in Collectivism which is the obverse of Individualism, which the LGBTQ community, at least this faction of it, adheres to, as is evident in their emphatic, unrestrained, libelous attack on Trump. But, more to the point, as can be seen from the above passage of LGBTQNation, and the reason we cite it, is not to launch an attack on LGBTQ members but, rather, to illustrate how propagandists coopt sacred ideas for ignoble purposes to support the antithesis of what these organizations espouse. This is a recurrent theme of the propagandists. The last thing they want to embrace is a Nation of autonomous individuals and critical thinkers. And now we are at the precipice of disaster. Once this Nation falls off the Cliff into the Abyss below, it will be impossible to to soar back to the Cliff's edge. The best our Nation can hope for at that point is to conjure up a parachute in the hope of slowing the descent so as to lessen the impact of a hard landing. And good luck with that.If Biden is in fact elected U.S. President, our Nation's people will witness the very thing that the Press is telling us we have avoided were we to see a second term of Trump in Office. That is a bald-faced lie. Biden and Harris are tools of the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites. With each passing day Americans will see how their fundamental rights and liberties are curtailed. First Amendment speech will abridged and the Second Amendment will slowly, inexorably be constricted until it exists, at best, as a privilege. Get set for Tyranny, writ large for we are doomed. In our earliest articles that the Arbalest Quarrel posted on its website, we dealt in detail with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's passion, the New York Safe Act of 2013. We wrote about the  NY Safe Act at length, and pointed to Cuomo's intent to see the NY Safe Act as the model for the Nation. It would be an irony for the ages to witness the NY Safe Act adopted for the entire Nation in lieu of National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation that this Nation could have seen when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress back in 2014. Legislation did pass the House, but Senator McConnell allowed it to die in Senate Committee, and once Democrats regained control of the House, such legislation would never be passed. The question now is whether and to what extent the Second Amendment can withstand a Biden Presidency if in fact it is he and not Trump who takes the Oath of Office on January 20, 2021 and if the Republican Party loses control of the Senate. Do not expect the Heller and McDonald cases to withstand a concerted effort by Radical Left Democrats to overturn the central holdings of those cases. With Biden in Office and with Democrats in full control of the House, Congress will draft legislation and will enact legislation to pack the Court, to negate a conservative-wing majority. It would then be a relatively easy matter for a new Second Amendment case to wend its way to the high Court and, with a new liberal-wing majority, the central holdings of Heller and McDonald will be overturned. This isn't mere supposition. It is the goal of the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites to destroy independent sovereign nation-states to use transnational economic pacts and treaties to gain political control of all western nations just as the nations of the EU are subject to political, social, cultural, and juridical control through Governmental arms located in Brussels. An armed citizenry is both antithetical to and an anathema to the Collectivists, and de facto erasure of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is high on the list of those who are anxious to bring the U.S. into the EU fold.Clearly, the fix was in prior to the present election. The election we have witnessed is simply an extension of what we have seen before; the engineering of Trump's downfall, which entails the downfall of the Nation, the dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic, and the subjugation of the American citizenry, reduced to penury and unending misery. And we saw the machinery in motion with a sudden revamping and loosening of State elections law procedures through the courts at the behest of the Democrat Party machinery, bankrolled by Billionaire Globalists. If these ruthless forces can get away with this, America’s worst fear will be realized. After 244 years, the Nation will have died. Has it all come to that? Has a Nation that was born in fire and flame now to die by nary anything more than a mere whimper, through nefarious undertakings by forces that have sought his Nation’s demise for decades?The seditious Press has long pointed to a Biden/Harris win, citing their preferred polls to support that fervent wish, albeit the election never became the voter blow-out they had wished for and had apparently expected, contrary to the predictions of their favored pollsters. But perhaps that was all shadow play to discourage Trump supporters; to hide what they expected, indeed what they long knew could be a victory for the incumbent, Donald Trump, despite the savaging of the life of many Americans and the destruction of the economy, courtesy of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus unleashed upon the Nation and the world.Knowing this, fearing a Trump victory, one must ponder whether powerful forces manufactured tens of thousands of fictitious ballots and developed other strategies to make certain that Biden would edge out Trump in the coming election.Was the election truly aboveboard and fair or was it more akin to those we see in Banana Republics and which we roundly denounce: an illusion, a puppet show, an abject farce?Keep in mind that it is rare for an incumbent U.S President to lose an election. Even so, the mainstream seditious Press dismisses out-of-hand the suggestion that massive fraud had occurred, falling back on the usual verbiage to perfunctorily deny that Trump could have won the election; denying out-of-hand that Trump win the election. The Press can have none of that. The Globalist elites can have none of that. The election was their last chance to destroy the Trump Presidency and they made certain that they would not screw this up.Trump’s legal team is, at best, fighting a rearguard action. This buys time for Trump and for the electorate who had cast their votes for him, and it is predicated on the fact that much of the votes for Biden are not legally cast votes at all. If true, the question is: how many ballots comprise unlawful, illegal attempts by fierce opponents of Trump who insist on dragging the feeble Biden and his duplicitous cohort, Harris, across the finish line to take illegitimate control of the Executive Branch of Government? If those unlawful, illegal votes are greater in number in certain specific States that went to Biden when the votes really went to Trump, then the electoral map that the seditious Press displays is erroneous.Of course, the collaborators in the charade could easily hide their tracks, and probably did so. Many of the illegal votes cast have not been segregated from the legally cast votes. So, the American public will never know the truth. Those that have been deluded into thinking they want the Biden/Harris team in the White House will be thrilled and don’t care how the team gets there; just that it does. Other Americans do care and will and ought to care deeply that those in the White House, namely Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, are imposters, and don’t belong there at all. If the integrity of the electoral process is justifiably in doubt, there can be no unity in this Country, and Biden’s call for unity is not only impossible it’s insulting and absurd.

ABOUT THAT ELECTION PROCESS IN EACH OF THE STATES—

Each State, through its Legislature, establishes the mechanisms governing the procedure to be utilized in federal elections. Uniformity from State to State doesn’t exist; isn’t meant to exist as none is required. Still, whatever those mechanisms and procedures for casting, collecting and counting ballots, are, and whether one votes at the polls or—more frequently now—by applying for an absentee ballot or, as in some states, by ballots mailed to households (notwithstanding that such States have no assured way of knowing who is residing in that household), one thing about voting in federal elections is absolutely clear: only a citizen of the United States has the legal right to vote in federal elections, to select members of Congress and to select the President of the United States.Of course, with Biden in the White House and both Houses in control of Congress, Congress could enact a law to permit non-citizens the right to vote in federal elections. The U.S. Constitution itself does not appear to prevent that. Even so, if Congress is reluctant to extend the right to vote to some non-citizens, they can more easily at least expand the domain of individuals who are not, at the moment, citizens of the United States such as those who fall under the purview of DACA. That would provide Democrats with millions of new voters likely to vote for Democrats. Then there is the matter of the the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that a citizen be at least 18 years of age to vote. A Constitutional Amendment to lower the age to, say, 16, might be within the realm of possibility with a new era in America that sees the Collectivist vision taking hold. And, there is still a question whether citizens who are convicted felons or who have been adjudicated an incompetent or who have been disenfranchised for violations of election laws may still vote in federal elections. Each State has established its own requirements. But, a Democrat Party controlled House and Presidency can see enactment of federal law allowing voting rights extended well beyond anything that many States presently provide for and allow.At the moment lax elections laws, many of them, most curiously, concocted very recently, are an open invitation to widespread voter fraud. Thus, what should be deemed a notable strength of our democratic process, can also operate, and apparently has operated, as a serious weakness and notable flaw. We see this in the present election, where extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, innately ruthless forces, intent on making sure Trump doesn’t secure a second term in Office, have reconfigured elections laws so that the voting process can be easily manipulated, thereby ensuring that Biden/Harris cannot lose. Thus, tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions—of unlawful ballots may have been counted and accepted as legitimate votes when they should have been thrown out. Similarly, lawful votes may not have been counted, skewing votes in favor of Biden over Trump, giving Biden—the Globalists’ favored candidate—votes necessary to win a State’s electoral votes. Knowing the critical importance of the rust-belt States, and of the importance of Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina, one must need ask: “did vote tampering occur?” Or, more to the point, “how could vote tampering have not occurred, given so many new and lax elections’ laws sanctioned by courts just days or weeks before the election, and without input from State legislatures as required by the U.S. Constitution?”And then there is the issue of illegal aliens in this Country, tens of millions of them. What assurances do Americans have that these people have not cast votes in the 2020 election. If we are to believe that Biden secured four million more votes than Trump, who among those who cast votes for Biden, votes that then were harvested, might not be illegal aliens? Since the vast majority of votes cast in the 2020 election were mail-in ballots and, in many  States, ballots were sent to homes absent a specific request for a ballot. What sort of verification process, if any, did such ballots go through? Given the consequences of this election on the future of our Nation, this matter deserves careful consideration. The organization Fairus.org writes,___________________________________Mass immigration has had a significant effect on American electoral politics. Despite the fact that it is a crime for aliens to vote in federal elections, noncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts. This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress. This also translates into more electors under the Electoral College for such states, which means that noncitizens also exert an indirect influence on presidential elections.In addition, there is evidence that both foreign nationals who are lawfully present in the United States and illegal aliens – who have already broken the law by their unauthorized presence in the country – have voted in recent elections. During the 2016 election cycle, noncitizens were discovered on voter registration rolls in both Virginia and Pennsylvania. And the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York charged a Canadian woman with making a false claim to citizenship after she registered and voted in more than 20 elections.Several past elections – for the presidency and other offices – have been extremely close. Accordingly, ballots cast by noncitizen voters have the potential to improperly alter the outcome of elections. Consider how close the 2000 presidential election was – and how tight recent congressional and gubernatorial elections, have been. Could the outcomes have been affected by noncitizen voting? The answer is probably yes.With the 2020 election fast approaching, the possibility exists that voting by noncitizens could significantly influence the results. Many “immigrants’ rights” groups contend that noncitizen voting constitutes a harmless misunderstanding of the rules and should not cause great concern. Even worse, a small but vociferous and radical minority of open-borders enthusiasts has claimed that noncitizen voting is actually a good thing! However, this approach undermines the rule of law. It also enables individuals whose interests may not coincide with those of the American people to exert influence on our domestic politics. Given the rate at which both the legal and illegal alien populations have been allowed to grow, the United States should be concerned with ensuring that the electoral power of U.S. citizens is not undermined and with protecting the United States from foreign influence through “diaspora diplomacy.”Proponents of noncitizen voting point out that the practice was common throughout much of U.S. history. This is true, but also quite misleading. Yes, aliens were often allowed to vote from the 1780s into the early twentieth century. However, this was a way to encourage the settlement and development of America’s vast territories. Moreover, noncitizen had to fulfill certain conditions to vote, e.g. the ownership of 50 acres of land and two years of residency in a territory, or declared intent to become a U.S. citizen.In addition, there were ethno-racial and socio-economic aspects to noncitizen voting in the early Republic. As one proponent of alien voting (and a current Democratic Congressman from Maryland) admitted: “the early spirit of political openness toward aliens was perfectly compatible with the exclusionary definition of ‘the American people as Christian white men of property.’”With the expansion of voting rights during the early twentieth century – including, in particular, to women – the practice was brought to an end, with Arkansas being the last state to outlaw noncitizen voting (in 1926). In addition, the First World War not only energized patriotic sentiments but also brought home the potential threat posed to the integrity of our elections by allowing the citizens/subjects of hostile powers to vote.Currently, elections in the United States are governed by a complicated mix of federal, state, and municipal election laws. As a rule, noncitizens are prohibited from voting and are subject to criminal penalties if they do.__________________________________________The article by the organization FAIR, came out in July 2020. The purport of the letter was to draw attention to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, expressing dire concerns over the integrity of it. The 2020 Election is now come and gone. And, we, Americans, may have to deal with the lasting negative consequences of the elections for the life of this Nation, however much time is left for it and that may not be much longer if Trump fails in his pursuit to have a full audit of the votes cast and a full transparent accounting of the election. It should never have come to this. Playing catchup after the fact is never easy. It is the realization of the myth of Sisyphus, a true uphill battle, with legions of anti-Trump anti-Constitutional Republic forces to contend with, it may well be much too late.These forces proceeded as carefully, as methodically, and as discreetly as they could to bolster their chances for success. Polls gave numerous false forecasts to disillusion Trump supporters. Big Tech engaged in rampant censorship of pro-Trump articles and messaging. The Press continued its rabid disinformation campaigns, ramping up their dirty work in the weeks leading up to the election. Democrat Party controlled States quickly had elections laws illegally changed, to reduce election security and safeguards, inviting widespread fraud through the vehicle of millions of mail-in ballots, allowing complicit poll workers and politicians to engage in massive overcounts of ballots cast for Biden, and they quickly covered up their tracks, making post-election audits extremely difficult.With multitudinous, powerful forces aligned against Trump, this election was their last chance to remove him from Office. It was this or nothing. If they could get their toadies Biden and Harris into Office, this would allow the ruthless Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites to return to completing their agenda’s principal goal: de facto dissolution of the United States as an independent, sovereign State and, concomitantly, its insertion into a new, radically transformed economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical construct operating in a completely new environment. What they envision would first comprise a loose amalgam of increasingly fractured nation-states, such as those comprising the present EU. Eventually the Countries of the EU, along with that of the U.S., and the Commonwealth Nations would all be subsumed into a tight transnational, supra-Marxist monolithic corporatist (non-capitalist) construct, one grounded in the philosophical tenets of Collectivist dialectical materialism. Can the the vast majority of the American public really want this? Of course not. Does the public even realize what is in store for them and for the Nation? No; not at all. The vast majority of Americans would deny what they see before them anyway. It doesn't matter. The downward spiral has commenced. The goal of the Nation's spoilers may well come to pass. Trump's lawsuits and Barr's investigations are likely to come to naught. The forces aligned against our Nation are too powerful, too well-organized, and well-entrenched in the very core of our Nation; at all levels, in all sectors of business and government. And these forces have captured the minds and hearts of great segments of the population. Still——

IT IS WONDROUS STRANGE HOW SO MANY AMERICANS CAN BE SEDUCED INTO VOTING AGAINST THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS, SOME EASILY, OTHERS IF ONLY THROUGH A LITTLE MORE EFFORT.

It is interesting to reflect on how otherwise intelligent Americans can be so thoroughly conditioned to adopt a way of thinking that is decidedly, perversely irrational. Yet, through four years of Press employment of fictitious narratives, of keeping critical news accounts from the public, and creating false reports out of whole cloth, and of the steady bombardment of reprehensible attacks on President Trump, is it any wonder that the psyche of many Americans has softened, turned to mush?Tens of millions of Americans have voted for a person for U.S. President, Joe Biden (to be replaced soon thereafter by the abominable Kamala Harris) whom they know, in the back of their mind, to be mentally, emotionally, and physically fragile, as well as corrupt, and therefore clearly incapable of serving in the most demanding job a human being can possibly perform, the job of President of the United States.But many Americans have voted for Biden and Harris, nonetheless. The fault rests upon years of psychological conditioning. Many Americans have, in Donald Trump, turned away from a man who has proved strong, capable, resilient, adaptable, resolute; a man who has implemented policy both domestically and abroad that has benefitted the Nation and its people. Yet, perversely, many Americans have dismissed all of this. They cavalierly dismiss Trump’s accomplishments out-of-hand because they have been psychologically conditioned to do so. Many other Americans, true, were able to retain their sense of rational, critical thinking. But all too many have, unfortunately, allowed their emotions to get the better of them. The seditious Press engaged in a massive disinformation campaign. They deliberately played upon and preyed upon those very emotions of Americans, and thus found a useful pathway into the psyche through which the Press could do its damage on their psyche.Trump has demonstrated his ability to protect and preserve our great Nation and he has done so. Whether motivated by selfishness or a selfless desire to serve the best interests of this Nation and its people, or a combination of both, this is of no moment. Yet many Americans are oblivious to Trump’s many positive accomplishments. They shun him anyway. They do so, tenaciously, remorselessly, egged on by a malevolent Press.And of their support for Biden, what is one to make of it? Their support of Biden isn’t predicated on what Biden has to offer the Nation. Indeed he has said little about that. Many Americans voted for Biden not because they love or respect him, but, rather, because they loathe Trump, which, if that is all there is to it, is decidedly unreasonable if not altogether irrational. And why do many Americans loathe Trump? They loathe him because the Press has preyed on their psyche. Everything the Press says about Trump is negative and boils down to a simple mantra: “Trump is despicable.” That message has lodged in the psyche of millions of Americans, and we are all in danger of losing our Country forthwith because of this.

AMERICANS ON THE PRECIPICE OF DISASTER

We are on the precipice of losing our Country. We are on the verge of losing our most cherished, priceless gifts—gifts that the founders of our Nation and millions of Americans who followed them have fought hard to secure; gifts difficult to maintain absent a concerted effort on all of us to do so: a free Constitutional Republic; the sovereignty of the American people; and our Nation’s fundamental, natural, sacred, unalienable rights. Once these gifts are lost to us, they will never be regained. They will be lost forever. And, under a Biden/Harris Presidency, we will lose these cherished gifts.Our diminished status will be reflected in the fact that the United States no longer exists as an independent, sovereign nation-state, where the people are the rulers, not Government, not Big Tech, not the Big Banks, not unelected bureaucrats, not foreign interests. But apparently many people have forgotten this if they have ever realized this salient truth at all.Our diminished status will be reflected in the fact that the reality of fundamental rights, intrinsic to man as bestowed on and in him by a loving Creator, will be modified, abrogated, ignored or reconstituted as, at best, weakened appendages of what is left of our equally weakened Constitution. Such sacred rights that we, as a people, once had exercised will be reduced to mere privileges bestowed on this or that person by grace of the State and unceremoniously rescinded at will by that State; and otherwise unlawful if exercised by a person absent State sanctioning of the privilege.The use of propaganda and the infusion of money has taken its toll. Americans will lose everything they hold most dear if Biden and Harris are seated in the Executive Office, and it seems more and more likely that they will do so.The election of the U.S. President in 2020 was the last battle for control of the soul of America. Biden also says that the election has been a battle for the soul of the Country. But what does he really mean? With him in Office, operating at the behest of his benefactors, the Globalist elites, and their toadies in Congress, and in the Bureaucratic Deep State, he will be presiding over a vanquished soul, a dead soul.A glimmer of hope yet remains if the DOJ and FBI undertake a thorough investigation to ascertain whether a conspiracy of fraud in mail-in ballots has wrested control of the election process—fraud not undertaken by Russia but by those close to home and those from afar whom Biden refers to as our allies: namely those ruthless elements that reign over the nations of the EU. But, if this is happening behind the scenes, we haven’t heard about it from the Trump Administration, and we would not hear about it from the seditious Press in any event. In fact, as reported by the Washington Times, back in August 2020, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, flatly rejected the likelihood of fraud emanating from the utilization of millions of mail-in ballots in lieu of traditional voting at the Polls. Does Senator McConnel still believe this in light of poll workers signing affidavits attesting to the existence of fraud during ballot counts? Apparently so. The Courier Journal recently reported, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell weighed in on the 2020 presidential election Friday morning but did not directly address President Donald Trump's baseless claims that it's being rigged against him — and repeatedly refused to do so when reporters pressed him on the issue.”

There is no evidence of illegal votes being counted or of election fraud despite Trump's allegations Thursday night that illegal votes are being tallied in an attempt to ‘steal’ the election from him [but adds] ‘Here’s how this must work in our great country: Every legal vote should be counted. Any illegally-submitted ballots must not. All sides must get to observe the process. And the courts are here to apply the laws & resolve disputes. That's how Americans' votes decide the result. ’ ”

This is all well and good, but, McConnell's remarks beg the question whether only legal votes are being or have been counted, and whether or to what extent the tampering can be uncovered after the fact as the fraudsters will obviously try to hide their tracks and will be able to destroy much of the evidence as they are in control of it. Allegations of election results tampering are widespread and involve many States. The present situation is wholly unlike the issues that surrounded the Bush/Gore election that only involved Florida, and involved the mechanical issue of interpreting chads on punch cards. One cannot really decide which way McConnell will ultimately turn. He is a wily fox, indeed. His instincts for survival are second to none. In his latest November 10, 2020 comments, as reported by the NY Times, McConnell backpedaled his previous calculatedly cautious comments, demonstrating much stronger support for the President, during his speech in the Senate. He said,“President Trump is 100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options. Let's not have any lectures about how the President should immediately, cheerfully accept preliminary election results from the same characters who just spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the last election.”The Senate Majority Leader's clearly stronger statement in support of Trump's position may reflect the meeting that McConnell had with Attorney General Barr, as reported by Reuters. Reuters reported matter-of-factly that,“McConnell met privately with Attorney General William Barr.” Reuters went on to report that, “In a speech on the Senate floor, McConnell did not acknowledge Biden as president-elect nor his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, as vice president-elect. The Republican also took a swipe at media outlets that called the election for Biden, saying “ ‘the Constitution gives no role in this process to wealthy media corporations.’ ”Kudos to Senator McConnell for refusing to give credence to seditious Press and media reports that treat the 2020 election like it's done deal. It isn't. And the Press and media are doing a disservice to treat this most serious matter as if Biden is the President-Elect Joe Biden. He isn't. He's nothing of the sort. The Press and Biden can fume all they want over Trump's rebuff of Biden's their desire to see Biden receive daily intelligence briefings. But, there is a very good legal reason to preclude Biden from receiving these, quite apart from concerns whether he is a person who should be trusted to deal with the Nation's foreign policies anyway. For, if Trump were to deign to allow Biden access to those briefings, that act would defeat the President's contesting of the results of the election. It would amount to conceding that Biden won the 2020 election and is entitled to the designation, President-Elect. Of course, the U.S. Senate would still have to certify Biden as having won the election and that would only follow on the Electors of the States meeting in D.C. to cast formal votes. But, the concession on the part of Trump would result in immediate challenge to the import of the President's lawsuits. So, under no circumstances should Trump agree to allow Biden to receive daily intelligence briefings. And this brings us to ex-President George W. Bush, who coming out of the woodwork, offered his own two cents about election fraud, which amounts to as much vacuous blather as do the noxious, incessant news and media accounts. ABC Affiliate KTSP reports:“Former President George W. Bush says the American people ‘can have confidence that this election was fundamentally fair, its integrity will be upheld, and its outcome is clear.’ He says in a statement that ‘no matter how you voted, your vote counted.’  And Bush says President Donald Trump has the right to request recounts and pursue legal challenges, with any unresolved issues to be ‘properly adjudicated.’ Bush says now is the time when ‘we must come together for the sake of our families and neighbors, and for our nation and its future.’ Bush says he's spoken with Joe Biden and thanked the president-elect for what Bush says was ‘the patriotic message’ in Biden's national address on Saturday night after being declared the election winner.’ ”Bush says in a statement that while he and Biden have political differences, the former president says he knows Biden to be a good man who has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country.”Ahh, yes, George W. Bush “knows Biden to be a good man who has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country” in the same way no doubt that Bush himself has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country: throwing our Nation headlong into a multi-trillion dollar cluster-f**k in the Middle East that we have yet to extricate ourselves from, and then sending our Nation into the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression of the 1930s. One good man to another; indeed!Recall that it was Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, who was successfully unwinding the mess that Bush and the Neocons created and embroiled us in. In fact, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton only worsened the situation in the Middle East by extending the Middle East conflagration to Libya. And Donald Trump really did a better job improving the U.S. economy than did Barack Obama. See Bloomberg Quint report. Sure, the economy tanked, as did the economies of the rest of the world, and we can all thank the Chinese Communist Government of Xi Jinping for that. Whether the unleashing of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus plague on our Nation and on the rest of the world was the result of negligence, gross negligence, reckless indifference, or willful, intentional malice amounting to an outright act of war, the resulting devastation to our economic life, and to the physical and emotional life and wellbeing of the individuals, cannot and ought not be laid at the feet of President Trump even as the seditious Press and the insufferable Democrat Party leadership and many of its members consciously, unconscionably do just that, giving the Chinese Government a pass all the while, blaming Trump for all of it. One must wonder about that. And, now we have George W. Bush, gushing all over Joe Biden. Does his pronouncements concerning the manner in which this 2020 election has been handled to date inspire confidence? Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? It shouldn't. If anything, the remarks of this Skull and Bones member Globalist warmonger should set off alarm bells. His condescending tone alone should anger any adult American. Condescension is the hallmark of the Globalist elites when talking to, or about, anyone who isn't one of them, part of their select club. They can't help themselves in reverting to form when talking to the Hoi Polloi. Condescension, patronizing airs is in their nature. Biden will unify nothing. Hell his Party has spent four solid years deliberately tearing the Nation apart, insidiously and maliciously and diabolically creating the impetus and climate for the divisions and divisiveness that have constantly beset our Country up to this very moment. That won't change if the U.S. Senate does certify this man; and, with Harris, waiting expectantly, impatiently in the wings, a person even worse than Joe Biden, a true sociopath, who has as much compassion for her fellow Americans as one might find in a jumping cholla cactus. Between the lines of his remarks, Bush is saying to Americans, the jig is up. No more pretense; none is necessary:“You, Americans, have lost your war of independence. It just took we, transnationalist elites, 144 years to wrap it all up. It has been a hard fought battle. Granted you have given us a run for our money. But it's over. The Counterrevolution has succeeded. The Nation is no longer yours. Accept this or face the dire consequences of your intransigence and stubbornness.”The same disingenuous, at best, desultory words, calling for unity, are echoed in the recent speeches of Biden as concocted by his handlers. This 2020 election should raise the concern of tens of millions of Americans who voted for President Trump's election. What Americans today bear witness too is on an order of magnitude far greater than anything that has transpired in and confronted the electorate during the 2000 Bush/Gore election fiasco.We Americans are facing right here, right now, not just a coup attempt, but the final blow to our Nation's Government: the coup d'état.

IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT OF OUR COUNTRY TO BE SALVAGED FROM THE DESTRUCTORS OF IT?

It is singularly odd  that Republicans would pick up several seats in the House and remain on a knife's edge in the Senate yet lose the Presidency. Of course, Republicans still do not control the House, and they may yet lose control of the Senate. Still, the idea that Republicans would gain seats in the House if Trump truly did lose the election doesn’t make sense. For it suggests that Republican voters would wish to destroy Trump’s Presidency, which would lead to a complete reversal in his policies, but at the same time somehow think that they will still be able, somehow, to salvage some of those policies in Congress if they happen to retain control of the Senate and increase their seats in the House.  The NY Times says this is perfectly reasonable; that Republicans are merely hedging their bets. Really? What does that even mean? What it means is that Bush era Republicans, along with Democrats, both wish to get back to the agenda that their Billionaire Globalist benefactors had laid out for them: inexorable dissolution of our Country as an independent sovereign nation-state; and this means the eventual merging of the remains of our Nation into a one-world Government. The EU is the Globalists’ blueprint for that eventuality.

WILL TRUMP ULTIMATELY BE FORCED TO CAPITULATE OR WILL HE FIGHT COME WHAT MAY?

This much we do know as of the posting of this article: Trump’s legal team has filed several lawsuits in a number of States and is preparing to bring his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. But what can the Supreme Court truly do to thwart a concerted effort by devious forces that have worked long and hard on removing Trump from Office? Their dubious election tactics and strategies for pushing a feeble Joe Biden across the finish line may have likely succeeded. And that is fine for many Americans.Keep in mind that the psyche of many average middle-class and upper-middle class Americans who voted for the Biden/Harris ticket has been softened through years of quiet, constant, inexorable psychological conditioning. They honestly believe Trump’s Presidency represents nothing more than an anomaly, an aberration, a quirk, an oddity, a momentary digression; that a Biden/Harris Administration will represent a return to normalcy. But is that true? What does that purported return to “normalcy” portend?Is it rather not the case that 15 years of this Country suffering under the Administrations of Bill Clinton, two Bushes, and Barack Obama, have given many Americans the illusion of normalcy, of normality, even as these Americans have seen the slow dismantling of the Country; have slowly seen our Country turning away from its sacred roots. Do they not realize that what they have taken to be normal—fifteen years of foreign and domestic policy that has severely weakened this Nation—has been something decidedly and decisively abnormal?Of course most Americans have realized what was occurring, and they were deeply concerned, seeing the slow dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic. That is why they voted for Trump in the first place. The selection of Trump was then no anomaly. It was no aberration. The idea that the Trump years amounts to an anomaly, an aberration is simply a fiction drummed up by the Press, to once again hoodwink Americans into believing that the years prior to Trump, under his immediate predecessors were normal when in fact they were not.Trump may be perceived as a spoiler by some. But, if so, he was a spoiler that the electorate wanted; that the electorate demanded; that the Nation required: a man who had turned our trajectory back toward its sacred roots, back to normalcy and normality, not away from that, contrary to what the seditious Press, incessantly propagandizing to the masses, has continually pumped into the public’s mind.If Trump loses this election, whether by hook or by crook, what may America expect from Biden and Harris once they take over the Executive Branch of our Government?We provide a glimpse of this, and it illustrates the enormity of our loss; demonstrating, irrefutably, that, what these two and their puppet-master have in mind for our Country is dangerous, poisonous to the security of a free State and one that, despite what some Republican Senators and Representatives have to say, will not be capable of undoing.A few months of the horror of what has befallen our Country is only a foretaste of what Americans can expect. Below, we recite a few more of the changes that a Biden/Harris Administration would bring:

• A flurry of executive orders reversing Trump’s policies
• Rapprochement with China, clinching China’s geopolitical, economic, and military superiority over the United States
• Open Borders. Millions of migrants will flood into our Nation, looking for and expecting, even demanding America welfare assistance
• Trafficking in drugs and sex will grow frequent and uncontrolled
• Crime will run rampant and unchecked through our States, Cities, and towns as prosecutors refuse to prosecute crimes, and the prisons around the Country are emptied of inmates. Riots will not decrease. They will increase. The public will be in a constant state of agitation and fear. This will all be by design.
• The New York Times 1619 Project, to undercut our history, traditions, and core values will become part of the core curriculum in our Nation’s schools.
• Laws enabling Abortion on demand, up to the very moment of birth, will be lawful throughout the Nation. The U.S. Supreme Court will not be able to handle the caseload.
• We will see a resumption of hostilities in the Middle East, along with new escapades in Africa. Defense Contractors will have a field day. Trump’s foreign policy successes will be erased.
• Debilitating tax hikes will be levied on all Americans regardless of income level to cover the resumption of extraordinarily large payments to support NATO; and to support free public college; and to support Medicare for all; and to support the costs of the “Green New Deal,” among other costly Government programs
• Robert Reich’s “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” will be established
• The Right of free speech will be severely curtailed
• The Right of the people to keep and bear arms will be further whittled away to enlarge the number of banned firearms; and to enlarge the domain of individuals who are forbidden to own and possess them; and to place further draconian restrictions on those individuals whom the Government does permit to own and to possess firearms
• Likely a Commission will be established to consider ways to degrade the Electoral College; and to consider statutory changes that impact the import and purport of the Constitution as written
• Resumption of Globalization efforts with the signing of the TPP and other treaties that benefit the multinational corporations but that harm small business and our workers
• Citizenship will be granted to all individuals who come under the purview of DACA, and naturalization laws will be rewritten to allow anyone who seeks to immigrate to the U.S. to be allowed to do so
• The Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations will be implemented, paving the way for a Socialism
• Attempts “to pack” the U.S. Supreme Court
• Expand voting rights in federal elections to younger Americans, to convicted felons, and to illegal aliens
• Attempts at Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
• Many State and local police departments will continue to be defunded; federal regulations will be promulgated to override State control over their own police departments
• The Durham Investigation Report will never see the light of day, and high-ranking Government officials that should be indicted and would likely be indicted if Trump served a second term in Office, will never be brought to justice
• The FBI and Intelligence apparatuses will continue to be politicized.
• Political Dissent will be crushed under the auspices of governing “hate speech”
• The U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be disbanded or otherwise severely curtailed, leaving our Nation open to millions of people, including dangerous criminals
• A new Joseph McCarthy era will spring up, this one directed to attacks against and ostracization political and social conservatives

A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC PRESERVED OR A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC WELL LOST?

Biden is incapable of rational decision-making. Both he and the Press refer to him as this political “moderate.” But in truth he is neither a political moderate nor political liberal. No political leaning can be ascribed to him both given his nature and his present infirmities.Biden has neither the intellect nor the fortitude for occupying the seat of the Chief Executive of the Nation. Americans must resist this last gambit of the forces that would crush our Nation and its people into submission.Congress has failed us; and many Americans have been hoodwinked. Don’t believe for a minute that a Republican Senate majority will be able to withstand the rabid forces unleashed by a Biden/Harris Presidency and a House of Representatives still in the hands of Pelosi. And there is no assurance that Mitch McConnel will still be the Senate Majority Leader. As of this writing, the Senate is still up for grabs.The Third Branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court, is our last refuge; our best hope to set matters aright. That may very well be the best and most sustainable of Trump’s legacy. But the Biden/Harris Administration and a sympathetic and compliant Congress may negate the ability of the Third Branch of Government to preserve a free Constitutional Republic and the fundamental rights of the American people.We fervently hope and pray that Trump’s legal challenges will prove successful and his Presidency saved. For that will ensure a critically important reprieve for our people, our Constitution, our sacred rights and liberties, and our free Republic. Trump is a fighter. And, we, who support him, in defense of our free Republic, must be prepared to be fighters, too.With a full complement of Justices on the High Court, and, hopefully, with enough Justices who truly seek to render decisions consistent with the Constitution as written, as the framers clearly intended, our Nation may just yet be spared the  worst threat to its existence since its birth on July 4, 1776. But we fear that won’t be enough. The Globalist and Marxist Counterrevolution may have already succeeded to wipe away our Nation.One is reminded of the 1939 Classic Film, “Gone with the Wind.”The Confederacy died but the Union survived. Yet, the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites and the Marxist Globalists and Anarchists seek an end to the Union as well. They have made that plain enough. It isn't National unity they seek; that is another bald-faced lie. What they promise is what they have been delivering: further strife, disorder, chaos. They mean to destroy those of us who do not bow to the new transnational order.Perhaps the salient question to ask as we head into 2021 is this: Will there be enough patriots around to keep the vision of our founders true? Dare we say that Americans keep their firearms close at hand and their ammunition at the ready. Be ever vigilant in these ominous, harrowing times, for “Here, There, Everywhere, There Be Tygers, Lurking and Ready to Pounce on the Unwary!” _________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TRUMP MAKES GOOD ON 2016 CAMPAIGN PROMISES AND HAS EARNED A SECOND TERM

An old adage goes, “There are Promises and there are Promises.” The import of what would otherwise be a banal assertion is clear: there are sincere promises and there are insincere promises.Every Presidential Candidate makes promises and pledges while on the campaign trail. Are those promises and pledges made in earnest? Are they made half-heartedly? Or are they outright lies?Has a U.S. Presidential candidate equivocated or attempted to deceive the public outright concerning his or her policy objectives? These are critical questions. The measure of a man proceeds from the words he utters and the actions he takes.The public learns whether a person is a truthteller or a liar once that person become President, and can then judge the measure of a man, whether he is a man of integrity.No Presidential candidate should make promises he has no intention of fulfilling. But suppose a President does try to make good on a promise he made while on the campaign trail but fails to accomplish it when in Office?If a President tries to make good on a campaign promise but fails when he should have succeeded—which is to say he failed because incompetent—then he should be faulted for it.But, if a President enters Office with no intention of fulfilling his pledge—which is to say he lied to the electorate that voted him into Office on the promises he made—that is disgraceful, and he should be roundly condemned for it. How does Trump measure up during his first term in Office?In looking back at Donald Trump’s first term in Office, comparing the promises he made on the campaign trail with his accomplishments, we see that Donald Trump was never insincere. He never made a promise he didn’t fully intend to keep. That is not to say he was able to fulfill all of his promises, but he was always aboveboard about his intentions. That says much about why Congressional Democrats, Bush Republicans, the Deep State Bureaucracy, the mainstream seditious Press, the Radical Left intelligentsia, Big Tech, the Banks, and Wall Street, never wanted him in Office in the first place. It wasn’t that they thought Trump had lied to the electorate about what he sought to accomplish. Rather, they took him at his word as well they should. They didn’t like what they heard and didn’t like that he intended to make good on his word, and that, for the most part, did. The many forces aligned against Trump became agitated, frustrated, enraged when they couldn’t dissuade him and, attempted, at the very outset of his first term, to thwart his efforts at every turn.Below we look at a few of the major promises Trump made; those he kept and those he has tried to keep, despite fervent and fervid efforts of obstreperous, ruthless, powerful forces aligned against him.We point out, first, that Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is not mere puffery or wishful thinking. The slogan encapsulates Trump’s salient policy objective, grounded on the fact and supportive of the present reality that the United States is—and in accordance with the U.S. Constitution—is meant to remain an independent sovereign nation-state. This means that, when weighing the import of specific policy goals, Trump considers first and foremost the extent to which those policies benefit our Nation primarily, not secondarily to the wishes of Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists.The slogan “Make America Great Again” is an anathema to the Radical Left and Progressives because it is antithetical to their goal of a one world Government: one devoid of nation-states. Understandably, the mainstream, lamestream seditious Press, in league with Globalist forces, perceives the slogan, “Make America Great Again,” and its acronym “MAGA,” to be emblems of defiance. They treat them like obscenities, encouraging the ignorant rabble to verbally and even physically assault those Americans who dare utter the words or dare, as they perceive it, to flaunt those Trumpian symbols.Other recent Presidents—Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—subordinated America’s needs and concerns to those of the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists. The electorate saw this and, after fifteen years, seeing the Nation dispirited and on the verge of utter ruination, had more than enough of it, and voted an outsider; a Populist who extolled, did not apologize for America’s Greatness, America’s Nationalist spirit and fervor. And Trump, for his part, for the most part, did not disappoint the electorate. He has earned a second term in Office.

PROMISES MADE; PROMISES KEPT

• Trump made clear during his first run for the U.S. Presidency that he would veto Obama’s secretive Globalist Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty (TPP), and likely intended to veto the equally horrid European Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Trump knew these Neoliberal Globalist trade agreements would do nothing positive for the United States, its small businesses, or its labor force; but would further ravage our economy, devastate our small businesses and work force, and subvert our legal system, effectively reducing the U.S. to the status of pawn of the Neoliberal Globalist elites; leading us inexorably, inevitably down the path to the destruction of our sovereign, independent Nation State and to the subjugation of our Nation’s citizenry. Trump made good on his promise to scuttle this ignoble, seditious attempt to undermine our Nation’s economy and sovereignty. See January 23, 2017 Fox News Report.

• During his first run for the U.S. Presidency, Trump told the electorate that he would renegotiate NAFTA which had been a debilitating legacy and relic from the Bill Clinton era. Trump made good on his promise, replacing NAFTA, in 2019, with the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA. Even the Congressional Democrat Party leadership realized Trump had, with the USMCA, brokered a much better deal for Americans. See report by WRCBtv and report by the Washington Examiner. But the Democrat Speaker of the House, Nancy, Pelosi would only admit Trump's success grudgingly, attempting to take credit for it herself, as reported by Fox Business.

• Trump made border enforcement a mainstay of his campaign. See Politifact report. Although the Press has long derided Trump for claiming to make Mexico pay for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, the salient issue is whether Trump intended to make good on his promise to strengthen border enforcement—something his predecessors either lied about or failed miserably at. Bloomberg.com acknowledges that Trump did intend to build a wall and that he has proceeded diligently on that task, no easy thing. The task has been made all the more difficult by Congressional Democrats who have thrown obstacles in Trump’s path. Apart from specific construction of a Border wall, Trump has made protection of our Southern Border with Mexico a substantial part of his domestic policy initiative. Border wall construction is not to be construed as something important for its own sake, but should be understood as critical in the broader context of national security.  An effective wall on our Southern Border helps protect the Nation from the scourge of illegal drug and sex trafficking, and is also responsive to the burden and menace posed by millions of poverty-stricken, often disease ridden, uneducated illegal aliens, marching enmass to our Country, demanding to be let in; looking for Government largess, all at taxpayer expense. Trump, more so than any other President, has promised to implement and has , true to his word, implemented broad strategies to secure and maintain the integrity of our Nation’s borders. This has been no easy task given constant blowback from a seditious Press; from Congressional Democrats; and from the Chamber of Commerce, who see, in these continuous, and massive illegal migrant waves—cheap labor, a new indentured servant class, and, for Democrats, a new voter bloc, easily manipulated and controlled, responsive to the Democrat Party leadership's every wish, enabling Democrats to maintain control of Government in perpetuity.

• Trump promised to reinvigorate the manufacturing base in our Country, bringing back jobs to our Nation that has been ravaged by years of Neoliberal Globalist policy. The seditious Press claims that Trump has overstated his pro-growth accomplishments on that front; asserting, disingenuously and erroneously that Obama did a better job. But Forbes points out that Trump’s pro-growth policies have been successful; more so than anything Obama and the Democrats claim to have accomplished. An important clue of the success of Trump's policies over those of Obama is found in Forbes article assertion that President Obama merely created more Government jobs. Government jobs do little to sustain economic growth. President Trump, though, created more private sector jobs, which are a much better indicator of economic progress and sustainability. This is a  point that Democrats don't care to acknowledge, as they merely emphasize number of jobs created, deliberately ignoring the nature and quality of the jobs created: private sector employment versus public sector employment. Productivity gains are realized in the private sector, not in Government, the latter of which is characterized more by monetary waste and bloat.

• During the 2016 Campaign, Trump stated and reiterated his strong stand on the Second Amendment. Truth to tell, Trump’s support of the Second Amendment has been a mixed bag. See Ballotpedia.  Trump’s action on bump-stocks is abhorrent, and his assertions on National concealed handgun reciprocity, duplicitous. See Arbalest Quarrel Article posted December 31, 2018. The best that can be said is that Trump hasn’t denigrated the right of the people to keep and bear arms and hasn’t tried to subvert the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Democrats, on the other hand have made clear their absolute loathing of guns and gun possession. They have said, unabashedly and shamelessly, that they will do whatever they can to hurry the demise of the Second Amendment if they hold onto the House, gain control of the Senate, and are able to secure the Presidency. In that light Trump’s position on the Second Amendment certainly looks good when juxtaposed point by point with the Democrat Party’s stances, assertions, and actions which, admittedly, isn’t saying much. Still, if a bill to strengthen the Second Amendment came to Trump’s desk, there is no reason to believe he wouldn’t sign it into law.

• Trump promised to get tough on China, to protect our Nation's interests, unlike his predecessors, and he has done so. See CNBC report, and he has done so, imposing crippling tariffs on China. See China Briefing. Some economists attack Trump for this, arguing his policies are simply embroiling our Nation in an oppressive trade war. But Trump’s hard-edged economic stance on China is long overdue. China is a geopolitical and military rival. Trump is the first President to push back hard China. Previous Presidents have simply capitulated to China. Trump hasn’t done that, and will not do so. China’s “Belt and Road” Initiative is a clear threat to our survival as a Nation, and Trump's hard line toward China cuts deeply into their ambitious plan for economic, military, and geopolitical superiority over the U.S. and the rest of the world. A Biden Presidency cannot possibly be tough on China, as Joe Biden and his family, long involved in racketeering influence peddling, having raked in tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from China, are so thoroughly compromised by China, that, far from representing our Nation's interests, a Biden administration would capitulate to China, endangering the very security of our Nation.

• Trump promised to repeal and replace the ACA (Obamacare). Much depends on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the ACA. Trump has not gone back on his word to get rid of the ACA, which the Democrats see as an attack on a thing they consider to be among their great achievements. Indeed the liberal Brookings Institute slams Trump for his actions on the ACA. But the price tag of Obamacare is enormous; amounting to a tremendous waste of money to keep it functioning. It serves very few Americans, at best, and, at worst, severely cuts into Medicare for seniors and subverts the quality of healthcare for every American. See The Motley Fool report.

• Trump promised to rescind Obama’s horrible Iran deal as it served merely to appease Iran and play Americans for fools. Trump has made good on his promise. He has played hardball with Iran. Obama merely capitulated to Iran, which is reprehensible and no less incomprehensible, given our Nation’s obvious economic superiority over Iran and incomparable military strength. Iran doesn’t even merit rational consideration on either score. See Jewish Journal commentary. Moreover, Trump’s Middle East policy has helped to stabilize the entire region. Bush and Obama created a mess for Americans at the cost of several trillion dollars, over two decades, with the incommensurable loss of American lives. Even the mainstream seditious NY Times felt compelled, if only grudgingly, to admit that Trump’s foreign policy has met with success.  See also commentary from the Federalist. 

• Trump promised to cut taxes and he has fulfilled this 2016 campaign promise. But is this to be seen as a good thing or bad thing? Forbes says it is something of a mixed bag. 

• The New York Times has quoted Trump as saying, back in 2016, that “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people and I don’t, frankly, have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time, either.”  This may not seem like something to be seen as a campaign promise, but, in light of recent events, when Americans see the Nation being torn apart by roving, ravaging bands of Marxists and Anarchists, while Democrats ignore or actively encourage the destruction of our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values, it is refreshing, to hear someone push back against this  bizarre phenomenon of political correctness. 

• During his 2016 campaign, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump promised sweeping deregulation of natural-gas, oil and coal production as part of an “America-first energy” plan and he has worked tirelessly to accomplish the goal of energy independence. This included a general plan to reduce a bloated bureaucracy.

• Trump promised to nominate to the federal Courts and U.S. Supreme Court, judges and justices who were counted on to preserve and strengthen the U.S. Constitution as written, and not decide cases with the intent to rewrite the Constitution to cohere with purported modern-day international constructs inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. And, the seditious Press does at least acknowledge that Trump made good on this promise. The leftist USA Today newspaper writes, “One of President Donald Trump's key promises during the 2016 campaign was nominating conservative judges to the nation's highest court. He's delivered resoundingly on that pledge. With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death  of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Trump has become the first president since Richard Nixon to name three judges to the nation's highest court during a first term. Barrett joins Neil M. Gorsuch, who was confirmed in 2017 to fill the seat of the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, and Brett M. Kavanaugh, confirmed in 2018 to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a conservative who often acted as swing vote on the court.” Trump was also responsible for a significant number of nominations to the lower federal Courts, as pointed out by the liberal Brookings Institution. 

• Perhaps no better barometer exists of a President’s concern for his Country than the interest he shows for the well-being of our Nation’s military. Previous Presidents have been derelict in their treatment of our military as witnessed by the sorry state of our VA Hospitals. Under President Obama’s watch, a scandal ensued when it was learned that veterans died while waiting for health care. This is reprehensible. As reported by Fox News, President Trump fulfilled his 2016 campaign promise to reform the sorry state of our VA Hospitals. Fox News writes, “President Trump . . . signed Veterans Affairs reform legislation meant to protect whistleblowers while making it easier to fire problematic employees at the department. The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act passed by Congress earlier this month streamlines the process to remove, demote, or suspend VA employees for poor performance or misconduct. In addition, it authorizes the VA secretary to recoup any bonuses awarded to employees who have acted improperly. “Veterans have fulfilled their duty to this nation and now, we must fulfill our duty to them,” Trump said. “So to every veteran who is here with us today, I just want to say two very simple words, thank you.” Under the new law, protections for whistleblowers will be expanded and the VA will be prevented from dismissing an employee who has an open complaint against the department. The bill was prompted by the 2014 scandal at the Phoenix medical center where patients died while waiting for health care. “What happened was a national disgrace and yet, some of the employees involved in these scandals remained on the payrolls,” Trump said. “Outdated laws kept the government from holding those who failed our veterans accountable.” On the campaign trail, Trump called the VA, the government’s second-largest department, the “most corrupt” and “most incompetently run agency in the United States.” The legislation helps Trump follow through on a 2016 campaign promise. He said at the signing that the law represents one of the biggest reforms to the VA in a generation and promised even more changes – “until the job is done.”

• During the 2016 campaign, Trump also made clear his intention to strengthen the military and to make NATO pay its fair share, as reported by the Military Times, quoting Trump: “After the Cold War our foreign policy veered badly off course," he told a Washington, D.C., crowd just hours after another sizable primary win the previous evening. "As time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which led to one foreign policy disaster after another. "Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. No vision. No purpose. No direction. No strategy." Trump's own outline was billed as a broad overview of his general philosophy on international relations and security, and stayed away from specifics on spending and diplomatic moves. . . . One of the few specifics he did offer was in criticism of President Obama's military spending strategy, which he repeatedly tied to the policies of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. "Our active-duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today," he said. "The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. The Air Force is about one-third smaller than 1991. Pilots flying B-52s in combat missions today. These planes are older than virtually everybody in this room." The solution, he said, is ensuring that the military is "funded beautifully" but also added "we will look for savings and spend our money wisely." That includes not just the Pentagon but also "our trade, immigration and economic policies to make our economy strong again." Trump also chastised NATO allies for not spending enough on their own defense forces, vowing to make them accept their fair share of the expense and responsibility." 

WILL THE UNITED STATES CONTINUE TO EXIST AS A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?

Americans are faced with sharply defined choices in the upcoming election. Two visions for our Country are on the table, but only one of the two visions is possible.Trump represents the Country in the form the founders bequeathed it to us, a free Constitutional Republic, grounded on a set of fundamental, natural rights, guaranteeing the sovereignty of the American people, and the continued independence of our Nation.Biden represents Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, both of whom believe that the concept of independent nation-states is an archaic concept that has outlived its usefulness. Both Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists seek an end to our Nation and its submergence into a one world system of governance, requiring uniformity in thought and conduct; subjugation and penury.Will Americans remain in control of their destiny or will they relinquish that control to Government bureaucrats who are themselves controlled by a small group of Neoliberal Globalists mega-billionaires, dictating how Americans should live, and think and behave; and confiscating our vast resources of capital, labor, and military, along with our non-renewable natural resources for their own illegitimate, personal, sordid, selfish purposes.The differences in vision could not be starker.Unfortunately, the Press has brainwashed the masses who believe, erroneously, that Trump is such a threat to democracy that they are willing to place their bet on anyone else, regardless of who it is and what they have to offer. Many Americans fail to see the truth before them: A Country torn apart at the seams; an orchestrated scheme of the Marxists and Globalists to destroy our Nation.The Press refers to Biden as the “moderate,” a voice of reason, who will bring the Nation together. It is all sham. How many have been taken in by it by the ruse? Americans and the world will soon learn which vision of America prevails: one aimed at preserving a system that has served the Nation and its people well for over two hundred years and has made us the envy of the world; and the other aimed at the destruction of the Nation, grounded on the lie that this Country is not so great and never was; that the Country is not worth preserving, and that there is something positive to be gained through the Nation’s destruction and immersion into a new and ostensibly “grander” political, social, economic, and cultural world community scheme.

_____________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT IS THE TAKEAWAY FROM JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT’S CONFIRMATION HEARING?

AN ARBALEST QUARREL PERSPECTIVE

Liberal and Radical Left media sources made much of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s failure, as they perceived it, to respond candidly and honestly to questions thrown at her by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats during her confirmation hearing.The Progressive news source, The American Independent, for one, said this:“Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer 95 questions posed to her by members of the committee.In declining, she repeatedly referred to the words spoken by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her own confirmation hearing in 1993: ‘A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.’” Notwithstanding the words of the late liberal-wing leader of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the seditious Press concluded that, while they would gladly dismiss the late Associate Justice’s own reticence, they were loath to absolve Judge Barrett for doing the same, attempting, lamely, to draw a distinction between Justice Ginsburg's justifiable hesitation to discuss the specifics of a particular case, and Judge Barrett's demonstrating a similar restraint.MSN news, had this to say about Judge Barrett’s responses Senate Democrat Committee members’ questions designed to commit Judge Barrett to taking a particular stand on Constitutional issues.“During a nearly 12-hour question-and-answer session, Judge Barrett evaded Democratic senators’ attempts to pin down her views on the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, gay marriage, and a possible election-related case. She played down her history of taking conservative stances in legal writings and personal statements, arguing that she might view issues differently as a sitting justice. ‘I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that,’ she told the Senate Judiciary Committee on her second day of confirmation hearings. ‘I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.’. . . Judge Barrett’s refusal to discuss specific cases or commit to recusing from particular matters was in line with a decades-old playbook used by Supreme Court nominees to avoid giving substantive answers during confirmation hearings. But her attempts to deflect such questions were more conspicuous than usual, given how explicit Mr. Trump has been about how he would want his nominees to rule.” Huh? Judge Barrett's attempts to deflect questions were more conspicuous than the late Associate Justice Ginsburg's deflecting of questions?The mainstream seditious Press dares to suggest that Judge Amy Barrett’s justifiable wariness to being pinned down—and therefore, thereafter, constrained—were she to give categorical responses to matters of Constitutional dimension amounts to a disturbing lack of candor on her part, if not outright insolence. This is a conscious, unconscionable attempt to malign Judge Barrett.But Judge Barrett needn't assert and, in fact, shouldn’t assert how she would decide legal issues before the fact. Indeed, how could she? Activist jurists, of course, do so all the time as the public knows full well. Reflect, for a moment, if you will, on any one of a plethora of decisions handed down by activist Judges on Second Amendment and immigration matters. Activist judges almost invariably prejudge cases that come before them. They work backward from their decision to the central issue, constructing premises along the way, designed to cohere with the decision they have already made.But a methodical, meticulous, jurist, such as Judge Barrett, is perspicacious, not judgmental.Judge Barrett carefully analyzes a case; draws her inferences therefrom; and comes to a purposeful, informed, well-considered decision, never a spontaneous one. As Judge Barrett has demonstrated through her dissenting opinion in the Second Amendment Kanter case, she applies sound logical reasoning before rendering a decision. See Arbalest Quarrel article. And Judge Barrett complies with, is devoted to, and pays assiduous, diligent, and laborious attention to firmly established jurisprudential doctrinal methodology, a methodology grounded in strict adherence to the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution as written, consistent with and faithful to the intention of the framers of it. In this way—and only in this way—can a jurist know that he or she is protecting the fundamental, natural, rights and liberties and sovereignty of the citizenry, and preserving a free Constitutional Republic.Of course, ruthless elements both here and abroad want none of that. They have made clear an intention to tear down our Republic, erase our history and traditions, destroy our sacred rights and liberties, and undercut our Judeo-Christian ethic and faith in a loving Divine Creator. And they have been assiduously, seditiously at work and, now, openly rewriting the U.S. Constitution to cohere with a weakened Nation, a subjugated, subservient citizenry, and a bloated Government subordinated to the will and dictates of the EU and Xi Jinping's China.These ruthless elements, through their puppets—Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee—do not want a jurist on the High Court who happens to appreciate, and who esteems, and who cherishes the U.S. Constitution as written. They want a jurist who does the bidding of Democrats in Congress, thereby turning the Court into an adjunct of the Legislature and of the ignorant mobocracy among the polity who obediently obey the commands of their taskmasters as conveyed to them through incessant, noxious propaganda.The Democrat Party lackeys of China and of secretive Billionaire Globalists are, understandably, upset with Judge Barrett, sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court; as she is a person “who will not get with the game plan,” who will not pay homage to them and who will not defer to their wishes. That is something they cannot and will not abide.Judge Barrett has made abundantly clear to all who would pay note, that she is a person of integrity, both in her personal conduct and in her role as a jurist. She has made clear that, as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, she will never interpose her personal predilections in the judicial decision making process. She hasn't done so as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and she would not do so as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. How can the American public be certain of this?It is through the methodology employed in deciding cases that the full measure of a jurist can be accurately, adequately deduced. And, on that score, Judge Barrett has been honest, forthright, and open, and, on the methodology she employs in deciding cases, she has been completely candid. That should give Americans—who, as with Judge Barrett, cherish a free Constitutional Republic, who cherish the U.S. Constitution as written, and who cherish our natural, fundamental rights and liberties, as bestowed on and in man, etched into man's very being by a loving Creator—the necessary, requisite assurances that Judge Barrett qua Associate Justice Barrett will never betray the Constitution and will always remain true to our sacred, natural, fundamental rights and liberties.  This of course drives the Destructors of our Nation into a psychotic rage as they have other plans for our Nation, for our Constitution, and for our people; and they have not been shy about what those plans portend. If these Destructors can deceive enough Americans to vote for the so-called “moderate” Joe Biden and if they are able to take control of the United States Senate, then all is lost. The American electorate must see to it that this doesn’t happen.___________________________________________________________

JUDGE BARRETT'S METHODOLOGY FOR DECIDING CASES EXPLAINED

Unlike activist lower Court Judges and liberal-wing High Court Justices who routinely affirm legislative enactments they find palatable, couching their personal predilections in convoluted legalese, rubber-stamping unconstitutional government action, Judge Barrett—soon to be Justice Barrett if all goes well—stated clearly, unequivocally, and categorically that she does not and would not render judgment on the basis of personal bias for or against a particular statute. And, from the cases she has heard and opined upon as a Judge, sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and from her academic writings, Americans can rest secure in the knowledge that Judge Barrett, will remain true to the written word of the U.S. Constitution and to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.Judge Barrett grounds her decisions on legal and judicial considerations alone, not on legislative policy considerations that fall within the purview of legislative bodies, outside the purview of courts.She asks: “Is this legislative enactment consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, as written?” She frames her analysis accordingly, and her decision follows logically from that analysis. Judge Barrett does not ask, nor should she ask: “Does this legislative enactment cohere with prevailing public whim and fancy, fashion and sentiment, shaped and molded by Progressive ideologues with whom I must adhere?”Through Senate Democrat questioning of Judge Barrett, it becomes abundantly clear that Democrats perceive the U.S. Supreme Court not as an independent Third Branch of Government, but merely as an adjunct of the legislature—a body that has no other purpose than to rubber-stamp Congressional enactments—statutory enactments that cohere with international law and norms, superior to the U.S. Constitution and dismissive of and antithetical to our citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties. That is what these Democrats want. That is what they desire from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But that isn’t what they will get once Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to sit on the High Court as Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And that enrages Democrats. And, so, they threaten “to pack the Court” if they are able to gain control of the Executive Branch of Government, along with control of the U.S. Senate.During the Senate confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham, Republican South Carolina, asked Judge Barrett matter-of-factly how she perceives the role of a jurist.Senator Graham's question was a proper and fitting one to ask of a nominee who might sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Judge Barrett welcomed the opportunity to answer the Senator's question, and she was remarkably candid in her response.Senator Graham likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, first, to impress on members of the public—many of whom probably have little comprehension of the specific and appropriate role of a jurist—what the proper role of a jurist is under our Constitutional and jurisprudential framework. And he likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, second, to impress on Senate Democrats who most certainly do comprehend the proper role of a jurist but who desire to impose an improper role on our jurists, that their insinuation that Judge Barrett must do the bidding of Congress—that she owes her soul to the company store, so to speak—is wrong and wrong-headed, for such a role that Senate Democrats demand of our jurists is: one, antithetical to our Nation's Constitutional framework; two, antithetical to our Nation's jurisprudential traditions; and three, antithetical to the separation of powers doctrine. The desire of Senate Democrats to impose their will on judicial nominees was clearly apparent through their long-winded, generally imbecilic monologues and through their impertinent, often insulting queries directed to Judge Barrett. Senate Democrats' insinuation that the U.S. Supreme Court belongs to Congress, and must do the bidding of Congress, is blasphemous. It is dangerous to the well-being of our Nation. It is arrogant in the extreme, and wholly untenable.In response to Senator Graham, Judge Barrett, explained clearly and succinctly: “I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” See, Washington Examiner article, as posted by MSN news.Judge Barrett explained that the framers of our Constitution never meant for the U.S. Supreme Court to operate like Congress, and, more to the point, never intended for the U.S. Supreme Court to take its cue from Congress, advocating for and on behalf of Congress.Congress enacts laws predicated on policy choices. Those policy choices may or may not be consistent with the Constitution. If those policy choices, as reflected in law, are at loggerheads with the textual meaning of the Constitution as the embodiment of the intent of the framers of it, then the Court must step in to overturn the law. That is the solemn duty of an American jurist.That isn’t what activist Judges and Justices do and, so, that isn’t what Senate Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted to hear. They want docile, obedient jurists, answerable to Congress. Their frustration with, resentment of, even anger with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, was painfully evident.They remonstrated over Judge Barrett's refusal to take a definitive stand on pending legal issues and on legal issues apt to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in the future. They insisted that she acquiesce to their absurd policy objectives; demanding that she declare categorical, unequivocal, acceptance of and adherence to their pernicious, horrific Collectivist vision for the Country, one that reduces Americans to subservient cattle. This Collectivist vision is characterized by uniformity in thought and conduct among the masses; dependency on Government largess for one's physical needs; and the deliberate inculcation of confusion and fear in the masses, effectuated through a targeted campaign of systematic predation on the polity that is unable to effectively defend itself because firearms will have been universally banned.It was all on constant, ignominious display throughout the hearing. And through it all Judge Barrett remained noticeably and notably calm but alert; courteous; unruffled; even, at times, convivial. And that must have enraged Senate Democrats even more; their vote against confirming Judge Barrett to a seat on the High Court a foregone conclusion, a vote that Senate Republicans, fortunately, do not or ought not need._______________________________________________

ON THE DOCTRINES OF PRECEDENT AND SUPER-PRECEDENT IN U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE LAW

A legitimate, perceptive question for Judge Barrett—one that has been asked of previous nominees but, was not asked of her, during the hearing, or otherwise was not dealt with in any extensive appreciable way—involves the judicial doctrine of case law Precedent, referred to as Stare Decisis. The Cornell Law School website defines ‘Stare Decisis,’ thus:“Stare decisis is Latin for ‘to stand by things decided.’ In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.” Democrats on the Senate Judiciary though weren't interested in eliciting profound, insightful responses  from Judge Barrett on that score, which they certainly could have obtained had they bothered to ask her to expound upon the the doctrine of stare decisis. Judge Barrett would certainly have been inclined to elaborate on that matter. But, Democrats weren't interested in that or on any other jurisprudential or juridical subject of any real significance. They were only interested in, or mostly interested in, scoring political points to help them get the feeble, frail Joe Biden over the finish line in November, and in maintaining a majority of Democrats in the House, and taking control of the Senate. If successful, that would give them all the power they would ever need "to pack the High Court" with their lackeys, thereby neutralizing Judge Barrett's seat on the Court.So caught up were Senate Democrats in the frenzy of the moment that, what otherwise could have been a profitable, informative confirmation hearing, devolved, by turns, into, one, a harangue against Trump; two, an annoying, uncalled for, insulting accusation that Judge Barrett must be a pawn of the President; three, a demand that Judge Barrett recuse herself on this, that, or the other case that might happen to come before her once she is seated on the High Court; four, incessant odious, presumptuous, recitations of  Democrat Party policy positions that Judge Barrett was compelled to suffer through; five, insulting innuendoes concerning Judge Barrett's private life and personal religious convictions; and, six, an extended, extensive Democrat Party campaign advert in support of the Harris/Biden ticket.During the hearing, Senate Democrats made manifestly and adamantly clear their fervent desire and their firm intention to raise both abortion on demand and the ACA to the level of fundamental rights, and, as if that weren't enough, they audaciously sought Judge Barrett's imprimatur on abortion and the ACA. They never obtained it. Senate Democrats also made abundantly clear their vehement abhorrence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and of their deep-seated, enduring wish to reduce a clear illimitable, immutable, unalienable, fundamental, natural right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—to the status of a mere Governmental privilege, to be bestowed upon and rescinded at the whim of Government bureaucrats.Had someone but troubled to ask Judge Barrett to expound on a paper she had written on the very subject of stare decisis, she would have acknowledged that resolution of Constitutional issues is not always clear-cut, thereby ameliorating, perhaps, some of the harsh criticism leveled against her by Senate Democrats. Then, too, if Senate Democrats devoted more time eliciting critical juridical doctrinal ideas from the nominee and less time delivering heated polemics and exhibiting fits and bursts of histrionics, the confirmation hearing could have been, and likely would have been, much more productive. Alas, they didn't; and, it wasn’t.In her article, written for a symposium on Constitutional disagreement, Judge Barrett laid out her thesis on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, thus:“Over the years, some have lamented the Supreme Court's willingness to overrule itself and have urged the Court to abandon its weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases in favor of a more stringent rule. Stare decisis purports to guide a justice's decision whether to reverse or tolerate error, and sometimes it does that. Sometimes, however, it functions less to handle doctrinal missteps than to mediate intense disagreements between justices about the fundamental nature of the Constitution. Because the justices do not all share the same interpretive methodology, they do not always have an agreed-upon standard for identifying ‘error’ in constitutional cases. Rejection of a controversial precedent does not always mean that the case is wrong when judged by its own lights; it sometimes means that the justices voting to reverse rejected the interpretive premise of the case. In such cases, ‘error’ is a stand-in for jurisprudential disagreement.”A lesser known, quasi-judicial, principle, that of ‘super-precedent,’—was raised by Senate Democrat Amy Klobuchar, but, unfortunately, wasn't pursued. Senator Klobuchar simply brought up the principle to emphasize and to capitalize on a Democrat Party talking point. She wanted to know whether Judge Barrett thought that Roe vs. Wade was so fixed in Supreme Court precedent that it could not or should not be overruled, which is to say that it should be perceived, then, as a super-precedent.Judge Barrett rightfully demurred. The pointed question pertaining to Roe vs. Wade was altogether inappropriate, and Judge Barrett respectfully, but firmly, declined to take the bait.In any event, Roe vs. Wade may be cast in stone as some people see it, but that is no reason to believe its precedential value is beyond reasonable legal dispute.The fact remains that Roe vs. Wade was a bizarre attempt at a judicial “squaring of the circle.” Yet, it was no more than a crude attempt to create a fundamental right out of whole cloth. Still, notwithstanding that some people strenuously and indefatigably, albeit bizarrely, extol that ruling as a thing sacrosanct and inviolate, is not to mean that the ruling carries with it or should carry with it some paramount attribute or weight and must, therefore, never be overruled—only enhanced, if anything, to the point where the murder of a child is lawfully permitted up to the moment of live birth.In fact, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s law on abortion does allow for abortion up to the very moment of birth, contrary to Cuomo’s claims that the new, strengthened, New York law is consistent with Roe vs. Wade. It isn’t. Cuomo is either a liar or ignorant of the import of his own law because the word ‘abortion’ has been excised from the New York Criminal Code. The AQ has explained Cuomo’s duplicity on this issue.On the other hand, in contradistinction to Roe vs. Wade, one might ask if Heller vs. District of Columbia is super-precedent case law. Senate Democrats and other political and social progressives would argue it isn’t, predicated, no doubt, on their abject abhorrence of and repugnance toward firearms and firearms' possession, which raises an aesthetic and/or psychological argument against the Second Amendment, not a pertinent legal one.The critical legal question in Heller was whether the Second Amendment embraces an individual right.The High Court Majority held that the Second Amendment—the Majority Opinion written by the late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia—does embrace an individual right; and that it does so on logical, as well as legal, grounds; for were it not so, then the right codified in it would be reduced to a nullity and there would have been no point to it.Heller, unlike Roe vs. Wade, must, then, be construed as a manifestly super-precedent ruling: a ruling that resists overturning lest irreparable damage be done to the Bill of Rights itself and, no less, to the sovereignty of the American people whose sovereignty is only assured through force of arms; the principal bulwark against the inexorable slide toward and inevitable onset of tyranny.But, assuming arguendo that Heller were to be overruled—something well within the realm of possibility if the Democrats make good their threat “to pack the Court” if they gain control of the Executive and of the Senate, and a Second Amendment case then wended its way to the Court. But, for Heller to be overturned, a High Court majority would be compelled to opine that the original holding was wrong, which is tantamount to saying the Second Amendment has no meaning at all. But Democrats wouldn’t have a problem drawing that conclusion anyway. Yet, it is patently absurd to say the Second Amendment has no import. From a logical point of view, apart from the legal certainty, the Second Amendment does embrace and must embrace an individual right. So the Heller ruling that the Second Amendment codifies an individual right is dead-on correct. This brings us to Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat, Illinois, and to his singularly odd remarks during the hearing. For all that he had to say about firearms, it would have been interesting if he had had the wherewithal to broach the import of, and the historical imperative of the Second Amendment, with Judge Barrett—instead of going on about black powder muzzle-loaders as if he had any idea what he was talking about, anyway. But he didn’t. And that is just as well, for Senator Durbin obviously has no comprehensive knowledge of nor appreciation for the technical characteristics of firearms; nor does he care one whit about the sacred, natural, immutable, unalienable right of the American people to keep and bear them._____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TRUMP EXPECTED TO QUICKLY NOMINATE AND THE SENATE TO QUICKLY CONFIRM NEW SCOTUS JUSTICE

RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS AND MARXISTS IN PANIC MODE

Note to our readers: This is substantive update, September 24, 2020, of article posted on September 22, 2020.“ ‘As worrisome as this conservative court is for progressives right now, it can get a whole lot worse if Trump gets the chance to nominate another justice,’ said Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a liberal group. ‘Justice Ginsburg’s resilience is utterly remarkable, but hoping for her continued good health is not a sufficient strategy for Democrats. We need to rally around the Supreme Court as an issue and win this election.’”Demand Justice, in concert with several other leading liberal groups, recently began a $2 million advertising campaign in key presidential election states trying to persuade voters that the direction of the court will be set for decades in the coming election.” Citation from a New York Times article, published on July 17, 2020, titled, “Ginsburg Says Her Cancer Has Returned, but She’s ‘Fully Able’ to Remain on Court.”  

JUSTICE GINSBURG'S DEATH, SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS, IS AT ONCE TRAGIC AND PROPITIOUS BUT SHOULD COME AS A SURPRISE TO NO ONE

A BIT OF RECENT HISTORY CONCERNING THE LATE JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG

Back in May 2020, the Leftist weblog Politico reported on activist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dire health and what it would mean if anything untoward happened to her before the General election in November:“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hospitalization this week and the looming end of the Supreme Court’s term raise the prospect of yet another prized vacancy for President Donald Trump. And if there is a surprise opening or retirement in the months before the presidential election, GOP senators plan to act on it, despite denying President Barack Obama a Supreme Court seat in an election year.Republicans say they wish Ginsburg a swift recovery and have no inside knowledge of a retirement but are prepared to move if a vacancy presents itself.So in what’s already been the most consequential year for politics in a generation, with a presidential impeachment and a rampaging pandemic, Capitol Hill could get significantly crazier.‘If you thought the Kavanaugh hearing was contentious this would probably be that on steroids,’ said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). ‘Nevertheless, if the president makes a nomination then it’s our responsibility to take it up.’In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said voters should decide in the election which president should choose the next Supreme Court justice because the Senate and White House were controlled by different parties. And in the Trump era, he’s repeatedly asserted that he would fill a vacancy in 2020.McConnell and his allies argue the situation is different because Republicans control both the White House and the Senate. They say that makes the situation far different than when Obama was president and McConnell refused to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland.Democrats acknowledge they could get run over in the next eight months. Supreme Court nominees can now be confirmed by a bare majority after McConnell changed the rules in 2017 to overcome a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia’s successor.”Subsequently, in July of 2020, the public learned that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had been battling aggressive cancer for years, had a flare-up. CNBC reported,“ ‘Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital early Tuesday morning,’ the Supreme Court said. ‘She is being treated for a possible infection.‘The Justice is resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment,’ said court spokesperson Kathleen Arberg in a statement Tuesday. . . .’ Ginsburg has survived colon cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer 10 years after that. She was treated for a tumor on her pancreas in August 2019. And in December 2018, she had two cancerous nodules removed from her lungs.”  Recall that, in January, 2020 Ginsburg announced, as reported in health line, referring to an interview she gave to CNN, that she is “cancer-free.” Eight months later Ruth Bader Ginsburg was dead,* as reported by numerous news sources. And, with the death of Justice Ginsburg, one and a half months before the most important U.S. Presidential election in recent decades—and conceivably the most important election since the founding of the Nation—the worst fears of the malevolent, malignant, ruthless, powerful, immoral, repressive forces both here and abroad that seek to upend our independent sovereign Nation and a free Constitutional Republic have come to fruition.In the next several days Trump will nominate Ginsburg’s replacement—his third nomination since he took Office. That he will do so isn’t guesswork. It's a foregone conclusion. It is also a foregone conclusion that, whatever the Democrat Party leadership and Administrative State saboteurs and Radical Left George Soros financed destructors of our Nation have concocted to disrupt and waylay confirmation of Trump’s nominee—and have no doubt, they had made contingency plans in the event of Ginsburg’s death prior to the November election—there isn’t a damn thing these Anti-Constitutional, Anti-American forces can lawfully do to prevent a confirmation hearing and vote on Trump’s nominee, other than do what they have been doing for months: rioting, looting, ransacking, firebombing, threatening the populace, and destroying, killing, and maiming. And, there will be a backlash; no doubt about it. The public has had more than enough of this dangerous nonsense, and will not be placated by claims that all will be well once the senile Biden and the crass opportunist, Harris, take control of the Executive Branch of Government. Extortion doesn't work against Americans. It doesn't sit well in the American psyche or in their blood.

WHY GETTING A STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST ON THE  U.S. SUPREME COURT BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 3, 2020 ELECTION IS CRITICAL

Unless the election results in a landslide for Donald Trump or for the Democrat Party nominee, Joe Biden, assuming Biden doesn't suffer a stroke or other health-related calamity at the Eleventh Hour, in which case Harris will step in as Biden's replacement, the coming U.S. Presidential  election will be contested. That isn't mere conjecture. It is certain.In fact, even if President Trump does win the election by a landslide, the American public can expect Democrats will contest the election results anyway. The obnoxious, repugnant, disgruntled, arrogant, smug Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President in 2016, Hillary Clinton—ever harboring a personal grudge against Donald Trump for dashing her hopes to be the first female U.S. President, a thing she literally lusted over—made that point quite recently, as reported by several news sources. Fox News, for one, reported that,

“Hillary Clinton issued a warning for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in a new interview released Tuesday, urging the former vice president to not concede defeat on the night of the Nov. 3 election — no matter the circumstances.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,’ Clinton said. ‘Because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win, if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.’” But, by the same token, President Trump, should not concede the election results either. His loss of the U.S. Presidency, and the loss of the U.S. Senate in November, will mark the end of a Free Constitutional Republic; will doom the Nation's Bill of Rights, will doom the sovereignty of the American citizenry, and will result in the inexorable loss of an independent Nation State.But make no mistake, the ruthless, rapacious, scheming internationalist Marxists and Billionaire Neoliberal transnationalist elites, both here and abroad, through their well-positioned puppet, the Democrat Party Leadership—have pulled out all the stops to take over the Executive Branch along with the U.S. Senate. The Billionaire Globalist elites, including ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the secretive, mysterious, pathological Billionaire George Soros, have spent tens of millions of dollars, and continue to spend untold millions of dollars, to buy this election. Their intention is clear: a return to the Globalist agenda, one commenced decades ago—and one that has gathered steam ever since through the administrations of Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush (George Senior), George W. Bush (George Junior), and Barack Obama—an agenda that came to an abrupt, screeching halt, with the surprising election of a Populist, Donald Trump, to the Office of U.S. President in 2016. For Globalists who have championed the continued erosion of the very concept of independent, sovereign nation-states, the worst thing imaginable for them would be the election of a man who supports strengthening the U.S. as an independent, sovereign Nation-State; who supports the wresting of control of foreign and domestic policy-making from unelected bureaucrats; who has worked tirelessly to halt the erosion of our Civil liberties and fundamental, immutable, illimitable, natural rights; who has emphasized the singular importance of our Nation's Judeo-Christian ethics; who seeks to preserve the foundational juridical, cultural, historical and economic precepts of our Nation, and the sanctity of the Individual soul over recent Collectivist impulses that have denigrated individual thought and expression and that have sought to sow disharmony and dissension throughout America; a man who cherishes our sacred National symbols, and who seeks to preserve and protect them from those scurrilous elements that denigrate them and discourage their continued use; a Nation's leader who demonstrates his singular love and devotion and duty first and foremost to our Nation, to our Nation's Constitution, and to our Nation's people.All that President Trump has accomplished and has sought further to accomplish to benefit our Nation and our people that are encapsulated in his campaign slogans, “Make America Great,” and “Keep America Great”—slogans that are routinely treated like obscenities by the disloyal Marxists and neoliberal transnationalist elites—will likely be lost forever, if Trump loses the U.S. Presidency and if Republicans lose control of the U.S. Senate, in November. In the immediate aftermath of a Trump loss, this Country may very well devolve into Civil War—a clash between Americans who seek to retain the Nation's culture, history, legal, social, political, religious, and economic precepts, consistent with and as embodied both literally and tacitly in our Nation's enduring Constitution, and those Anti-American forces both here and abroad that seek to erase all of it.Ultimately, this election will likely be decided—must needs be decided—in the U.S. Supreme Court. A fair assessment of the General Election results will require fair and impartial U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The public may anticipate a fair assessment from Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and from President Trump's new nominee, once confirmed—certainly someone who fervently respects our Constitution as written, and whose loyalty and interest exists in preserving our Nation's Constitutional foundational framework. Americans may not likely expect a fair assessment of the General Election results from the liberal-wing of the Court, as their goal is to rewrite the U.S. Constitution as the liberal-wing, having taken its cue from their late leader, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, does not perceive the U.S. Constitution as a document beyond reproach, but something that can and should be tinkered with, thereby acknowledging less than a firm conviction in the sanctity and inviolability and immutability of our Nation's Constitution.Recall the late Associate Justice's words in a 2012  2012 interview with Egypt’s Al Hayat TV,  as reported by Real Clear: “ ‘You [referring to the Post-Mubarak Egyptian Government that was looking to the U.S. Constitution as a possible framework for its Nation's governance] should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. . . . It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?,’  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview with Al Hayat TV in Egypt. ’ ” One might well have asked Justice Ginsburg, how human rights are to be guaranteed from the tyranny of Government, the inevitable danger of which our Nation's founders knew first-hand, in the absence of a well-armed citizenry?So, then, as the late Justice Ginsburg obviously emulated and found the Constitution of South Africa superior to ours, the incongruity of her remarks emerges eight years later as a manifestation of unholy and horrific, crushing events transpiring in America today—courtesy of rabid Marxists, whose brutal and incessant rioting and mayhem are all lovingly financed by Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists, like the cold-blooded, cold-hearted George Soros. Since these Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists see the foundational tenets of a free Constitutional Republic incompatible with their goal of a one-world social, political, economic, cultural, and juridical scheme, they intend to cut the legs out from under the Constitution that the framers fashioned and concoct a completely new fabric upon which to dress up the vestiges of the United States that they deign, perhaps, to keep.The integrity of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election is disturbingly very much in doubt, given the recent vote-buying antics of Michael Bloomberg and widespread vote-tampering possible through the vehicle of vote-harvesting fraud among other instances of election fraud, all likely to be compounded exponentially through the mechanism of millions of unverified mail-in votes. Even Progressive National Public Radio, NPR, has acknowledged that an extraordinarily high number, 550,000 mail-in votes have already been rejected so far, even as NPR chooses to discount the significance of that fact. It cannot be reasonably denied that ruthless Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist forces are determined to prevent Donald Trump from serving a second term in Office. It is, therefore imperative that President Trump do everything in his power to ensure the integrity of the upcoming election. Sitting a Ninth U.S. Supreme Court Justice on the Bench, prior to and not subsequent to the election, will definitely help to ensure a fair election, as a majority decision, whether 9-0 (most improbable) or 5-4 (most likely) will decide whom the public will see as U.S. President on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021.Without an odd number of U.S. Supreme Court Justices serving on the Bench on the day of the election, the High Court will likely not be able to decide the election when the issue of who actually won the election comes to the High Court, which it will, if the election is a contested one, as it most likely will be, unless Americans witness a landslide for one Party candidate or the other. A 4-4 result will get us nowhere, and may lead to all out civil war, as each side claims victory. We anticipate that, once Trump has made his selection, Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee will quickly convene and vote to send Trump’s nominee to the full Senate for a confirmation hearing. We anticipate that the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, will run the confirmation hearing expeditiously and, with a Senate Republican Majority, the Senate will confirm Trump’s nominee  posthaste. Those Senate Republicans who vote against confirmation of Trump’s nominee to sit on the High Court be damned!_____________________________________________

AMY CONEY BARRETT: A PROVEN PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT JURIST

BOTH PRO 2A AND PRO-LIFE, JUDGE BARRETT WOULD STRENGTHEN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, PRESERVE OUR FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, AND KEEP AMERICA GREAT

The seditious Press has devoted substantial time analyzing and ruminating on Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court list of potential candidates and will continue to do so up to the point of his selecting someone.Almost certainly, Trump will nominate a woman to replace the late vexatious liberal-wing Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And, that nomination is imminent.The current consensus is that Amy Coney Barrett, who presently serves as a Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, will be that person, as she is the front-runner.Judge Barrett is young, personable, and extremely bright. When analyzing and deciding cases, Judge Barrett applies the methodology of the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked after graduating from Notre Dame Law School, fist in her class, Summa Cum Laude.President Trump nominated Barrett, on May 8, 2017, to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.Consistent with the methodology employed by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, her brilliant mentor, Judge Barrett construes the Constitution in strict accordance with its original meaning. In that respect Barrett is Ginsburg’s polar opposite.Justice Ginsburg, unlike Judge Barrett, unabashedly and unashamedly interposed her own personal predilections into case analysis. Those predilections invariably informed her decisions, eroding the fundamental rights and liberties upon which a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people rest.The attacks against Barrett coming from the Radical Left seditious Press have just started. Indeed, they have been ongoing for some time.The seditious Press has constantly slammed Barrett’s stance on abortion. That remains its main concern and that, too, of the Radical Left. They haven't attacked her yet on her jurisprudential approach to deciding Second Amendment cases, but that is almost certainly coming. The Arbalest Quarrel has wondered about that: What is Barrett’s stance on the Second Amendment? Fortunately, we have more than a mere clue, we have verified proof of her position, and that proof is consistent with her jurisprudential, methodological approach to case analysis. Judge Barrett is a firm Constitutional originalist and textualist, in the mold of her mentor, the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia.A fairly recent Second Amendment case, Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), in which Judge Barrett took part, provides us with a definitive answer.The Plaintiff in Kanter had pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud, a non-violent crime.“Due to his felony conviction, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and Wisconsin law. At issue in this case is whether the felon dispossession statutes—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m)—violate the Second Amendment as applied to Kanter.” Upon his release from Prison, and payment of restitution, Plaintiff applied to the Attorney General for relief from disability so that he could exercise his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.The 7th Circuit Court Majority pointed out that, “. . . the Attorney General may remove the prohibition on a case-by-case basis if an applicant sufficiently establishes ‘that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.’” The particulars of Kanter’s felony conviction, as set forth by the Court Majority that decided against Kanter, are as follows:“On May 24, 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Section 1341 carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a criminal penalty of $50,000, and he reimbursed Medicare over $27 million in a related civil settlement. On May 24, 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Section 1341 carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a criminal penalty of $50,000, and he reimbursed Medicare over $27 million in a related civil settlement.Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.”The Constitutionality of the Wisconsin law was placed squarely in question. The lower District Court found against the Plaintiff because of his felony conviction and irrespective of the fact that he had served out his sentence and paid full restitution.Two of three of the Appellate Court Judges, the majority, who ruled against the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter, framed the issue as a question whether individuals who have been convicted of non-violent felonies, no less than those who have been convicted of violent felonies, fall within a class of individuals who can never enjoy their Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms.Why the Court majority framed the issue in this way is perplexing since the majority never bothered to formulate an answer to it or a resolution of it. This suggests that the Court had tacitly accepted as a given that citizens should never, can never, be absolved of their past misdeeds, regardless of the nature of their crimes, grounded, therefor, on the mere assumption that a convicted felon can never and must never be perceived as rehabilitated or capable of rehabilitation, at least, as to matters apropos of the Second Amendment, namely, matters pertaining to firearms ownership and possession. The Majority, thereupon concludes that felons remain, forever, a threat to public safety.Having tacitly decided that the Plaintiff Petitioner cannot lawfully own and possess firearms even though, as the Court Majority was compelled to acknowledge, Kanter had paid his full debt to society, the Court pretended to employ a balancing test as between non-violent convicted felons who had paid their debt to society and who subsequently wish to exercise the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, on the one hand, and the State’s  desire to promote public safety by keeping guns from the hands of Americans whom the State deems to be—by the very fact of a prior felony conviction—violent felony or non-violent felony notwithstanding—a perpetual threat to society, essentially, then, wholly beyond redemption, at least in the eyes of the Court.Applying that bald, unsupported assumption to Kanter, the Court said, “Categorical prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons are ‘presumptively lawful,’ even in disqualifying nonviolent felons like Kanter.” The Court thereupon determined that the government had met its burden in denying Kanter the right to own and possess firearms, even though the government really had not, asserting, nonetheless, that the government has shown that prohibiting even nonviolent felons like the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter from possessing firearms, is substantially related to its interest in preventing gun violence. The reader should note that the expression, ‘substantially related to an important Government purpose,’ is a court created intermediate scrutiny means balancing test. The Heller Court, in 2008, had considered the tenability of means balancing of interests between a fundamental right a person's interest in exercising a fundamental right, and the State's interest in precluding a person from exercising that fundamental  right on the basis of some presumed State desire to protect theHow so? The Court majority didn’t say. Obviously the Court Majority didn’t care. The Majority simply determined before the fact that a man convicted of a violent crime can never be permitted to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, after the fact and the Court constructed its argument to cohere with its predetermined decision.The dissenting Judge, Amy Barrett, though, did care. She began her dissent with the following perceptive remarks, which demonstrate her erudition, laser-like legal and logical reasoning, and profound respect for the fundamental, natural, immutable, illimitable, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms:“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislature imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.” Judge Barrett added that Federal law and Wisconsin State Statute “would stand on solid footing if their categorical bans were tailored to serve the governments' undeniably compelling interest in protecting the public from gun violence. But their dispossession of all felons—both violent and nonviolent—is unconstitutional as applied to Kanter, who was convicted of mail fraud for falsely representing that his company's therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and billing Medicare accordingly. Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe. Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment. . . .At this point, however, neither Wisconsin nor the United States has presented any evidence that Kanter would be dangerous if armed. Instead, as the majority notes, ‘Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,’ and he is ‘employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond with lower rates of recidivism.’”In her concluding remarks, Judge Barrett, citing the seminal Second Amendment Heller case, made the pertinent points that,“If the Second Amendment were subject to a virtue limitation, there would be no need for the government to produce—or for the court to assess—evidence that nonviolent felons have a propensity for dangerous behavior. But Heller forecloses the ‘civic right’ argument on which a virtue limitation depends. And while both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data, that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest. On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not ‘put the government through its paces,’ but instead treats the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right’ [a point articulated by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas] subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. I therefore dissent.” Incidentally, in her dissent, Judge Barrett cited, with approval, to Judge Thomas Hardiman's Second Amendment analysis in the oft cited Second Amendment case, Binderup v. AG of United States, 836 F.3d 336, 357 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Hardiman, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgments). Judge Hardiman is at present a U.S. Appellate Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Hardiman is also on President Trump’s short list to sit on the High Court, as he was when President Trump ultimately decided to go with Judge Neil Gorsuch, in 2016, just weeks into President Trump's first term in Office. Judge Hardiman was the first runner-up. President Trump recognizes the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in preserving the structure of our Nation in the form the founders conceived for it. Nominating a jurist to sit on the High Court was one of President Trump's first acts as President, and one that he had promised the electorate; a promise he kept. As a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, Judge Hardiman would, as with Judge Barrett, make an outstanding Justice, and he would be the ideal replacement for Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, a Bill Clinton nominee, who is 82 years old, the oldest Justice on the Court, in the event that President Trump nominates Judge Barrett to take the seat on the High Court, vacated by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upon the Associate Justice's recent death.Both Judge Hardiman and Judge Barrett utilize the jurisprudential methodology of the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia when analyzing and deciding cases, and they share the same reverence for the U.S. Constitution and for the Bill of Rights, as conceived by the framers of the Constitution.Of course, the Radical Left Democrats and other Soros funded Marxists don’t give a damn about fundamental rights or logic. They are inherently nihilistic, stubborn, irascible, irrational, obtuse, smugly self-righteous, and abjectly hateful. And they have other plans for our Nation, for our Nation's Constitution, and for our Nation's citizenry. And, in the near future, their aim is to do their damnedest to thwart confirmation of any further Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court followed by attempts, by hook or by crook to defeat a Trump victory in November. If successful in that endeavor, they plan to resurrect Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the form of another liberal-wing activist jurist—perhaps, Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama sought to sit on the High Court to replace Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, after the late Associate Justice's untimely and mysterious death. The Radical Left Marxists feel cheated out of the appointment of a liberal-wing activist jurist to the High Court. They feel disgruntled on two scores: the first, because Hillary Clinton failed to secure the U.S. Presidency, and, the second, because, as a result of her defeat, she could not nominate a liberal-wing successor to the High Court to replace the seat vacated by Justice Scalia after his death—a death, by the way, that has never been adequately explained—which should anger all Americans. Concerning Judge Garland, the Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about the danger  Garland poses to the preservation of the Second Amendment and to a free Republic.Judge Garland has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment. The danger he poses to our fundamental right to keep and bear arms is so obvious and so egregious that we felt the need to write to Senator Grassley, who, at the time, was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We argued strenuously against voting for a confirmation hearing for Judge Garland, lest a vote by the full Senate serve to confirm him. Fortunately, there was no Hearing. See our open letter to Senator Grassley, posted on April 26, 2016.The Democrats were so incensed at the perceived rebuff by Senate Republicans that they scheduled their own pseudo-hearing, ostensibly to demonstrate their anger toward and disdain for Republicans failure to schedule a confirmation hearing for Judge Garland. Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat Party member of the Senate Judiciary Committee presided over the pseudo-hearing that, while doing much, perhaps, to highlight Judge Garland's ostensibly finer qualities, namely his extensive experience as a judge, his intellectual acumen, and his judicial and personal temperament, did nothing to expose the serious flaws in Judge Garland's juridical, jurisprudential, and philosophical approach to the law, the latter of which are equally important for that person who would serve on the Highest Court in the Land. Those severe failings make abundantly clear that, however well-suited Merrick Garland might be to preside as a U.S. Circuit Court judge, the impact of his rulings on the fundamental rights of the American people, namely and particularly, on Second Amendment matters, through which the very sovereignty of the American people over Government is secured, would be in jeopardy, thereby endangering the continued survival of a free Constitutional Republic, as envisioned by the founders of our Nation. Politico reported, back in May of 2016:“Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland won’t be appearing before senators anytime soon for his confirmation hearing. So Senate Democrats are trying for the next best thing.Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will host a forum Wednesday featuring former top legal and government officials who know Garland personally and who will testify on behalf of the veteran jurist’s legal acumen and personal character.Among the names who’ll appear at the event: Abner Mikva, the former Democratic congressman and Clinton White House counsel who, like Garland, served as the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.‘The public discussion we are convening this week allows senators, the press, and the public to learn more about this highly qualified nominee and the importance of a fully functioning Supreme Court,” said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, who will formally announce the event later Monday. “I hope all senators will join us for this public meeting.’ ” They didn't. And Senator Leahy and those Democrats that appeared for the “forum” (really a mock-hearing that Senator Leahy refused to countenance as a mock hearing) only succeeded in making utter fools of themselves. Democrats and their Marxist and neoliberal Globalist fellow travelers continue to lash out like petulant children. They have unleashed and continue to unleash incessant unprovoked, senseless chaos on President Trump, on the American people, and on our Nation. They have pointedly said that they intend to tear down the Nation if they don't get their way. But, then, they intend to tear down the Nation, if they do get their way, anyway, So, then, what's the point of their threat? Let them continue to make jackasses of themselves. Once Trump emerges victorious in November, he will take appropriate action against those elements in society that have made clear their intention to tear our Nation down. That isn't going to happen.U.S. Senate Republicans now have an opportunity to set matters right and, in doing so, render, as well, something in the way of a little payback, which will undoubtedly result in yet more churlish, childish, clownish antics and unseemly behavior.But, nothing the Radical Left Democrats and their mob of malcontents drum up will prevent President Trump from naming a jurist to sit on the High Court seat vacated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upon her death; and nothing these Radical Left Democrats and their rabid, horde of troublemakers orchestrate to hamper the confirmation process will prevent Republicans from accomplishing their goal, thereby securing a free Constitutional Republic and preserving our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties for generations of Americans to come.The Arbalest Quarrel encourages President Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, or, in the alternative, to nominate Judge Thomas Hardiman, as a replacement for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to sit on the high Court. And we encourage Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell to speed the confirmation process through to completion before the coming momentous U.S. Presidential election.And——Woe to those Senate Republicans who fail to vote for confirmation of Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.___________________________*Months ago, when word came down that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had suffered a recurrence of her pancreatic cancer, first diagnosed eleven years ago, the Arbalest Quarrel was skeptical of news accounts suggesting that Justice Ginsburg’s cancer was under control.We therefore were not taken off guard when we heard that Ginsburg was readmitted to a hospital in July.NPR reported that “Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is back in the hospital, this time to treat a possible infection. She spiked a fever Monday night, according to a press release from the Supreme Court, and on Tuesday underwent an endoscopic procedure to clean out a bile duct stent that was inserted in August [2019?] The procedure was done at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore after Ginsburg was first evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. . . . According to a press release from the court's press officer, the justice is ‘resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment.’It marks the second time Ginsburg has been hospitalized recently. In May, the justice underwent nonsurgical treatment for a benign gallbladder condition at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and she participated in oral arguments from her hospital bed.”On July 30, 2020, the New York Post reported that Ginsburg revealed “she was undergoing chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer –but insisted she had no plans to retire,” reiterating the point made, as reported in The New York Times, on July 17, 2020: “Justice Ginsburg was typically optimistic in her statement. ‘I have often said I would remain a member of the court as long as I can do the job full steam,’ she said. ‘I remain fully able to do that.’”  In that article, The New York Times pointed to Ginsburg’s Doctors who said that Ginsburg was doing remarkably well, even as they admitted she had advanced pancreatic cancer.Like Chief Justice Rehnquist, Ginsburg refused to step down from the Bench even as Democrats encouraged her to do so. If Democrats are up in arms over the decision of President Trump to nominate a successor to the late Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and if they are in a blood-thirsty rage over Senate Republicans intent to hold a confirmation hearing on that nomination, prior to the U.S. Presidential election, they should blame both fate and themselves for the turn of events, and blame, no less, the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself, as Justice Ginsburg must have had some understanding, eleven years ago, when Barack Obama was President, that her life expectancy was short, and that resigning at a time when Barack Obama could have named, as her successor, another Leftist activist Associate Justice to the High Court, several years before the next general election would have cemented liberal-wing control of the Court for generations, as the liberal-wing could count on Chief Justice Roberts to sit in their corner on many if not most cases that came before the Court. Certainly one Obama nominee or another would have been confirmed. That nominee, back in 2011, could very well have been Judge Merrick Garland, who had been sitting as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 1995 when then President Bill Clinton nominated him to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Senate voted to confirm that nomination. The Democrats had, for several years, considered Judge Garland to be a strong contender for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, had he received a hearing by the full Senate, he would undoubtedly have been confirmed. Past U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch made that point crystal clear. Hatch, a Republican no less, hailing from Utah, said he supported Garland's confirmation, and would work to see that Garland was confirmed as an Associate Justice to sit on the High Court. Reuters reported, at the time, back in 2010, that,“A Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Thursday he would help moderate jurist Merrick Garland win Senate confirmation if President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court.Senator Orrin Hatch said he had known the federal appeals court judge, seen as a leading contender for the Supreme Court, for years and that he would be ‘a consensus nominee.”Asked if Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support, Hatch told Reuters, ‘No question.’‘I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to help him get them,’  added Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman. ’”That happenstance should not be lost on anyone who cherishes preservation of the Bill of Rights and the continuation of a Free Constitutional Republic. To prevent such a calamity is reason enough for Senator Grassley, who then presided over the Senate Judiciary Committee, and for Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to prevent a confirmation hearing for Garland, as his nomination would endanger the Second Amendment. And if the Second Amendment fell, so, eventually, would fall all the other sacred Rights and Liberties of the American people, an apocalyptic eventuality. Just imagine the turnabout in the Heller case, if Garland had sat in Justice Scalia's seat on the High Court in 2008 when Heller was decided. Let there be no mistake, the Republican controlled U.S. Senate fulfilled its obligation under the Advice and Consent clause of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Senate did consider Barack Obama's nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, and thereupon advised the Obama that the Senate does not consent to confirmation. Judge Garland's methodological approach to case analysis, and his jurisprudential leanings make him ill-suited to sit on the High Court. And his experience as a jurist and intellect and legal acumen do not compensate for his errant philosophical bent; one wholly inconsistent with the tenets of Individualism upon which our Constitution rests. Moreover, the fact that the Senate's refusal to permit a confirmation hearing from taking place does not mean that the Senate failed to fulfill its Constitutional requirement of Advice and Consent. The Senate Majority, did fulfill its duty, in Committee. That a confirmation hearing before the full Senate, did not occur, is irrelevant. The decision of the Senate Republican Majority was in keeping with the Constitutional Advice and Consent requirement and consistent with the will of the electorate whom that Republican Majority represents.There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that expressly states or tacitly suggests that the Senate, in its entirety, must hold a confirmation hearing, as the full Senate establishes its own rules of conduct and the full Senate had previously declared the process through which the Advice and Consent requirement of Senate is to be fulfilled. That process is laid bare for all to see at the website law2.umkc.edu: “Judicial nominations are forwarded to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which conducts its own review (using its staff and those of its members) of the merits of the nominee.  Hearings are held in which the nominee, as well as other persons knowledgeable about the nominee's qualifications, offer statements and answer questions posed by Committee members.  After the hearing, the Judiciary Committee votes on whether to recommend confirmation of the nominee by the full Senate.  A nominee who fails to win a majority of Committee votes usually sees his prospects die, unless the Committee chooses to forward the nomination to the full Senate without recommendation. The full Senate, once a nomination is sent to it, will debate the merits of the nominee and schedule a final vote on confirmation.  On rare occasions, as happened when charges of sexual harassment surfaced at the last minute against Clarence Thomas, a nomination might be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for further hearings. A simple majority is required for confirmation.  The average time in recent decades between a presidential nomination of a Supreme Court justice and a final vote by the Senate has been a bit over two months.”So, let the Democrat leadership and Marxists and Transnationalists lament and bemoan their failure to destroy our free Constitutional Republic. The Good Lord Above has ordained our Nation, a free and independent and sovereign Nation, must continue to exist as such; that it should not suffer the fate of Marxist Dictatorships like Venezuela or Cuba, that have fallen into abject ruin, or the fate of such repressive Communist Dictatorships as China that keeps its population under strict surveillance and control, clamping down vigorously on any dissent.If the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg were truly concerned about securing liberal-wing control of the High Court, then she might have acted more pragmatically, voluntarily, if reluctantly, stepping down from the Court when Obama was President, rather than defiantly, stubbornly resisting resignation, perhaps presuming, wrongly, as so many had, that the Executive Branch would remain in Democrat hands; that a smooth transition from Obama to Hillary Clinton, would take place, and that a Democrat in the White House would be making nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court and to the lower federal courts. Ginsburg may have regretted having failed to step down, years earlier. CNN reports that, “Shortly before dying Friday, Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter: ‘My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.’ ”Perhaps Ginsburg did make that deathbed statement; perhaps not. In any event, that utterance, if, in fact, made, must remain, at best, as wish fulfillment, grounded, perhaps, in regret for failing to see that maybe, just maybe, Hillary Clinton would not succeed Barack Obama as U.S. President after all. And, the fact that Hillary Clinton failed to realize her ultimate ambition and the fact that Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists failed to realize their vision for a unified one-world system of governance, amount to an intolerable loss for them as that loss has made all the difference in the world that exists—a world where the United States, and many other independent, sovereign nation states that seek to remain so, have found reprieve—a world that Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists find intolerable and have made clear they will not abide.“The chief of staff to Vice President Pence on Sunday defended the administration's decision to ignore the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's deathbed request not to fill her seat until after the election, telling CNN that it was not Ginsburg's choice to make. ” The choice Ginsburg could have made and should have made if her intent was to maintain a liberal-wing activist majority or, at least, to maintain some semblance of ideological, jurisprudential, and methodological counter-balance to the conservative-wing, the latter of which is loath to tinker with the Constitution, was to resign, back in 2011, when she was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She dismissed out-of-hand any suggestion that she do so.Recall Steve Jobs death from pancreatic cancer on October 06, 2011. Steve Jobs was substantially younger that Ginsburg and therefore, presumably, stronger. No matter; he still died, after battling cancer for seven years. VOA News reported,“Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' death at the age of 56 followed a seven-year battle with a rare form of pancreatic cancer - the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The disease is hard to treat because it is difficult to diagnose. The pancreas is embedded deep in the abdomen, and often, symptoms of cancer become evident at a very late, advanced stage of the disease.” Given the ominous signs of Ginsburg’s rapidly deteriorating health, in the last several months notwithstanding mainstream media attempts to sugarcoat the prescient signs of Ginsburg’s imminent demise and the penchant of the seditious Press to incessantly and blatantly and unapologetically lie to the American public, the Arbalest Quarrel penned an article in July that we had not gotten around to publish, but feel it still apropos to post here, albeit, after the fact of Ginsburg’s death, as it is an appropriate lead-in to the pressing matter confronting the Nation, now, as Ginsburg's death, coming when it has, is a godsend of a kind, even as it is a personal tragedy for Ginsburg's family nonetheless, for her death truly forces the American public to consider what is at stake. The Nation is able now to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus plague and the gloomy economy wrought by the plague that the Radical Left have attempted to use to their advantage. The public has a choice and it is a clearly demarcated one: either to retain a free Constitutional Republic where the people are sovereign and Government exists to serve the people; where independence of thought and action is encouraged; and where an American spirit and a Judeo-Christian ethos exists; all of which have benefitted our Country and our people since the Nation's inception; or we can toss it all out the window, and see our Nation merged into a one-world system of governance, one demanding the loss of personal freedom and liberty, the loss of independent thought and action; a world where people exist to serve a grandiose, bloated State and are dependent on Government largess for their needs, a Collectivist nightmare. It is this or that; one or the other; not both, and not an amalgam of the two as they are inherently incompatible. A U.S. Supreme Court comprising multiple copies of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will ensure the existence of the latter. A U.S. Supreme Court comprising jurists in the mold of the late eminent Justice, Antonin Scalia will help ensure the continued existence of the former, one predicated on the tenets of Individualism, not Collectivism.In our unpublished article, drafted in late July, titled, “Is It Too Soon to Consider Another Trump Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court,”  which we feel appropriate to post here, even though after the fact, we wrote,“One year ago, Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then 86 years old, underwent cancer surgery. ABC News reported, at the time, July 25, 2019, that,“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflected on her health amid concerns for the 86-year-old, who underwent cancer surgery in December that caused her to miss oral arguments for the first time in 25 years.The progressive justice, who has become a pop culture icon dubbed ‘the Notorious RBG’ and a hero for young activists, dismissed concerns over her health in an interview with NPR published Tuesday, saying she is ‘very much alive.’”Well, Ginsberg’s assertion that she is ‘very much alive’ is, on one level, certainly true, but trivially so, because, as a matter of elementary logic, one is alive, or one is not. And, apparently, at that moment, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasn’t dead; ergo, she was very much alive.But, given the nuances of language, the assertion goes to the issue of Ginsberg’s current state of health. Obviously, Ginsberg was, at that time, not in the pink of health. Were she not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, the concern over Ginsberg’s health or, indeed, whether she was alive or not, would be of little concern to anyone outside of her network of family and friends. But, the fact that Ginsberg is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, her life and well-being is and should be the subject of intense focus to Americans since, she is one of a select few people who wields substantial power over the life and well-being of the rest of us.On July 14, 2020, news outlets uniformly reported that Ginsberg was in the hospital due to an infection. The irrepressible, CNN, for one, reported that,“Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been taken to the hospital and treated for a possible infection, according to a court spokeswoman.‘Justice Ginsburg was admitted to The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland early this morning for treatment of a possible infection,’ spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg said Tuesday.‘She was initially evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. last night after experiencing fever and chills. She underwent an endoscopic procedure at Johns Hopkins this afternoon to clean out a bile duct stent that was placed last August. The Justice is resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment.’It's the latest development in Ginsburg's lengthy history of medical issues while serving on the high court—though she's proven adept at continuing her job without interruption.”One might have pondered if, given the era of the Chinese Coronavirus in which we live, Ginsberg might have contracted the disease, not an unheard-of possibility. But the lack of any acknowledgment of that sort of infection, one could not help but wonder if the news report was a deliberate attempt at obfuscation to mask another malady. And, then, on July 17, it comes to light that Ginsberg is in the hospital because of a flare up of her cancer and that she is undergoing chemotherapy. In bullet points, Business Insider reported that,“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced Friday that she was undergoing chemotherapy treatments to combat a ‘reoccurrence of cancer.’

• The 87-year-old had recently been hospitalized for an infection stemming from a medical procedure on a tumor found on her pancreas.
• ‘I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment,’ Ginsburg said in a statement.
• ‘I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay, and am able to maintain an active daily routine,’ the statement said. ‘Throughout, I have kept up with opinion writing and all other Court work.’

Following another recent heath scare, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced Friday that she was undergoing chemotherapy to treat a ‘reoccurrence of cancer.’Ginsburg, 87, has survived cancer four times before.”The Daily Mail reported, on July 17, 2020, Ginsberg’s remark that, although she revealed that her cancer has returned, she “will not quit Supreme Court while she can work ‘full steam.’. . . ‘I have often said I would remain a member of the court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that.’” Ginsberg’s remarks are all well and good, but one is reminded of Rehnquist’s intention to remain on the Court even as CNN remarked, on June 22, 2005 that, at that time, the Chief Justice looked “frail” and that, “He has been on a physically demanding pace since October, when he had an emergency tracheotomy after being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, for which he later endured weeks of chemotherapy and radiation.The chief justice has released no information about the seriousness of his condition, but his treatment regimen led cancer specialists to conclude he had a serious, invasive form of cancer, with a possibly dire prognosis.”Less than two and a half months later the Chief Justice was dead, as reported by fox news.This brings us back to the question of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health. She is 7 years older than the Chief Justice, and she is most certainly unwell.Imagine for a moment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health neither improves nor remains at a plateau but declines precipitously between now and the fall.There is an election looming—certainly most critical in the last one hundred and fifty years. When Justice Scalia died—by natural means or not—in 2016, Trump made poignantly clear his intention to name a successor, quickly. And he did so, fulfilling a critical campaign promise. The New York Times reported, “Pledging to move quickly to fulfill what he has called the most important promise of his campaign, President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he would name a nominee to the Supreme Court ‘within about two weeks’ of his inauguration on Jan. 20.At a news conference in Trump Tower, he thanked the leaders of two prominent conservative groups for their help in vetting candidates, a strong indication that his main priority remains choosing an unwavering conservative to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last February.Democrats are promising a furious fight over any nominee they consider to be out of the legal mainstream, saying that Republicans effectively stole a Supreme Court seat from President Obama by refusing for almost a year to consider his nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland, a respected appeals court judge with a moderate record.”And furious fight the Democrats waged when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But even that nomination fight paled in comparison to the gladiatorial circus on display during the Kavanaugh Senate confirmation hearing. Imagine the battle that will loom if Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies a month or so before the election.And, that that has in fact transpired. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now dead, we will soon see just how calamitous the aftereffects of that event will be on our people and on our Nation._______________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SAVAGING OF AMERICA: FORGET ABOUT BIDEN; IT’S GOING TO BE TRUMP VERSUS HARRIS

MOBOCRACY VERSUS REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY

PART ONE

Marcus Antonius spoke, thus, “And Caesar’s spirit, raging for revenge,With Hate by his side come hot from hell,Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voiceCry, “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war, That this this foul deed shall smell above the earth With Carrion men, groaning for burial. Citation from Shakespeare’s historical play, Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1War is upon us. Make no mistake about it. Be prepared to arm up. The survival of our Republic is at stake!The sad thing is very few people will acknowledge this, even as some do embrace it, want it, even demand it. Many deny it, scoff at the idea of it, but most everyone, at some level, feels it.All that we Americans have seen and heard in the last few months compels our acceptance of it, the hard, cold realization of it; and what it means for us.But is this a modern American “civil war”—a race war—a clash between purported do-gooders demanding an accounting for people of color and privileged white oppressors, as the hordes of mindless Radicals endlessly shout and as a seditious Press echoes?No! this is not a “race war” and never was, and calling it so, doesn’t make it so.This is mere artifice, a stratagem concocted by the Nation’s Destructor Antagonists—the discontented Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Neoliberal Billionaire Globalists who have lost patience with the American electorate—an electorate that threw a wrench in their plans for world domination; an electorate that audaciously voted into Office an outsider, a businessman, who sought merely to return the Country to its rightful heirs: the American citizenry.The Antagonist Destructors of our Nation see this and won’t allow it; won’t permit President Trump to serve a second term in Office. They plan to defeat Trump in the coming election by chicanery and unlawful acts if they can; by brute force if they cannot. They haven’t disguised their intentions. They really cannot. This is their last chance and they know it.They have brainwashed many; hoodwinked many others. The Nation is in their grasp: November 3, 2020 is the date set for the Governmental coup d’état.These ruthless forces both here and abroad have embraced a strategy to destroy the U.S. Constitution itself, the very fabric of our Nation. Once accomplished they will go to work immediately to disassemble a free Constitutional Republic.They will do so by executive fiat. They will rewrite our Constitution; eradicate our God-given sacred rights and liberties; open our borders to tens of millions of the world’s dregs; bankrupt our Nation; subject our citizenry to conformity in thought and uniformity in behavior; reduce the populace to dependency on Government largess for its existence. They will erase our Nation’s history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian Ethic: all of it must go. Our Nation, in the form the founders bequeathed to us, will effectively cease to exist.And these Antagonists, these would-be Destructors, will proceed forthwith, with blinding speed once they have taken over the reins of Government. They have legions of stooges and toadies to assist them—those who have assisted them since Day One of the Trump Presidency.

A ONE-DAY CIVIL WAR-(COUNTER-REVOLUTION): NOVEMBER 3, 2020

The nature of the present major conflict facing Americans has aspects of both a civil war and revolution, creating a unique hybrid.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVIL WAR AND A REVOLUTION?

There is a distinction to be drawn between the expression, 'civil war,' and the expression, 'revolution.'“The word revolution is derived from the Latin ‘revolutio’, meaning ‘a turn-around’. Revolution results in a mutational change in organizational structure quite amazingly in a short period of time. Revolution brings about a change in the power too.Revolutions took place through history. It is interesting to note that apart from the change in power, revolution brings about change in cultural and economical situations as well of a country or a region. Socio-political scenario gets completely changed by a revolution.It is interesting to note that the term revolution is used to indicate changes that take place outside the political arena. Culture, philosophy, society and technology have undergone marked transformations by these revolutions.A civil war is defined as a war that takes place between two organized groups within the same nation state. In short it can be described as a war between factions in the same country. One of the best examples of a civil war is the American Civil War (1861-1865). It is otherwise called the War Between the States that took place as a civil war in the United States of America.It is important to know that the two organized groups that take part in the civil war are normally bent upon creating their own governments and having organized military. The most important difference between a revolution and a civil war is that civilians directly revolt against the government in a revolution whereas factions wage a war against each other in a civil war.”The American Revolution established freedom from tyranny and the creation of a new Nation-State.The founders of this Nation-State, the framers of the U.S. Constitution determined that the Nation would exist as a free Constitutional Republic. Theirs was no easy task. But they accomplished it. The founders of the new Nation designed a central, “Federal” Government of three co-equal Branches; each Branch keeping the other in check through carefully delineated, demarcated, limited powers.The people would retain sovereignty over Government, not by dint of faith that the servants of the people would not usurp power, but through the realization that these servants of the people would, as is human nature, attempt to do so. To prevent that from happening the founders incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, a Bill of Rights—a codification of fundamental, God-given, natural, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights, including, first and foremost, the right of the people to speak their own mind and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thus, would unlawful usurpation of power by the servant of the people be kept in check. Our Nation is founded on the tenets of Individualism: a recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual and the import of the integrity of Self.Even during the horror of the American Civil War, neither side, not the Union nor Confederacy, questioned the tenets of Individualism; never questioned the veracity and venerableness of the Bill of Rights. It was never in doubt.But, today, though, there are forces that do not accept the tenets of Individualism and forsake the primacy of the Bill of Rights. These are the proponents of the tenets of Collectivism; those who will not suffer individual expression nor abide a sovereign, well-armed citizenry. They believe in uniformity of thought, conformity in behavior. Their model of societal perfection is that of the beehive or the ant colony; order maintained through the destruction of the human spirit. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about the differences between Individualism and Collectivism. See, e.g., our article, posted October 6, 2018, titled, “A Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”Today, forces both inside the Nation and outside it, utilizing the vehicle of the Democratic Party, along with the acquiescence of many within the Republican Party, have engineered a counter-revolution.They envision a greatly expanded and expansive Federal Government with vast, virtually unlimited powers. To keep Americans in check they have been outspoken in their call for substantial constraints on free speech and the elimination of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. These counter revolutionaries intend to use our Constitution against us. Once in power the Constitution will be erased.Although not carefully distinguished between two military camps—the Blue and the Gray—of the American Civil War, the clash of ideas is very much a bright line: Individualists versus Collectivists, and a mighty physical confrontation may yet emerge.The Collectivists have, to date, failed to unseat the Individualists’ candidate, Donald Trump. Americans elected Donald Trump to preserve a free Constitutional Republic, thereby securing the Nation the founders bequeathed to us through the difficult war they fought and won: the American Revolution. And President Donald Trump has done a commendable job, despite unimaginable obstacles to preserve the Nation in the form the founders gave to us.The Collectivists have one last card to play: one which they had hoped to avoid: the U.S. Presidential election of 2020. The outcome may be the endgame for one side or the other. Or it may very well be the opening salvo of a Modern American Civil War qua Counter-Revolution to undercut the American Revolution.­­­­­­­­­­­­______________________________________________________

BIDEN WILL NEVER DEBATE TRUMP, HARRIS WILL

PART TWO

TRYING TO PLAY AMERICANS FOR FOOLS FAILED ONCE; DEMOCRATS WILL NOT PERMIT THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN

“ ‘Clinton’s dream also includes a Western Hemispheric common market, like the European common market that is dissolving in chaos, fear and debt. . . .’ ‘If that is indeed her dream, then she dreams the internationalist dream that would end America.In a 2013 speech to the National Multi-Housing Council [Clinton] said, ‘I mean, politics is like sausage being made. If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.’Which is an excellent example of hypocrisy — a Hillary Clinton trait.American voters don’t want open borders or anything akin to a European Union common market. But Hillary Clinton does.Hillary Clinton would tear America down. She is totally unfit to be president.Donald Trump is the anti-establishment candidate. He’s not politically correct, and he’s not running for saint. He’s running to Make America Great Again. Elect him and he will.”~Pastiche from a story, titled, “Playing us for Fools,” published in the Carteret County News Times, one month before the 2016 Trump versus Clinton U.S. Presidential electionThe forces that seek to crush Americans into submission failed had a wrench thrown into their well-oiled machine. They thought Hillary Clinton could hold her own against Trump in a match-up against him. They were wrong, dead wrong.Do you honestly think these sinister, ruthless forces will make that mistake a second time by allowing Biden—infinitely less mentally sharp than Clinton—to debate Trump? Not a chance!The doddering, confused, senile Cardboard character, Joe Biden, has played his role for these Antagonist Disruptor Destructors of our Nation. He is no longer needed and will soon be dispensed with.Biden has previously stated a desire to serve one-term only, exemplifying his lack of desire in the Presidency. In some dim part of his addled brain, he must have known he is wholly unqualified to lead the Nation.As reported in The Hill, back in December 2019,“Former Vice President Joe Biden has reportedly signaled that he would only serve one term in the White House if elected in 2020 as the top-tier Democratic candidate faces questions about his age. Four people who regularly speak with the 77-year-old Biden told Politico that it is unlikely he would run for reelection in 2024, when he would be in his 80s.‘If Biden is elected,’ an adviser to the campaign told the news outlet, ‘he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.’‘He’s going into this thinking, “I want to find a running mate I can turn things over to after four years, but if that’s not possible or doesn’t happen then I’ll run for reelection.” But he’s not going to publicly make a one-term pledge,’ another adviser reportedly said.”

IS IT JUST AGE THAT HAS INFORMED BIDEN’S DECISION TO SERVE JUST ONE TERM, OR IS IT WEAKNESS IN MIND AND BODY?

Consider: Bernie Sanders is one year older than Biden. The old Socialist is as sharp as a tack and never asserted or even suggested he would serve only one term in Office if elected.Donald Trump, too, was 70 years old when he assumed Office, the oldest person to serve as President on the day of his inauguration as reported by Business Insider. But age has never impacted his physical strength or mental alertness. He has always demonstrated boundless energy and keen mental acuity; a sharp understanding of policy and what it is he wishes to accomplish, in accordance with his duties as President and consistent with his promises to the American people. He never so much as intimated a desire to serve only one term in Office.Trump has weathered a withering stream of vile, vicious, vindictive personal attacks against him, against his staff, even against his family. Through it all he has remained steadfast, never doubting himself, never wilting. To the contrary, he has become stronger, frustrating those who have attempted to aggrieve him, turning their arrows back on them. He has shown his mettle; the true mark of a leader.Can one imagine Biden standing up against the same ceaseless, remorseless violent onslaught? Would Biden not have crumpled years ago; drained, emotionally and physically. Indeed, can one imagine any other politician able to repel the violent personal attacks that President Trump has ably withstood for the past four years and, through it all, still manage to accomplish many of his policy objectives?Biden, in comparison, stands alone as the single figure in American history, coming up with lame excuses to mask his obvious mental and physical infirmities, all the while boasting that he can lead this great Nation. And there is the Press, for example, the Washington Post, always at the ready, to give Biden an assist, writing specious reports to cover his blaring inane remarks, or to attempt to counter justifiable concerns pertaining to his health. See, e.g., a U.S. News.com report The Press says Biden would give Kamala Harris substantial power as his VP if elected President. That is all the more surprising since, as also reported FP Insider Access, the two have had a rocky relationship, which raises the question whether Biden did choose Harris as his running mate or if, more likely, the DNC foisted Harris on him.But don’t be surprised to find Biden stepping down a few weeks before the election, not a few days, or weeks or months into a first term in Office, let alone upon completing one full term. He must. Why? It isn’t that his handlers can’t control Biden. They can. They already have. That is plain, and Biden doesn’t have a problem with that. Still, there is a problem. Biden’s handlers cannot be certain he can defeat Trump, regardless of what the polls say. Certainly not if a dimwit’s obvious dimwittedness becomes apparent as it would during a U.S. Presidential debate, were he to debate. After all, who would be on hand to lend Biden a hand if he were to become befuddled over a moderator’s question or shows his ineptitude in parrying a death-dealing verbal thrust to the heart?So, the Destructors of our Nation are faced with a conundrum. And that dilemma rests with the nature of our Presidential Debates.The public expects them. But only the U.S. Presidential candidate of one Party can debate the candidate, or incumbent, of the other Party.It would look awfully strange to see Biden’s VP, Harris, debating Trump, as Biden’s VP, instead of Biden, himself. It would be unprecedented.Of course, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require Presidential debates. Americans, though, would be annoyed and suspicious, even outraged if denied a debate, especially given the present deeply polarized Nation. A match-up is highly anticipated.In the recent Arbalest Quarrel article, “Debate This,” published on August 6, 2020, we said,“U.S. Presidential elections are never small matters. But, this coming Presidential election, less than three months away, takes on inordinate importance—more so than any other Presidential election in our Nation’s history. For, depending on the outcome, Americans will either preserve their history, along with their sacred heritage, culture, and Christian ethos, or they will lose all of it. Recent events bear this out.The continuation of our Nation in the form our founders established for the American people, a free Constitutional Republic, and a sovereign people rests in the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights bestowed on them and in them by the loving Divine Creator—rights codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights: most importantly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the right of free speech.”Biden has shown, during the few times his handlers have allowed him to speak at all, that he has trouble expressing a coherent thought. He would collapse if he had to face Trump one-on-one in a debate.Even with assistance from friendly debate moderators, Trump would eviscerate him, and Biden’s handlers know this. The bottom line: Biden will not debate Trump.

HARRIS WILL RUN AGAINST TRUMP, NOT BIDEN. SO, IT IS HARRIS WHO MUST DEBATE TRUMP, NOT BIDEN.

If only one Presidential debate is held, Harris will debate Trump. That means Harris will be the Democrat’s nominee for U.S. President, not Biden.The puppet masters will not risk losing an election by allowing Biden on the National and, hence, world stage, making a jackass of himself, for all to see, and, thereby making a true, not merely symbolic “jackass” of the Party. That helps to explain why the puppet masters have scheduled the first debate at the end of September, not the beginning, contrary to what Trump and many Americans wanted and expected.Having a debate scheduled one month prior to the election buys the DNC time for the media image makers to shape the image of Harris they expect the public to buy: an impression that Harris is indeed the pragmatic moderate the script calls for and not the selfish, shallow, callow, opportunist she in fact is: simply a simulacrum of Hillary Clinton. They have only a few weeks to prop this stick figure up, allowing it to take hold on the public, to gel in the public psyche. Harris is giddy with expectation and delight, barely able to contain herself.So, as the days march on, Americans will see less and less of Biden and more and more of Harris, but precious little of both. Little will come out of either one’s mouth; and a sympathetic Press won’t “press” them to discuss their policy prescriptions.And then something untoward will happen to Biden. Expect this.The Democrats and the Billionaire Globalist puppet masters would trust the public won’t be shocked—if a trifle dismayed, and the Radical left positively gleeful—when Harris steps into Biden’s shoes at the last moment even as that moment is unprecedented.But neither one, Biden nor Harris, will do much talking to the Press before the Presidential debates, when it comes to pass that Harris faces off against Trump.It is either that or the DNC will have to conjure up a plausible explanation why there won’t be a Presidential debate at all. That scenario is unlikely. The public would feel cheated, and rightfully so.

HOW WILL THE BIDEN-HARRIS SWITCHEROO TAKE PLACE?

Prior to the debates, the DNC will declare, through the Press, that Biden has suffered a heart attack or a stroke; something or other, health-wise, not altogether implausible. After all Biden has had medical problems beyond incipient dementia and that isn’t a secret. There will be little explanation, and a sympathetic Press won’t probe. But obviously his lack of mental acuity will be the reason for it. Even the Washington Post, the Radical Left newspaper of the centi-billionaire Jeff Bezos speculated that Biden suffers from dementia.It is highly unlikely that a major supporter of the Democrats, and a man obviously “in the know,” Jeff Bezos, would allow his editorial staff to so much as intimate Biden’s unsuitability for the highest public Office in the Land, unless something major was afoot. So, quietly, surreptitiously, his tabloid, the Washington Post, has alerted the public to the possibility of the big switch.The DNC will have to scramble to appoint a VP for Harris. Likely, the DNC already has a VP in the wings: another woman no doubt, and conceivably another woman of color.So, the public will be fed a lie and that lie will suffice, must suffice, to get Biden out of the way before the first scheduled debate lest he make a fool of himself in front of the Nation and the world, and therein scotch the entire scheme of the Globalists and Marxists to take over the Government and the Country—just a few weeks prior to the most important election in modern times.________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A BIDEN PRESIDENCY PORTENDS ASSAULT ON OUR CONSTITUTION AND ON A FREE REPUBLIC

DEBATE THIS

U.S. Presidential elections are never small matters. But, this coming Presidential election, less than three months away, takes on inordinate importance—more so than any other Presidential election in our Nation’s history. For, depending on the outcome, Americans will either preserve their history, along with their sacred heritage, culture, and Christian ethos, or they will lose all of it. Recent events bear this out.The continuation of our Nation in the form our founders established for the American people, a free Constitutional Republic, and a sovereign people rests in the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights bestowed on them and in them by the loving Divine Creator—rights codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights: most importantly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the right of free speech.A reasonable person need not guess but knows there are forces both inside and outside our Nation that intend to destroy our free Republic and to subjugate our people. This has been well underway for thirty years.Americans certainly sensed it. They saw it in those who previously served as U.S. President.The process to destroy our Country and to subjugate the American people had been well underway for thirty years. Americans certainly sensed it; saw it in the characters that had served as U.S. President: two Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. The process to undermine the Nation was expected to continue under another Clinton, Hillary, but that process was derailed.Those forces were in for a shock. The shoo-in for the President lost, and the meticulously orchestrated process to destroy our Republic derailed.The electorate voted into Office a successful businessman, not a Washington politician, Donald J. Trump.The electorate voted into Office a populist; an outsider, not a Washington, D.C. politician. They voted into Office a successful businessman who swore to bring the Nation back to its roots, Donald J. Trump, and President Trump has done his best to do so, much to the anger of the a multitude of forces arrayed against him.Not surprisingly, the pushback against Trump came swiftly and severely. The pushback came from multiple quarters within our Nation. These repugnant, reprehensible forces include a loose coalition of Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Neoconservative Statists, Neoliberal Globalists, and Radical Feminists. Not surprisingly, they would back an individual whom they know they can control. demonstrating to all Americans just how extensive and complete the infiltration of our Nation by seditious forces was. And, those forces aligned against Trump never, for one moment, eased up on their assault against Trump, his Administration, his family and his domestic and foreign policies.Unperturbed, Donald Trump worked tirelessly, doggedly during these past four years, doing his best to preserve to our Nation in the form the founders gave to us; and it has been no easy task for him, and painful for those who voted for him, to watch.Americans saw firsthand how relentless the assault on the 45^th President of the United Sates became and how vengeful they could be. Americans witnessed ludicrous attempts to oust him from Office. Americans saw ruthless personal assaults on both Trump and his staff; and horrendous acts of sabotage by seditious spies and saboteurs, planted inside the Administration. As if that were not bad enough, Americans bore witness even to attacks on his family, including his youngest son, a mere child.Unperturbed Trump soldiered on, ever mindful of his Oath of Office, set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, and of the faith the American electorate placed in him to adhere to his Oath. All attempts to oust Donald Trump have, fortunately, failed and failed miserably.At their wit’s end, unable to oust Trump from Office or to unnerve him emotionally, these malevolent, malignant, sinister forces aligned against the American people dare to end the Trump Presidency and crush the American citizenry into submission. But they must now do so at the voting booth. That is all they have left. And who have they selected? It is Joseph R. Biden, the proverbial politician. Biden is nothing more than a doddering fool; a physical, emotional wreck of a man; a mentally feeble, corrupt and corrupting figure; a man lacking conviction, moral compass, or even a sense of purpose; a specter; a shell of a man; more dead than alive—Biden is someone who will not and cannot lead a Nation; someone who is, unsurprisingly, emblematic of and perfectly suited to the task of serving as a figurehead; a stand-in for those forces that seek only to increase their personal monetary wealth at the expense of the Nation, and to usurp the power from the American people, dragging an independent, sovereign Nation State down to ruin.The electorate has but one opportunity to save itself and the Nation and so, the electorate has a critical decision to make: it can retain the 45^th President of the United States, Donald Trump, for a second term, or it can vote in a simulacrum and totem in Trump’s stead, i.e., Joe Biden. But——

CAN AMERICANS EXPECT A FAIR ELECTION IN NOVEMBER?

The forces that have rallied against Trump have no intention of permitting a fair election. They have no intention of permitting the public to catch anything more than a glimpse of their decrepit choice for U.S. President. That is clear and obvious.In the few instances where Biden’s handlers allow him to speak at all, Biden’s mental confusion manifests itself excruciatingly and embarrassingly to all who bear witness to his public speeches.Understandably, Biden’s handlers would wish to keep him under wraps and they have been successful in doing so, as much as they can, given, after all, that the public expects to see a person who would be President of the United States if only, once in a while. But can they prevent Biden from debating Trump one-on-one? The Press has presented arguments against a debate, but those arguments are hardly convincing and plausible, as Fox News reports:“As the 2020 election steadily approaches, there have been growing calls from the media for Joe Biden not to debate President Trump or the debates to be scrapped altogether.There appears to have been an evolution from some members of the media regarding the debates. Back in June, an op-ed in The Washington Post declared ‘it's time to rethink the presidential debates.’Columnist Karen Tumulty laid out suggestions to improve the political matchups like getting rid of a live audience and conducting them in a television studio. As she noted, the elimination of a crowd would make it more challenging for Trump to "pull stunts," citing his invitation of four Bill Clinton accusers during his town hall debate with Hillary Clinton.However, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote a piece in July urging Biden not to debate the president unless "two conditions" were met.‘I worry about Joe Biden debating Donald Trump. He should do it only under two conditions. Otherwise, he’s giving Trump unfair advantages,’ Friedman began his op-ed.Friedman said the ‘conditions’ should be that Trump must release his tax returns from 2016 to 2018, and that both campaigns should agree on having a ‘real-time fact-checking team’ hired by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.The columnist suggested ‘10 minutes before the scheduled conclusion of the debate, this team report on any misleading statements, phony numbers or outright lies either candidate had uttered. That way no one in that massive television audience can go away easily misled.’The Times columnist said the debates will not be a ‘good way’ for Biden to ‘reintroduce himself’ to the American people—particularly during the coronavirus outbreak when the former vice president has largely hunkered down in his Delaware home instead of being out on the campaign trail.‘He should not go into such a high-stakes moment ceding any advantages to Trump,’ Friedman wrote. ‘Trump is badly trailing in the polls, and he needs these debates much more than Biden does to win over undecided voters.’”

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE THEIR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE WITHIN THEIR VERBAL CROSSHAIRS

The forces that wish to defeat Trump in November express justifiable concern if there’s a debate.Joe Biden would crumple, and they know it. Even assuming the assistance of sympathetic debate moderators, Trump would flay Biden alive. Biden would have nowhere to hide.Trump has shown his mettle in resisting relentless, vicious, virulent, vile attacks by Democrats and the Press.It is difficult to believe Biden could withstand the pressures a U.S. President must contend with. Trump has become a tested, battle-hardened warrior. Biden, in comparison, hasn’t even undertaken basic training. He would be manipulated by and intimidated by others.In the few instances where Biden’s handlers have allowed him to speak at all, Biden’s mental confusion manifests itself. It is excruciating and embarrassing to watch. He is a man obviously in the throes of irremediable, crippling dementia.Understandably, Biden’s handlers would wish to keep him under wraps. But, the public wants, even demands, to see how Biden stacks up one-on-one against Trump. So, despite the many serious and obvious risks, Biden’s handlers and supporters have had to acquiesce to the call for debates, however grudgingly.“The nationally televised presidential debate occupies a role of singular significance in American politics. In sheer scope of importance, in extent of audience interest and breadth of media coverage, the debate stands alone among campaign events. In short, in an age in which the importance of media exposure for informing the electorate, amassing voter support, and waging a successful campaign is axiomatic, televised presidential debates matter.” “Non-Major-Party Candidates and Televised Presidential Debates The Merits Of Legislative Inclusion., 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 973, January, 1993, by Keith Darren Eisner, Cornell University; J.D. Candidate 1993, University of Pennsylvania.Consider the results of the 1960 election.“Over 100 million Americans saw at least one of the debates, and the average audience for the four debates was around 71 million viewers. These viewers saw a contrast in images and styles that ultimately helped determine the winner of the 1960 election. . . . Post-election polls found 57% of voters reporting that the candidates’ performances in the debates had ultimately influenced their voting choice; 6% reported that they based their final decision on the debates alone—and Kennedy won the support of 72% of this group. If the poll results are accurate, then two million people voted for Kennedy strictly on the basis of the debates—a margin more than sufficient to change the outcome of the election.” “The Designated Nonpublic Forum: Remedying the Forbes Mistake,” 67 Alb. L. Rev. 89, 2003, by Tim Cramm, M.D., University Of Arkansas, 1997; J.D., University Of Iowa, 2002.Americans expect debates, and they have a right to see how the two candidates for the highest post in the Land fair against each other; battling it out one-on-one in the Gladiatorial Arena of political debates. For tens of millions of Americans, U.S. Presidential debates allow these Americans a rare opportunity, indeed the only opportunity, to view the candidates side-by-side. Not only can the electorate compare political track records and the policy stances of each candidate, the electorate is able to decipher at once, who is the most commanding person—who, in fact, looks and acts and holds himself out as the more “Presidential.” If Americans follow no other political news, they will watch a U.S. Presidential debate. A Presidential debate is akin to Football's Super Bowl.How many times, during the last four years has the Press been heard to chant, ad nauseum, the absurd claim that President Trump doesn't act, "Presidential?" Yet, for all these inane attacks on Trump's character and bearing,  it is most curious that there has been a paucity of Press coverage suggesting that Biden has the strength of character and bearing of a U.S. President.Is the reticence of the Press accidental on that score? Obviously not.Had Biden been the incumbent, instead of Trump, one might make a plausible argument that, as incumbent, Biden need not debate and should avoid doing so, as the public would have had four years to view him as President and he would wish to stand on his record, assuming he were not an total flop, and if the latter were the case, that would be reason to avoid debating as well. But Trump has succeeded. And that is all the more remarkable given the sinister forces at work, and still at work, that have placed constant and formidable obstacles in his path.But, generally, where a person is the challenger, it is bizarre to argue that a challenger need not debate a sitting President.In fact, the challenger should want to go head-to-head with the incumbent; should, in fact, insist on it. But Biden's assertions that he is looking forward to debating Trump are few and far between. He is allowing his handlers to make that decision for him; claiming, implausibly, that Biden is ahead in the polls and that is reason enough not to debate Trump. But is he really ahead in the polls and, if that were true, would that argument, propounded by the Radical Left New York Times reporter, Friedman, supra,  be reason enough to avoid a debate.Recall that most polls asserted that Hillary Clinton was ahead of or way ahead of Donald Trump, in the running for U.S. President, assuming the stories the Press was feeding Americans were really true. In any event, no one, including Clinton herself, professed an unwillingness to debate Trump. Nonetheless, she received plenty of help from the Press, when she did debate him.The Press fervently wanted to see Clinton as President, no less so than Clinton herself, who unabashedly lusted over that prize. Each wanted to debate the other for the U.S. Presidency. They were both contenders for the Champion’s Belt.Yet it is now Trump who, as the sitting President, is constantly and avidly calling for debates: several debates and he is chomping at the bit to do so; not so Biden, nor Biden’s handlers. If Biden's handlers truly thought that Biden had the edge on Trump, on the debate stage, or that Biden was at least Trump's equal, they would be calling for more debates, not fewer debates; and they would be calling for debates at an earlier stage before the election, not, as they have done, setting up a debate schedule, commencing at the end of September, one month before the election, when many early votes have already been cast. One would also expect that Biden would have taken control of the process and demanded an opportunity to push up the schedule, not permit his handlers to dictate the debate schedule, pushing that schedule as far back as possible. This is all singularly odd; the reversal of what one would expect.Consider the relationship of a Champion prizefighter to a Contender. The Champ doesn’t have to prove himself and would have practical reason enough not to take on any further contenders as he, having reached the pinnacle of success, having proved himself worthy of the title from so many scrapes on his way to the top, has nothing more to prove, nor to gain, from another battle, and he has everything to lose. But the Contender has everything to gain and nothing to lose. It is the Contender, then, who is the hungrier of the two fighters, not the Champ, and that makes perfect sense.In the political sphere, recall that it was President Lyndon Johnson who refrained from debating his challenger Barry Goldwater. It was Goldwater, the contender for the Presidency, who, after all, wished to debate Johnson, not the other way around, and that is understandable.But, in the present instance, in this topsy-turvy political venue we are living in, it is Biden and his handlers who are shying away from debating Trump, and it is Trump, the Champion, who is itching for a fight.Biden’s reluctance is doubly suspect given the fact that the Press incessantly attacks Trump’s own character and bearing, claiming that he is decidedly un-Presidential, but curiously never exclaims that Biden appears and acts Presidential.You would think the Press would encourage a lively debate between Biden and Trump, but it doesn’t. Quite the opposite. It adamantly opposes a Trump and Biden match-up. And it isn’t hard to figure out why.Biden is weak and intemperate. He is a little man. He is small in mind and body, and in will and spirit. Everyone knows that to be true. So, unlike a true Contender who relishes taking on the Champ in the Ring, who would, in fact, insist upon it, Biden’s handlers and the seditious Press expect Biden to claim the Champion’s Belt without undergoing the obligatory rite of passage: an actual bout.If Biden does pull out a victory against Trump it can only occur through subterfuge. His handlers throw in the towel before he goes even one round with Trump yet would still audaciously claim a victory for Biden if they can get away with it through skullduggery.In some dim part of Biden’s brain, he, himself, knows he is a fraud. He knows he is no match for Trump, either in intellect or in strength of will. So, like a petulant child, Biden is content merely to revert to name-calling from afar; careful never to face his nemesis face-to-face.Biden is content to rely on a battalion of surrogates to do his fighting for him. It is remarkable that such a wimp would be able to garner any votes at all. In fact, those who support him do so out of self-interest. It is doubtful anyone in his camp respects him. He would be a travesty as President of the United States, but a fitting emblem of the Nation’s demise. And, if he were to actually make it all the way to the Office of U.S. President, he will be delegating all policy decisions to surrogates as well. This is evident enough now, as Biden has scrapped all pretense of being a political moderate that the Press has falsely claimed him to be, adopting, point-for-point, the policy planks of the most radical elements of the Democrat Party.It would be remarkable that the wimp, Biden, would be able to garner any votes at all. But, then, those who support him do so out of self-interest. It is doubtful anyone in his camp respects him. He would be a travesty as President of the United States, and a fitting symbol of the Nation’s demise. So, Biden must be defeated. But—

CAN THE PUBLIC TRUST IN A FAIR, IMPARTIAL U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER?

Apart from the matter of U.S. Presidential debates, there is the real concern of voter fraud.“It is unfortunately true that in the great democracy in which we live, voter fraud has had a long and studied role in our elections. Maintaining the security of our voter registration and voting process, while at the same time protecting the voting rights of individuals and guaranteeing their access to the polls, must be our foremost objective. Unlike what certain advocates in the civil rights community believe, these goals are not mutually exclusive. Every vote that is stolen through fraud disenfranchises a voter who has cast a legitimate ballot in the same way that an individual who is eligible to vote is disenfranchised when he is kept out of a poll or is somehow otherwise prevented from casting a ballot. In other words, violations of criminal election crimes statutes are just as important as violations of federal voting rights statutes and both cause equal damage to our democracy. “Securing the Integrity of American Elections: The Need for Change,” 9 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 27, Spring, 2005, by Publius (pseudonym); Publius is an attorney who specializes in election issues. Many politicians complain of disenfranchisement of people, when they argue against the need for ID to verify the legitimacy of the person who claims a right to vote. Many of these same politicians also argue for allowing convicted felons to vote, as well as allowing for illegal aliens the right to vote. While States may permit illegal aliens and convicted felons to vote in local elections, illegal aliens cannot lawfully vote in federal elections, and likely convicted felons, who have not secured a restoration of civil rights, cannot lawfully vote in federal elections either.Voting by mail is becoming ubiquitous, overshadowing voting at polls, and may, eventually, become universal, making voting at polls obsolete. But, at what cost to the maintenance of honest elections? Is it really the answer to getting more Americans to vote?“In the past, many states required voters who requested to vote by mail to provide an excuse for why they could not vote at the polls on election day [“absentee ballot voting”]. States often created lists of permissible excuses entitling voters to mail-in ballots. Today, twenty-seven states (and the District of Columbia) allow no-excuse absentee or mail-in voting.  Three states, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, are experimenting with all-mail elections, doing away with polling places altogether. In addition to expanded mail-in voting, many states have introduced and expanded early in-person voting opportunities (EIPV). As distinguished from voting by mail, EIPV allows voters to cast ballots at designated locations for a specified period before election day. Early voting garnered significant attention in the 2012 election. Campaigns pushed supporters to cast early ballots for a variety of strategic reasons. In 2012, President Obama became the first major presidential candidate to cast an early vote.” Id.While the Press uniformly denies incessant and widespread voter fraud in previous State and federal elections, the critical impact of the coming election on the fate of the Nation, on the Constitution, and on the American people, should not be lost on anyone.It is clear enough that the noxious, disgusting Radical Left and the wealthy, powerful, ruthless Globalist forces, both desirous of taking over the reins of Government don’t care one wit about the fairness of our elections. They only care in one thing: toppling Trump and taking control of both Houses of Congress, so they can continue where they had left off—after Trump “rudely” defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—tearing down the Nation and eventually merging it into a new one-world governmental political, social, economic, and cultural scheme.Four years of vicious, violent, virulent, unethical, even illegal attacks on Trump, his Administration, and those closely connected with him, demonstrate clear evidence that those malevolent, malignant forces aligned against Trump will use whatever means they can—legal, quasi-legal, or outright illegal—to prevail in November 2020.At the very least, the electorate should not be in doubt that a person voting in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election has a legal right to vote. Voter ID procedures and all election procedures must be reasonable, fair, and impartial, thereby ensuring transparency and honesty in elections, true; but those responsible for establishing Voter ID and election procedures must be held absolutely accountable for the procedures they create and implement.Mandating Voter ID in order to vote does not mean that a jurisdiction is imposing an inherently burdensome requirement on the electorate, and the reason for it is obvious. A person is simply asked to to provide concrete evidence that he or she is whom that person represents him or herself to be and that the person has a lawful right to vote.Photo ID as issued by State motor vehicle departments have, traditionally, provided evidence of this. If adequate in the past, such licenses, though, are not, in some jurisdictions, adequate proof of citizenship today since some States, such as California and New York, are now issuing photo ID drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. To deal effectively with the very real problem of illegal aliens voting in federal elections, Photo IDs today should also clearly set forth whether or not a person is a citizen of the United States and whether or not that person, if a citizen, is under any disability that would preclude his voting in a federal election as, for example, if a person were a convicted felon who has not been issued a valid relief from disability order from a Court of competent jurisdiction.Those politicians who disagree with the requirement that a voter demonstrate his or her U.S. citizenship and that he or she is under no civil disability should be prepared to explain why they disapprove of such a requirement, beyond falling back on the imbecilic charge of “racism” that has become no more than a wearisome cliché, elicited like a burp or hiccough.U.S. citizens, not under civil disability constraints, do have a right to vote, and they also have a right to demand that their elections be fair and honest.Going into the November 2020 election, it is unfortunate that Americans will have no certainty that fraud won’t occur. The messy election outcomes we have seen of late would suggest that inefficiencies, mistakes, and, not least of all, massive fraud will be rampant in the ensuing general election.A paucity of concern expressed by politicians over securing the upcoming U.S. Presidential election against rampant fraud is itself alarming and leads one to wonder whether the November election may not already be lost, and with that loss, whether we, Americans, have not already lost our Nation—a loss without a fight.So, then, can the public be assured that the coming general election will be aboveboard and secure from fraud?If voting by mail is the wave of the future, overshadowing voting at polls--becoming, eventually, universal--thereby making voting at polls obsolete, one has a right to ask: at what cost to honest elections? Making voting easier so that more Americans can vote in federal elections is one thing; but if such procedures also allow millions of illegal aliens and tens of thousands more convicted felons to cast their fraudulent votes, then ease of voting comes at a cost wholly out of proportion to any desired benefits.“In the past, many states required voters who requested to vote by mail to provide an excuse for why they could not vote at the polls on election day [“absentee ballot voting”]. States often created lists of permissible excuses entitling voters to mail-in ballots. Today, twenty-seven states (and the District of Columbia) allow no-excuse absentee or mail-in voting.  Three states, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, are experimenting with all-mail elections, doing away with polling places altogether. In addition to expanded mail-in voting, many states have introduced and expanded early in-person voting opportunities (EIPV). As distinguished from voting by mail, EIPV allows voters to cast ballots at designated locations for a specified period before election day. Early voting garnered significant attention in the 2012 election. Campaigns pushed supporters to cast early ballots for a variety of strategic reasons. In 2012, President Obama became the first major presidential candidate to cast an early vote.” Id.The forces driving Biden’s White-House bid don't care how Biden comes to be elected U.S. President, as long as he is elected U.S. President. And, it appears more and more likely that this can come about only through deception. Will the upcoming November 2020 Presidential election be reasonable, fair, impartial, transparent, and honest? Biden’s image makers know the less the public sees and hears Biden, the better. Biden’s surrogates, a host of handlers, and a sympathetic, seditious Press have constructed a false image of Biden. It is a fragile image easily undercut through public appearances and shattered by a one-to-one match-up with Trump. This is precisely why the Press, along with Biden’s handlers, support early voting and why they seek to delay a Presidential debate.Unfortunately, at this moment Americans have no certainty that massive voter fraud won’t occur. The messy election outcomes we have seen of late show inefficiencies and mistakes, both of which lend to the possibility of rampant fraud occurring in the general election.Going into the November 2020 election, it is unfortunate that Americans will have no certainty that fraud won’t occur. The messy election outcomes we have seen of late would suggest that inefficiencies, mistakes, and, not least of all, massive fraud will be rampant in the ensuing general election.A paucity of concern expressed by politicians over securing the upcoming U.S. Presidential election against rampant fraud is itself alarming and leads one to wonder whether the November election may not already be lost, and with that loss, whether we, Americans, have not already lost our Nation—a loss without a fight. And the Radical Leftists and Neoliberal Globalists would rather rely on subterfuge than an all-out war if they finally succeed in taking control of the Government through a quiet coup than by  violent overthrow.Beyond the ramifications of the election process, there is the matter of Biden himself. Biden’s image makers know the less the public sees and hears Biden and hears of Biden, the better. Biden’s surrogates, a host of handlers, and a sympathetic, seditious Press have constructed a false image of Biden. It is a fragile image easily undercut through public appearances and shattered by a one-to-one match-up with Trump. This is precisely why the Press, along with Biden’s handlers, support early voting and why they seek to delay a Presidential debate.The Radical Leftists and Neoliberal Globalists, frantically seeking to install their puppet, Biden, in the Oval Office, must therefore rely on, one, early voting; two, fraudulent mail-in voting; and, three, Presidential debate avoidance to enhance Biden's chance of defeating Trump this November 2020. The impact of the Chinese Coronavirus on the upcoming election, along with the devastation wrought to the economy, can only help the Radical leftists and Neoliberal Globalists up to a point. The ransacking of American Cities and unjustified, unprovoked attacks on our community and federal police forces, along with the concomitant horrendous increase in crime, and the noticeably cavalier attitudes of Radical Left politicians toward constant riots, vandalism, arson, looting, wanton destruction of public and private property, and increasing numbers of assaults and murder on innocent people, is much more likely to hurt than help Biden's bid for the Oval Office. But, if successful, the forces that have worked for decades to destroy our free Republic and to erase our Nation’s history, heritage, and culture will be able once again to press ahead with their plans, and they will likely succeed, as there will be nothing outside of outright civil war to return the Country back to the rightful owners: the American people. To prevent destruction of our Nation, Trump must prevail in November. Much is up to you.________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU! YOU MUST PROTECT YOURSELF!

REMARKS OF ARBALEST QUARREL FOUNDER, STEPHEN L'DANRILLI, ON STEPHEN HALBROOK ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2020 NRA PUBLICATION, AMERICA'S 1ST FREEDOM

As a NYPD veteran police officer, and Adjunct Professor/Lecturer of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, National Rifle Association Certified Firearms Instructor (pistol, rifle, and shotgun), and Training Counselor, and active member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and lifetime resident of New York City, I have dedicated my life to the preservation and strengthening of our cherished Second Amendment. This is no easy task, especially today, as we see constant, concerted, vigorous attacks on the fundamental right of personal defense with firearms.So, it was with more than a little interest I read Stephen Halbrook’s article, “How Does New York City Get Away With This,” published in the August 2020 edition of NRA’s publication, “America’s 1^st Freedom.”Stephen Halbrook is a Second Amendment Constitutional law expert and a prolific writer and author who has argued and won several important Second Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.In his article he provides a brief history of restrictive handgun licensing in New York City. He correctly observes that “[i]t all started with the Sullivan Act of 1911, the first law in any state (other than the slave codes) to require a license for mere possession of a pistol even in the home.”  Toward the end of the article, he makes the point that:“Nothing has changed since 1911 when [an Italian-American] Mario Rossi carried a pistol for protection against the Black Hand, for which he was sentenced to a year in prison.” It is of course disturbingly, depressingly, frustratingly true that, indeed, nothing has changed in New York City since 1911, insofar as the City continues to require a valid license to lawfully possess a handgun.Still, in a few important respects, much has changed, and for the worse, since enactment of the unconscionable and unconstitutional Sullivan Act.In the 109 years since handgun licensing began, New York City’s laws have become more extensive, more oppressive and repressive, and confoundingly difficult to understand. These laws are a labyrinthine maze of ambiguity and vagueness, and they are singularly bizarre.Unlike many other States that wisely preempt the field of gun regulation, as failure to do so invariably promotes and leads to confusion and inconsistencies across a State, the York State Government, in Albany, has not preempted the field. The New York Legislature gives local governments wide discretion in establishing their own firearms rules as long as local government enactments don’t conflict with basic State law mandates.Albany traditionally allows, and even encourages, local governments to devise their own, often numerous and extremely stringent, firearms rules. New York City has done so, and with glee, devising an extraordinarily complex and confusing array of rules directed to the ownership and possession of all firearms: rifles, shotguns, and handguns.New York State law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (1) sets forth the basic handgun licensing scheme, applicable to all New York jurisdictions, making clear that possession of handguns falls within the province of the police and that,“No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true.” NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (3)(a) provides that,“Applications shall be made and renewed, in the case of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, to the licensing officer in the city or county, as the case may be, where the applicant resides, is principally employed or has his or her principal place of business as merchant or storekeeper.”New York City builds upon State Statute, establishing a mind-numbing set of tiers of handgun licensing, mandating the extent to which New York residents may exercise the privilege, not the right, to possess a handgun for self-defense.The Rules of the City of New York, specifically 38 RCNY 5-01, has established, at the moment, at least, no less than 6 different categories of handgun licenses:

• Premises License—Residence or Business
• Carry Business License
• Limited Carry Business License
• Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License
• Special Carry Business License
• Special Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License

New York City’s tiered handgun licensing scheme is not only inconsistent with the Second Amendment, but it also promotes unlawful discrimination under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and invites both abuse by and corruption in the City’s Licensing Division. In fact, the City’s insufferable and puzzling handgun licensing scheme is, from a purely logical standpoint, apart from a legal standpoint, internally inconsistent and incoherent.Premise residence and business handgun licenses place considerable restraints on a licensee’s right of self-defense. Unrestricted handgun carry licenses, on the other hand, are issued only to a select few people who satisfy arbitrary “proper cause,” requirements. Of course, powerful, wealthy, politically-connected “elites” are exceptions, routinely obtaining rare and coveted unrestricted handgun carry licenses, unavailable to the average citizen, residing in the City.And criminals don’t obey handgun licensing rules or any other State law or City code, rule, or regulation pertaining to firearms. So they don’t care what the laws say. And this hasn’t changed.But it is deeply troubling, indeed mind-boggling, to believe New York City’s harsh, brutal, even despotic handgun licensing scheme continues to escape Constitutional scrutiny, a point Stephen Halbrook makes at the outset of his August 2020 NRA article, when he says,“‘Under New York law, it is a crime to possess a firearm’, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in U.S. vs. Sanchez-Villar (2004). This ruling was based on the state’s ban on the possession of an unlicensed handgun. This prohibition did not offend the Second Amendment, said this ruling, because ‘the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.’ Later rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court—D.C v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010—begged to differ. . . . But the Second Circuit must not have gotten the memo. . . .”Stephen Halbrook makes clear that the New York licensing scheme is unlawful on its face because the very concept of licensing is grounded on the erroneous idea that gun possession is a privilege and not a fundamental right, a notion that is completely at odds with the Second Amendment and with High Court rulings. And I agree with Stephen Halbrook’s assessment.The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out the Constitutional flaws inherent in gun licensing schemes over and over again, through the years, commencing with our first series of articles on Governor Andrew Cuomo’s draconian and inane New York Safe Act of 2013.We called the Governor out on New York’s unconstitutional licensing scheme. See, e.g., our April 30, 2014 article where we concluded with this: “To suffer bad law is unfortunate. But, forced submission to State law that infringes a fundamental right is sinful.” New York City residents have been forced to submit to unconstitutional firearms laws since 1911. New York’s gun control laws were and continue to be enacted to disarm the honest citizen and to discourage personal self-defense.If a person insists on possessing a handgun for self-defense, New York insists on one’s first obtaining permission from the police department to do so, through the acquisition of a license, issued by the police.Yet, the imposition of stringent handgun license requirements is inconsistent with the import of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Redress is necessary. It’s about time.Still, Anti-Second Amendment proponents and zealots interject that every State requires that a motorist obtain an operator’s license to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on public streets, and they ask, “why should gun possession be any different?” But in posing the question, these Anti-Second Amendment activists demonstrate an intention to reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to the status of mere privilege, which, in fact, is what a motorist’s license is; merely a privilege to drive an automobile on public roadways. It is logically and legally wrong to view and to treat a fundamental right as a mere privilege.New York attempts to skirt addressing the inherent unconstitutionality of the entire firearms’ licensing scheme through pompous, imbecilic assurances that a person doesn’t need a handgun to defend him or herself because Government, protects a person. That is patently false and, in any event, it is wholly beside the point, as the Arbalest Quarrel made clear in an article posted on our site on November 21, 2019. That article was reprinted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on November 26, 2019, although in a different format with some editing.As we said, under the ‘doctrine of sovereign immunity’ the police are not, as a general rule, legally obligated to protect and guarantee the life and safety of any individual, and they cannot be held legally liable for failing to do so. Courts have routinely so held, including New York Courts. But many Americans fail to realize this because the seditious Press and politicians routinely lie to them.The purpose of a community police department is to protect the society-at-large, nothing more. I had pointed this out 30 years ago, in an article I co-authored with Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel. And that basic doctrine has not changed since.But, very recently, something has changed and drastically.Radical Left State and local governments are no longer even allowing their police departments to provide a modicum of protection for their community. This follows from the unrestrained actions and antics of volatile Marxist and Anarchist groups whom they kowtow to. They have called for the defunding of and disbanding of community police departments across the Country and some jurisdictions have done so. In New York City the Radical Left Mayor, Bill de Blasio, has slashed $1 Billion from the NYPD budget. This comes at a critical time when soaring crime and daily riots demand more funding for police, not less.This is a major change because the average American can, now, no longer depend on the police to provide even general protection to the community.It must be noted, too, that there are attempts by Marxists and Anarchists to rewrite the laws on sovereign immunity, to hold police accountable for harming citizens. But this is not for the purpose of securing more police protection and for making the police more accountable to the law-abiding public at large.To the contrary, the purpose of overturning police sovereign immunity rulings is  to provide the public with less protection and, at once, to allow lawless rioters, looters, arsonists, and assailants to engage in attacks on the police and on innocent people without having to fear justifiable retribution for their lawless acts.So, in some ways, matters have changed. Radical Left Governments are leaving communities less safe by preventing the police from promoting law and order, and they are even prevented from protecting themselves as lawlessness occurs all around them, rendering them powerless to engage lawbreakers.The public sees the disturbing results: demoralized officers and less safe communities as police are not permitted to provide communities with even a modicum of safety. This obviously is not for the better.Moreover, even as Radical Left Government leaders restrain and constrain the police, they continue to resist recognition of the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own defense. These Marxist leaders demonstrate their contempt for the very sanctity of human life, even as they claim disingenuously to care about human life. They don’t care and they never did. Theirs is a recipe for disaster: for a complete breakdown of law and order in society.But a breakdown of society is precisely what these Radical Left Governments want. They wish to tear down the Nation, so they can reconfigure it in a manner completely at odds with the preservation of the free Constitutional Republic our founders gave us.Yet, despite the intentions of the Radical Left Collectivists, they can’t subvert the dictates of natural law. Natural law dictates that the right and responsibility of self-defense rests today, as it always did, on the individual.Americans must not listen to the seditious Press and duplicitous politicians who claim that defunding or eliminating the police is necessary and, who claim, at one and the same time, the necessity for curbing the personal right of armed self-defense as well; that taking these actions will improve society. That is not only false, it is absurd. The seditious Press and Radical Left politicians don’t have, and never did have, the best interests of the Nation or its people at heart. This is now transparent and, given the present state of affairs afflicting our Country, this fact is irrefutable.Although I have always been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, I never advocated that everyone should get a gun. I did support and continue to support freedom of choice in owning and possessing firearms. But now, it is time for every law-abiding American citizen to be armed. Learn how to properly use a gun and how to safeguard it.Our Country is at a crossroads. We stand to lose everything near and dear to us if we don’t pay to heed to the threats directed against us, bearing down relentlessly on all of us.It is the responsibility of all citizens to safeguard their own life and safety and that of their families, and to preserve our Republic as the founders intended; to protect it from the insinuation of tyranny that the Radical Left would dare impose on Americans.Stephen L. D'Andrilli________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

TREACHEROUS AMERICANS POSE THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE SURVIVAL OF OUR NATION

[Note to our readers: The below Three-Part Series Article was delayed publication on AQ due to a pressing need to finalize the publication of a Seven-Part Series Article that was posted earlier today. The present Three-Part series Article was posted in segments, several days ago, on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, whom we support and where AQ is privileged to serve as a contributing writer]

PART ONE

THE “FREE PRESS” AND BIG TECH USE PROPAGANDA TO ENSLAVE US: CONTROL OF SPEECH AND BAN ON FIREARMS

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. “If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ~ two quotations from the book, “Propaganda,” by Edward Bernays, Early 20th Century proponent of Propaganda and “Father of Public Relations” Government, the mainstream media, transnational corporations and global technology companies are all avid users of psychological warfare and have been using it to their advantage and to great effect to control and to direct the public’s thought processes and behavior.Through the decades propaganda has become a powerful if subtle mechanism of mind control over a large swath of the population.No greater threat to our fundamental rights and liberties exist today than the power of propaganda to provoke public antipathy toward those sacred rights and liberties through which the individual retains his personal autonomy, power over selfhood; and power over Government: specifically through the God-given right of free expression, as codified in and guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in, and guaranteed under the Second Amendment. But today, the right of free expression and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is under constant, concerted, and vigorous assault. How and why has this turnabout happened? The question of why this turnabout occurred is readily apparent.There are powerful, sinister, secretive, ruthless, well-organized, and deep-pocketed forces at work today both inside our Nation and outside it that renounce the continued existence of nation-states. As they have accomplished in Europe, they intend to accomplish here.These forces intend to hollow out our Nation; to confiscate the mineral resources of and harness the talent, and power of our Nation’s extensive military, intelligence, and federal police apparatuses for their own benefit and inscrutable purposes; tacking our Nation onto the others, and eventually merging the entirety of western civilization into a single, unified, global system of governance, a new world order, which the late Senator McCain referred to as a good thing. McCain had also expressed his concern that Trump and Russia would “change” that “world order,” as reported on the website, Real Clear Politics.Notions of pride in Country and of citizenship, of loyalty and devotion to one’s Nation; a sense of national identity, integral to the maintenance of independent, sovereign nations are antithetical to the creation of a transglobal political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical system of governance—a new world order—that the Destructors of the United States and of other nation-states intend to force upon the citizens of our Country and of the Countries of Europe and of the Commonwealth Nations.Consider: our Government has long utilized propaganda to target foreign governments and foreign nationals to accomplish foreign policy objectives, just as those Governments have and continue to target Americans to accomplish their own foreign policy objectives.But in recent years our Government has directed propaganda attacks against a new target. It is the American public itself. This is dismaying, disturbing, disjointed, and alarming; and up until 2013, this practice was illegal.Congress enacted a law in 1946 to prohibit the Government from directing propaganda campaigns against its own citizens. It was called the Smith-Mundt Act. Over a half century later, Congress shifted course.

THE SMITH-MUNDT ACT

“For over sixty years, the Smith -Mundt Act [1946 22 USCS § 1461] prohibited the U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) from disseminating government-produced programming within the United States over fears that these agencies would ‘propagandize’ the American people. However, in 2013, Congress abolished the domestic dissemination ban, which has led to a heated debate about the role of the federal government in free public discourse. Although the 2013 repeal of the domestic dissemination ban promotes greater government transparency and may help counter anti-American sentiment at home, it also gives the federal government great power to covertly influence public opinion. “Apple Pie Propaganda? The Smith—Mundt Act Before And After The Repeal Of The Domestic Dissemination Ban,” (Abstract), 109 NW. U.L. Rev. 511 (Winter 2015), by Weston R. Sager, Northwestern School of Law, Fulbright Scholar.But it isn’t simply Government’s use of propaganda against its own citizens that alone prompts concern. Powerful internet Companies, like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, dominate information access and they have a tremendous impact in shaping public opinion as they have the means and the motivation to censor free speech.As private companies, information platforms do not come under the purview of the Smith—Mundt Act, and they never did. But these information platforms deserve renewed scrutiny. As internet platforms—pipes of communication—Government has long treated these internet platforms like phone companies. But unlike phone companies, these internet platforms are not mere neutral pipes or conduits for the conveyance of information. They control data and information. In that respect, they operate more like the traditional “Press.” Yet, unlike the Press, these internet platforms cannot be held liable for censoring information.Congress has enacted specific legislation that provides these internet platforms with complete immunity from prosecution for censoring data. The legislation is titled, “Communication Decency Act of 1996,” codified at 47 USCS § 230 Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. 47 USCS § 230(c) provides in pertinent part, that:(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material. (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.(2) Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; Pay close attention to the words, “or otherwise objectionable” that appear in 47 USCS § 230(c)(2)(A).These words are vague and overbroad, deliberately so. They provide Internet platforms with cover to censor at will anyone they wish to deny use of their platform or any information they find otherwise objectionable. This Statute gives internet platforms, like Google, Facebook, and twitter complete immunity from liability for anything from anyone they wish to censor. And, since they all have a very radical left political, social, and cultural bias, they use their control over the flow of information to benefit the Radical Left Democrat Party agenda, that seeks, unabashedly to curb our most sacred rights, the right of free speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Given the immense power these Internet platforms hold over the flow of information, it isn’t surprising that the Government itself utilizes these platforms for its own propagandizing efforts, and a disturbing alliance between Democrats and these tech companies has emerged. The agenda of Radical left politicians is unconstrained but the voice of conservative values is routinely shut out.The framers of our Constitution had no reason to suspect that a few private companies holding monopolistic power over the flow of information would one day, more than two hundred years after ratification of the Constitution, begin to consolidate their power over the flow of that information and would wield essentially unlimited power over it. But, in their failure to deduce the power of a few monopolistic private companies would wield, undermining the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, the framers erred.Unscrupulous forces, never desirous of a Nation existing as a free Constitutional Republic in which the people themselves are sovereign, utilized holes in the Constitution with the goal of one day dispensing with it. And the rapidity and rapaciousness of the effort to transform our Nation into a Collectivist tool of Globalists and Marxists is apparent on the run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election.________________________________________________________

THE PATH TO TYRANNY RESTS IN THE DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH AND THE DISARMING OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY

THE DEADLY THREAT TO OUR NATION IS NOT THE CORONAVIRUS BUT THE CORRUPTION IN THE BODY POLITIC

The concern of our founders was directed to preventing a strong, centralized Federal Government from usurping power that rightfully belongs to the American people. They felt that, apart from a three Branch Government, wielding distinct and limited powers, the free Speech clause within the First Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms clause in the Second, would be the principal fail-safe mechanism through which we would be able to maintain their authority over Government if the threat of tyranny should arise.But the framers could not have imagined the marriage of certain factions of Government to modern internet platforms that, working together, could one day effectively undermine the sovereignty of the American people. The First and Second Amendments to the Constitution were designed to prevent this.To the First Amendment, the framers added—what is arguably redundant—the freedom of Press clause, as they felt the Press, as a distinct and critical extension of the people, or perhaps, as a mechanism separate and apart from the people, would nonetheless constitute a staunch ally of the people to help prevent the insinuation of patterns of conduct within Government that might well lead to tyranny. In drawing that inference, the framers erred as well.“Freedom of the Press” even as it appears in the Bill of Rights, is not a codification of a natural right at all, and, so, should not be construed as such. After all, “the Press,” as with the Government itself are artificial man-made constructs, not God-bestowed natural rights intrinsic to man himself. And, as with all gargantuan, bloated constructs, the Press, as an institution, to which we can add the cable news networks, talk radio, and the monolithic internet platforms has grown to dominate free speech.The Press expresses consternation over and is antagonistic toward the public that would desire to exercise its own fundamental right of free speech, as freely and as independently as this “Press.”

A NEW THREAT TO LIBERTY HAS EMERGED: THE PRESS

The framers of our Constitution never envisioned, in their wildest dreams, that the people would one day elect a man to Government—the best the people could achieve at any rate, at this moment in the Nation’s history, Donald Trump—who would better defend the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people than did his predecessors who machinated to weaken those very rights and liberties.The people elected a man who would implement foreign and domestic policies to benefit the United States as an independent Nation-State rather than implement policies, as his recent predecessors had done, that serve to benefit not the American people but a monstrous, labyrinthine transnational neoliberal oligarchic empire Collective, into which the hollowed-out shell of the United States would one day be fastened.The framers of the Constitution would be surprised to learn that the agency of information, the Press, that was expected to keep the Government in check would one day work, seditiously, not for but against the American people, colluding with like-minded members of Congress and like-minded unelected officials of the federal bureaucracy to destroy a President whose unforgivable crime, in their mind, was striving to serve the Nation, its Constitution, and its people rather than working against it as recent former Presidents had done, in service to destructive forces with a perverse agenda.If the framers recognized the danger that the Press—along with modern versions of the Press, the information technology platforms, cable news and other mechanisms for conveying information—would one day pose to the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry, they would likely have forborne inclusion of free Press protection in the First Amendment and left intact the right of free speech.But the framers learned men and courageous men, and far-sighted visionaries as they were—even they—could not have conceived the potential for First Amendment free speech abuse by private parties, wielding unheard of monolithic, monopolistic powers over information dissemination.The framers would be both horrified with, transfixed by, and thoroughly ashamed of their failure to foresee the danger posed to the sovereignty of the American people by a seditious Press. They would be aghast to see a few private companies wielding unimaginable power over the free flow of information—more power than the Federal Government itself had wielded, could ever wield and that would use that power with impunity in service to forces desirous of undermining a Free Republic and a free people, rather than preserving a Free Republic and a free people.Internet companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon control the dissemination of vast quantities of information. They determine what information can or cannot be disseminated. They control thought and discourse and attempt to affect change in accordance with a Collectivist agenda.Since these power brokers support the Radical Left agenda, they have a vested interest in and the power to control how public policy is made; how opinions are expressed and generated.With their powerful lobbying activities, they essentially control Congress: Democrats surely, with whose policy objectives they are sympathetic to, sharing the same political and social philosophy, but Republicans too—many of whom are on the lobbying payroll of the big tech companies.______________________________________________

THE KEY TO SURVIVAL OF A FREE REPUBLIC AND A SOVEREIGN PEOPLE: CONSTANT VIGILANCE AND A WELL ARMED CITIZENRY

PART THREE

Are The Bilderberg Group And Other Secretive Organizations Interested In Promoting The Continued Existence Of Independent Nation-States? Not Likely!Major newspapers like the New York Times have attended secretive Bilderberg Group meetings.For example, David Sanger, National Security Correspondent for The New York Times was a named attendee for the conference scheduled for May 30, 2019 through June 2, 2019, as reported by publicintelligence.net.Yet curiously, the Times itself does mention—we should add, rightfully so—that Trump Administrative Officials, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, attended that same conference. It is, of course, deeply disconcerting and mystifying to learn of Trump officials’ attendance at a secret Bilderberg conference. But, failing to mention that one of its own people would be attending a Bilderberg Group conference as well, is telling. The New York Times long associated with attendance at highly secretive Bilderberg conferences never spoke of its attendance at such meetings. Apparently, the Times’ publisher and editors felt that such an item does not fall within the scope of “all the news that’s fit to print.” See NY Times section Week in Review. Still, complicit, as well, in the endeavor of those destructive forces that seek to harm a free Constitutional Republic and a free, sovereign people and have been working tirelessly to accomplish that end for the last several decades; certainly since the inception of the Bilderberg group in 1954, as pointed out on their home website. https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/The attendance of Trump officials at last year’s Bilderberg group conference raises an important matter for speculation. Obviously, the seditious NY Times wishes to convey the impression to Trump supporters that Trump cannot be trusted. After all, the NY Times and other seditious newspapers like the Bezos owned Washington Post, and the majority of radio and cable news outlets, have waged an unending, vicious, virulent, reprehensible campaign to destroy the Trump Presidency since the day Trump took the Oath of Office.But, the fact that the New York Times, in particular—as an important arm of the Radical Left Democrats and of the fabulously wealthy, well-organized, highly secretive, and abjectly ruthless transnational neoliberal Globalists—would convey information to the public of Trump officials’ attendance at a Bilderberg meeting is obviously directed to supporters of Trump as the very expression, “Bilderberg,” is synonymous with deep, abiding contempt for the continued existence of independent nation-states and for the common people who reside in those nation-states.Trump officials attendance at a Bilderberg conference does raise serious, unsettling questions. Still, knowing this, we must ask, why did Pompeo and Kushner attend the Bilderberg conference, and one year before the election?Did the Globalist “elites” suspect Trump was likely to win a second term in Office and sought to control him by bringing him into their nest, to make him one of them? Was he always aligned with them? Perhaps? Or perhaps Trump is a true outsider and wanted to know what the Bilderberg “elites” were up to, in implementing their plans; consolidating their power over the populations of Europe, the Commonwealth Nations, and the United States. Having Pompeo and Kushner at the meeting Trump would have an opportunity to find out.These facts can certainly lead all Americans to suspect corruption and villainy of all or virtually all elected and non-elected Government officials. But this isn’t to suggest that Trump, and House and Senate Republicans, shouldn’t receive our support in November. They should because the danger to our free Republic posed by the Democrats is more insistent, more troubling, more aggressive, and more perilous to our fundamental rights and liberties in the immediate short term than is the extension of the Trump Presidency and the retention of a Republican-controlled Senate, in the longer term.What does all this mean? Americans must hold onto their firearms more tightly and express their objections to mob rule more loudly.When weighing incipient danger to our sovereignty, a Trump Presidency and a Republican-controlled Senate is infinitely preferable to a Democrat Party controlled Senate and Presidency. As long as Americans can express their ideas freely, and as long as they retain control of their firearms, a free Constitutional Republic, as envisioned by our founders, will endure. Otherwise it will not.As one J.D. Candidate poignantly stated in a law review article:“The abuses of the British monarchy led the founding fathers to adopt the principle that the ultimate power should be vested with the people and not with any government organization. This concept, that the people and not the king or the federal government hold the ultimate sovereignty, is embodied in the Preamble of the Constitution that states, ‘we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union.’ The sovereignty of the people has important implications for First Amendment jurisprudence because if the channels of free speech are manipulated, so is the sovereignty of the people. A democratic society based on the sovereignty of the people demands the free flow of ideas in order to operate. Anything less is not sovereignty, let alone democracy.” Bankrupting the First Amendment: “Using Tort Litigation to Silence Hate Groups,” 37 Cal. W. L. Rev. 395 (Spring 2001), by Jason Paul Saccuzzo, J.D. Candidate, April 2002, California Western School of Law. To these points we would add the critical importance of the Second Amendment. Speech can be easily manipulated and we are seeing the sad results with inclusion of recent Orwellian neologisms like ‘cancel culture; ‘reimagine policing;’ ‘white guilt;’ ‘black victimhood;’ ‘deep equity;’ ‘racial literacy;’ and so forth and so on.But as for the firearms in one’s possession, those are not intangibles. The firearms themselves cannot be manipulated; they can only be utilized if needed or relinquished if compelled. But, as long they remain in one’s hands, they are a force to be reckoned with.Recall the quotation from the 1982 cult classic fantasy sword and sorcery epic, “Conan the Barbarian,” starring Arnold Schwartzenneger and James Earl Jones. While the fantasy adventure is ridiculous and innocuous fun, there is a point to be made from it: “the riddle of steel” that, in the remark, has a golden kernel of truth that can be applied with equal efficacy to the modern weapon, the firearm, to keep tyrants at bay.“Fire and wind come from the sky, from the gods of the sky, but Crom is your god. Crom, and he lives in the earth. Once giants lived in the earth, Conan, and in the darkness of chaos, they fooled Crom, and they took from him the enigma of steel. Crom was angered, and the earth shook, and fire and wind struck down these giants, and they threw their bodies into the waters. But in their rage, the gods forgot the secret of steel and left it on the battlefield, and we who found it, are just men, not gods, not giants, just men. And the secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery. You must learn its riddle, Conan, you must learn its discipline, for no one, no one in this world can you trust, not men, not women, not beasts, [but] this you can trust.” [Conan’s father points to his sword] 1982 classic fantasy sword and sorcery epic, starring Arnold Schwartzenneger and James Earl Jones.There is a riddle to be learned, as well, in one’s ownership of, possession of, love of, and respect for one’s firearms, the modern sword of today. And there is a riddle about firearms as with the riddle to the weapon of time’s past: the Knight’s sword. Thus, we see recent attempts to manipulate the public’s thoughts pertaining to guns and to one’s ownership of, possession of, and love of them; and one’s respect for them. To force a Nation to its knees, literally as well as symbolically, destroy the ability of a people to resist domination and control. Deny to them their ability to effectively resist; snatch their firearms from them. And destroy even their desire to survive; make them weak in mind and spirit; abjectly defenseless.In future articles we delve into the insidiousness of the Radical Left’s unremitting effort to divorce Americans’ from their firearms, and the difficulty in doing so, given an equally indefatigable, unwavering determination of many Americans to resist arms confiscation. In this battle, more so than any other, does an epic clash for the very soul of our Country exist. The firearm serves us, Americans, today as it served our forefathers in the past, and as, the predecessor, the sword, served the knight and nobleman and king centuries before. It is a Holy Grail that guarantees liberty. One cannot be vanquished, who bears it, unless one voluntarily relinquishes it. This, Holy Grail of liberty, the sword, was the Holy Grail that rulers in feudal Europe denied to the peasants of that day. And the Holy Grail of liberty today, the firearm, the secret overlords of Europe and America would deny to the commonalty, whom they would they make as the peasants of the present day.Those who seek to destroy this Nation know this full well. Did we not see this in the McCloskey’s stand against rabid creatures who confronted them at their own home, on their own property; threatening to destroy their life and burn down their home, a person’s sacred dwelling. But was not this mindless rabble left only to fume and shout impotently; and forced to take their leave, when confronted with such might and power? And, did not the Soros installed mayor, having recognized that might and power, the firearm, demand the relinquishing of it, the McCloskey’s own Holy Grail, their personal firearms? Clearly the Soros installed mayor, was enraged by the sheer power of that Holy Grail wielded by those whom the ruling class would dare to subjugate but cannot subjugate as long as they are armed.*No Country can long endure where it rots from the inside out. Our Nation can withstand the onslaught of every loathsome plague that besets it. The most loathsome of all, are those viruses that exist in the body politic itself, and the most difficult to restrain and to vanquish. These odious forces that dare to crush Americans in submission know that to do so, they must, by hook or by crook, get Americans to forsake their firearms, their swords—these items that are bound to our very soul: our Holy Grail. Will we do so? If so, we are undone._____________________________________*Epoch Times just reported that Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has recently drafted a letter to Attorney General Barr, requesting a DOJ probe of the sinister Attorney General, Kim Gardner, to uncover whether this Soros backed toady had violated the McCloskeys civil rights when she ordered the police to confiscate the McCloskeys’ firearms. ___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NYC: THE NEW BADLANDS

THE NEW BADLANDS OF THE EAST SPRINGS UP FROM THE OLD BADLANDS OF THE WEST

PART ONE

“Back in the days of the old West, there were these stretches of territory that I think God and nature just plain forgot about. . . dark and parched and empty as the moons of Mars. Places where sensible men never ventured. . . where only dreams and phantoms walked. Kind of a way station between civilization and the Ninth Circle of Hell—The Badlands.” ~Quotation from the 1991 film, “Into the Badlands,” starring Bruce Dern as a Bounty Hunter, T.L. Barston Has New York City become a new Badlands where even “angels fear to tread?” It would seem so.No reasonable, rational person would venture into New York City unless he or she has to. This isn’t conjecture and it wasn’t always this way, but today it is exactly so, and that statement is true of police officers from neighboring jurisdictions as well.In fact, police officers in hot pursuit of criminals who committed crimes in some New York jurisdictions are now prohibited from entering New York City to continue the pursuit of criminals who make it across jurisdictional lines into the City—a City that has become a safe harbor for vermin. The first New York jurisdiction to ban its officers from chasing criminals into the City is Westchester County.On July 14, 2020, the New York Post reported,“Westchester County is banning cops from the Big Apple, saying the city’s new restriction on chokeholds and other restraints makes it too easy for officers to get jammed up.The new decree, laid out Thursday in an internal memo obtained by The Post, comes on the heels of legislation approved last month by the New York City Council that bans chokeholds and prohibits officers from sitting, kneeling or standing on a suspect’s chest and back.Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the bills this week.‘Given the likelihood that the restraint of a non-compliant individual during the course of making a lawful arrest often requires kneeling on the torso of the suspect for at least a brief period of time,’ the Westchester memo said, ‘this order is intended to protect sworn members from criminal prosecution for actions consistent with their training and department policy.’‘Effective immediately and until further notice sworn members shall not conduct any enforcement activity within the confines of the City of New York,’ it said. Officials from three police departments overseeing a region that neighbors New York City have ordered their officers to halt any enforcement activity in the city out of concern over a recently enacted chokehold ban that places limitations on the ways in which arrests can be made.The new limitations prompted one New York Police Department-linked executive to slam Mayor Bill de Blasio for turning the Big Apple into “the new Rikers Island PRISON without walls[a containment center of unarmed citizens].Westchester County Police told its members on Thursday that they ‘shall not conduct any enforcement activity within the confines of the City of New York,’ including ‘pursuing subjects into the City of New York for offenses committed in Westchester County,’ according to the interim order, which was shared online by Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association for the NYPD.‘All 5 Boroughs of NYC soon to be the new Rikers Island PRISON without walls,’ Mullins wrote in the tweet late Thursday. ‘NYC Alienated by law enforcement agency as a result of horrific law sign by [Mayor Bill de Blasio].’‘Administrative Code section 10-18, makes it a misdemeanor crime for an arresting officer to restrain someone in a manner that restricts the flow of air or blood by compressing the windpipe or the carotid arteries on each side of the neck, or sitting, kneeling, or standing on the chest or back in a manner that compresses the diaphragm, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest,’ according to the bill.”Two days later, the New York Post reported that neighboring Nassau County followed Westchester County’s lead, reporting,“Nassau County police brass this week ordered on-duty cops to avoid the Big Apple unless accompanied or approved by a supervisor, according to a memo issued days after Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a bill making it a criminal offense for officers to use a chokehold on a suspect.The memo, issued Friday, outlines the city’s new ‘unlawful methods of restraint’ law and notes violators could end up with a year in jail.‘In light of the above law, members shall not conduct police business in New York City unless it has been approved by their Commanding Officer,’ according to the document.Nassau cops now must be accompanied by a supervisor, notify the local precinct of their activities ‘unless doing so would cause danger’ to the officers, and officers ‘should have clearly identifiable police insignia when taking police action,’ the memo reads.” These policies aren’t anomalies. They arise from a new sober reality, and as we write this article, other New York counties have followed or are likely soon to follow suit.These unprecedented police policies are obviously and justifiably designed to protect officers from facing criminal charges themselves if they happen to utilize a martial arts maneuver meant certainly not to maim or kill an arrestee but to subdue and secure him, quickly, effectively, and safely, to protect both the arrestee and the officer and to bring an aggressive assault to an end, allowing the officer to effectuate the arrest.Moreover, if police officers are denied the ability to utilize a proven martial arts technique that may at times be necessary, as police training dictates, dangerous individuals may escape police custody, thus endangering the community at large and requiring further expenditures of time, money, and additional police resources to hunt down a perpetrator of a crime, anew, that would not and should not have been necessary.And this all comes about because of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio acquiescing to the demands of domestic terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter. Neither de Blasio nor domestic terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter have any true understanding of the nature of, demands of, exigencies pertaining to, or real life dangers involved in police work.On July 8, 2020, the New York Post reported,“NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan on Wednesday doubled down on his criticism of the City Council’s police anti-chokehold bill, calling a portion of it ‘dangerous.’Monahan, speaking during a PIX11 interview, said he does not have a problem with the bill that will make it a criminal offense for cops to use chokeholds but takes issue with its ban on maneuvers that would press a suspect’s diaphragm.‘The idea of the diaphragm bill — and I call it a diaphragm bill — because we have no objection to the chokehold portion of it, but any cop who’s ever fought with someone on the street, trying to get him into cuffs, there’s a great possibility that your knee is going to end up on that individual’s back, and now this new law is criminalizing it,’ Monahan said.‘We try to avoid that, but in the midst of a fight, it’s pretty hard to make sure that doesn’t happen,’ said Monahan. ‘When you have to worry that someone who may have taken a shot at you that you are now arresting, if your knee hits their back, you become the criminal.’Monahan said the department is ‘absolutely’ lobbying against the diaphragm portion of the anti-chokehold bill.‘It is a dangerous, dangerous portion of that bill,’ he said.”On July 15, 2020, The New York Post wrote,“Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a suite of six NYPD reform bills Wednesday, including a ban on chokeholds, while acknowledging concerns that the new laws will make it harder for cops to do their jobs.‘People want to be safe. They need to be safe. They want to work with the NYPD and they want respect in turn,’ de Blasio said while signing the legislation package in the Bronx after joining activists to paint ‘Black Lives Matter’ on Morris Avenue between 161st and 162nd streets.‘I also want to be honest when there are concerns out there. It makes sense to talk about it, not to run away from it,’ de Blasio said.On the bill that will make it a criminal offense for cops to use chokeholds, de Blasio said, ‘I know many in the police department including many I truly respect are concerned.’‘Because although they agree 100 percent and it’s been the policy of the police department, we cannot have chokeholds, there’s concern around some of the additional language around diaphragms.’In addition to criminalizing chokeholds, the bill includes a prohibition on other restraints of a person’s diaphragm or ability to breathe such as sitting, kneeling or standing on someone’s chest or back. Last week NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan called the diaphragm portion of the legislation ‘dangerous’ [to police officer safety].‘The idea of the diaphragm bill — and I call it a diaphragm bill — because we have no objection to the chokehold portion of it, but any cop who’s ever fought with someone on the street, trying to get him into cuffs, there’s a great possibility that your knee is going to end up on that individual’s back, and now this new law is criminalizing it,’ Monahan said during a PIX11 interview.‘We try to avoid that, but in the midst of a fight, it’s pretty hard to make sure that doesn’t happen,’ said Monahan. ‘When you have to worry that someone who may have taken a shot at you that you are now arresting, if your knee hits their back, you become the criminal.’But Monahan’s warnings didn’t prevent the mayor from making the bill law.‘I am signing this bill because I believe we can make it work,’ the mayor said Wednesday.De Blasio made no mention of an earlier incident on the Brooklyn Bridge where Monahan’s finger was broken when he was attacked by a group of people who were at a George Floyd protest. {As reported by a local ABC affiliate news station, abc7, “Protesters at the ‘ encampment clashed with police and at least seven NYPD officers suffered injuries—Monahan suffered a hand injury, a lieutenant was struck in the head, a sergeant was struck in the head and a lieutenant suffered an eye socket fracture. The other three officers suffered minor injuries.”} The last thing the police, the community, and any reasonable, sensible person would want is to have the police embroiled in a physical confrontation with an anxious, temporarily irrational, deranged or inherently dangerous arrestee itching for a fight that devolves into a lengthy street brawl. Apparently, de Blasio hasn’t considered the real possibility of this scenario or otherwise simply doesn’t care because he has political points to rack up with the Radical Left contingents that support him, along with well-to-do uninformed New York City residents who have the luxury of residing above the fray of dangerous street encounters and live securely ensconced in extravagant, luxurious abodes, but for the latter group that is really just illusion.Yet, this is all welcome news to the common criminals, lunatics, and murderous gang members, and dangerous Marxist and Anarchist group members, and other assorted riff-raff who now enjoy an extended “field day” in New York.Is it any wonder, then, that neighboring New York State jurisdictions have implemented their own policy, precluding their own lawenforcement officers from pursuing criminals into the City, once those criminals have crossed into the jurisdiction of New York City?_______________________________________________________________

PART TWO

WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE ISN’T ALWAYS GOOD FOR THE GANDER

What is good for the worst elements of society, though, is bad for everyone else who happens to call New York City their home, including those relatively well-to-do liberal, progressive New York City residents who believe they are above the fray but really aren’t.Bill de Blasio, though, as New York City Mayor, doesn’t have to worry about NYPD police protection. The Mayor enjoys, for himself and for his family, all the comfort and peace of mind that comes from obtaining the very security that he denies the community at large, and from the very Police Department that he publicly excoriates. And he means to keep that special police protection both for himself and his family.This specialized modern day Praetorian Guard who protects its Emperor, Bill De Blasio is called the “Executive Protection Unit.” In April 2019, Daily News reported,“The embattled head of Mayor de Blasio’s NYPD bodyguard unit remains in his prestigious post — and sources inside the department believe it’s all thanks to the man he’s supposed to protect.Sources tell the Daily News that Inspector Howard Redmond was going to be removed from his role as commanding officer of the Executive Protection Unit — that is, until the mayor stepped in.The decision to reassign Redmond was made by Intelligence Division Chief Thomas Galati and Commissioner James O’Neill in the summer, sources said, as The News ran a series of stories about turmoil within the EPU.But sources close to the troubled unit believe de Blasio then intervened and saved Redmond’s job. Only de Blasio would have the authority to override Galati and O’Neill’s decision.When people get to the point where they think they are untouchable, it’s not surprising,’ a police source said. ‘None of this would have happened at any other level in the NYPD or any other department. It was a ground ball they let go into the outfield.’”And, Back in October 2019, the Daily News reported that,“Mayor de Blasio ordered his NYPD security detail to repeatedly take his son back and forth from Yale University during his first years at school, the Daily News has learned.Executive Protection Unit detectives drove Dante de Blasio to or from New Haven, Conn., at least seven or eight times, the sources with direct knowledge said. Members of the detail also took Dante to visit his uncle, who lives nearby, sources said. Dante faced no security risks at the time, the sources said.”Well, the public doesn’t have available to it the special Executive Police Protection that Bill de Blasio demands for himself and his immediate family. Nor do the very wealthy in New York City need to be unduly concerned for their own physical safety and well-being as they reside in extravagant and highly secured fortresses in the City and retain a retinue of highly paid private bodyguards to protect them when they venture into the jungle outside, and a very dangerous jungle New York City has indeed become, courtesy of that very Mayor, Bill de Blasio, whose policies have transformed the City into a cesspool of violence.What can the average, rational, responsible law-abiding, New York City resident rely on for self-defense? The answer is obvious. The best security for the average New York City resident is a handgun for protection in the home and when venturing outside. But try to obtain a license, necessary to protect one’s own life if you are a New York City resident!A restricted New York City Premises handgun license is difficult enough to obtain. A highly coveted unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is next to impossible. Good luck in getting that!

WHERE DOES ALL THIS LEAVE THE AVERAGE NEW YORK CITY RESIDENT?

First, the average City resident cannot rely on the police to provide them with even a modicum of community security and this comes at a time when the City suffers heightened unease and tension due to mob violence. Second, because New York traditionally frowns on civilian ownership and possession of firearms, the average New York City resident is denied effective means of self-defense. Third, the news media refuses to acknowledge that the City is facing the worst violence in years.In this constant state of paroxysms of violence devastating urban centers across America, it is remarkable that the mainstream media invariably refrains from use of accurate descriptors such as ‘assailant,’ or ‘attacker’ or ‘law breaker,’ or ‘agitator,’ or ‘provocateur,’ to refer to the agents of this violence; invariably resorting to or falling back on innocuous and general expressions ‘protestors’ or ‘demonstrators’ when referring to everyone taking part in this carnage.And, you never hear the mainstream media referring to the weeks of wanton, numerous, endless, and horrendous acts of vandalism, and looting, and of the defacing, defiling, and destroying of monuments, statues and artwork and of the incessant rioting, assaults, and muggings, and even of acts of murder—and all of it on a massive scale and all of it occurring in major cities across the Country for weeks on end—as ‘civil disturbances,’ or ‘civil unrest,’ or’ ‘civil upheavals,’ or ‘mob violence,’ or ‘lawlessness,’ or ‘violent disorder,’ which is what these acts are.The Press is careful not to employ any of the many available and more accurate descriptive words and phrases and nomenclature to describe those who individuals who are engaged in a large number of clearly serious criminal acts. The mainstream media insists on utilizing the expression ‘protest’ or ‘peaceful protest’—sometimes even resorting to using the illusive and evasive and absurd phrase, ‘mostly peaceful protest,’ abjuring the cardinal journalistic rule to avoid use of adverbs in news accounts, and avoid use of ambiguity and vagueness.The seditious New York Times, on those occasions when it deigns to recite acts of violence occurring in cities across the Country, still resorts to prefacing those acts as protests and even denying that physical confrontations are anything other than lawful acts of civil disobedience, insisting on employing the generic expression, ‘protest,’ or the deliberately vague expression, ‘unrest,’ even though whatever may have commenced weeks ago as a ‘peaceful protest,’ ostensibly triggered by the police killing of a petty criminal and drug addict, George Floyd, has long transcended anything that can remotely be reasonably categorized as a ‘protest,’ peaceful or otherwise.Cities have devolved into essentially free fire zones. Nothing occurring in our major urban centers today can reasonably be described as a “lawful peaceful protest,” guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In fact the mainstream media continues to denounce the police, referring to any action that might have resulted directly or indirectly to harm against an agitator, as the fault of the police. Apparently, it never occurred to any of these newspaper reporters to consider that it wasn’t the police that rounded up people, placed them on a street, and told them to stir up trouble. It was the looters, and rioters, and agitators that brought the police out, in an attempt to maintain some semblance of law and order as required of them.Since Radical Left City and State political leaders have essentially handcuffed their police officers, preventing them from even attempting to maintain a modicum of law and order, these “peaceful protestors” realize they have carte blanc to physically assault the police, and they are going at it with relish. New York City is a prime example of what happens when a Radical Left mayor, such as Bill de Blasio allows people to act like animals; many of them will do so.If perchance, a NYPD police officer should arrest these “peaceful protestors,’ they know the Courts will immediately release them, sans bail. And this is exactly what New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio wants. This is what his policies dictate. And innocent New York resident bear the sad consequences.______________________________________________________

HOW DID NEW YORK CITY GET TO THIS POINT: ATTACKS ON POLICE AND THE ARMED CITIZENRY, LEAVING BOTH DEFENSELESS?

PART THREE

We postulate: the desire to protect health and hearth, life and well-being, self-identity and personal autonomy is encoded into a person’s very being at the very point of conception, when the child is imbued with an immortal soul by a morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Divine Creator.This desire of man is manifested in Divine Law, grounded on the sacred principal of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. These assertions are axiomatic, self-evident, a priori true. For, it is said that our God is a Creative God, and we, human beings, exist as an important part of his Divine Creation.We as finite beings, yet created in the image of God, given free will, are created to be creators ourselves; free to express our own individuality; free to do so as long as we allow other human beings to freely express their individuality as well.Equally self-evident, a priori true is the raw desire of Government—a man-made institution—to enfeeble man; to crush man into submission.Governments exist, after all, as a collective of men who, wielding power over others, and given the gift of “freedom of choice” as the Divine Being gifts to all human beings, choose unwisely, attempting to exert their will on others, and often, as we have seen throughout history, succeed.The very institution of Government evolves. Eventually, inexorably, inevitably it becomes an unholy creature, one that cannot help but dominate, subjugate, and destroy personal individuality, independence, initiative. Government attempts to destroy the very integrity of Self. In a sudden paroxysm of violence, like the cataclysmic death of a star, the Government destroys itself and everything and everyone else along with it.

NEW YORK MAYOR DE BLASIO BARKS THAT PEOPLE DON’T NEED HANDGUNS; THEY HAVE THE POLICE

Bill de Blasio argues that average New York City residents don’t need a handgun license at all because the NYPD provides them with all the safety anyone would need.And, Didn’t de Blasio make that very remark and continue to reiterate if when pressed by evening Fox News Host Sean Hannity, one evening, many moons and ten thousand years ago, as reported by Fox News in an exchange between de Blasio and Hannity, when de Blasio—then running for the Democratic Party nomination—attempted, albeit unconvincingly, to explain, to Hannity’s listeners why he, de Blasio, would be the best candidate to take on Trump in November; that the Country needs a man like him to lead our Country?“Bill de Blasio defended his stance on gun control during an exclusive interview with Sean Hannity.De Blasio, the mayor of New York City, claimed New York is the safest large American city and that the police are the best outlet to keep people safe, on Wednesday's ‘Hannity.’‘You're in the safest big city in America. . . with the finest police force in America,’ he said.‘We keep people safe. Crime's gone down for the last six years on my watch.’‘I believe right now what's wrong in this country is not that people have rights around guns, it's there are no gun safety measures like background checks.’In response, Hannity said he had to submit to a background check to obtain his gun permit in the state of New York.De Blasio said the background checks should nonetheless be more ‘sufficient.’‘Ask the NYPD and they'll tell you they believe in strong gun laws to keep officers and civilians safe,’ he added.‘Everyone deserves to be safe. The answer is not for everyone to have a firearm—any more than the answer is not for every teacher to have a firearm.’‘I believe we should have background checks. We need an assault weapons ban.’Responding to the mayor, Hannity said the presidential hopeful was dodging the question of personal firearm ownership.‘All the guns that are out there, that are threatening our officers and our civilians alike. . . I believe people have rights, I believe in gun safety laws,’ he responded.‘I believe we should have background checks. We need an assault weapons ban.’Responding to the mayor, Hannity said the presidential hopeful was dodging the question of personal firearm ownership.‘All the guns that are out there, that are threatening our officers and our civilians alike. . . I believe people have rights, I believe in gun safety laws,’ he responded.‘We have a police department. . . that is making it safer all the time—that's the best way to protect people.’When Hannity pressed further, de Blasio quipped, ‘I ain't buying what you're selling.’”Needless to say Hannity was having none of that. He remained, unconvinced; incredulous, even baffled by the nonsense that kept coming out of de Blasio’s maw.Now jump ahead ten thousand years, to the present day. Juxtapose de Blasio’s earlier remarks to Hannity:‘We have a police department. . . that is making it [the public] safer all the time—that's the best way to protect people’ ———with de Blasio’s recent and massive Police budget cut to the tune of $1 Billion—coming at a time when, reasonably, rationally, de Blasio ought to be adding $1 Billion to the Police budget, not slashing the budget, in a time of massive violence across the length and breadth of the City.About that $1 Billion budget cut, the New York Post recently reported:“The latest evidence comes with his agreement to cut police spending by about 17 percent, including the cancellation of a new class of rookies. With retirements soaring, that guarantees fewer cops on the street just as murder and mayhem are turning much of the city into the Wild West.Murders are up 25 percent this year and the police counted 63 shootings last week, compared with 26 for the same week last year.The violent tide suggests the bad guys have no fear of being ­arrested. Why should they? And if they are, the new bail law requires judges to release most of them ­immediately anyway.Meanwhile, the domino effect will add to the city’s misery. The crime spurt, including the tragic murder of 17-year-old Brandon Hendricks, while the police force is facing reductions means the NYPD will have little or no resources for less serious but still important quality-of-life issues.The illegal fireworks exploding all over the city with impunity are but a loud foreshadowing of the disorder to come. Consider, too, that it took the city more than a month to move a homeless man, often naked, out of the dry fountain at Washington Square Park.For de Blasio, the police budget episode has been Exhibit A of how he is both hapless and unscrupulous.At first, he tried to dance around the far-left pressure to defund cops, but after he was booed and heckled off the stage at a June 4 ­memorial for ­George Floyd in Brooklyn, he instantly embraced the national madness.Within days, de Blasio was throwing the mob a bone, saying that while he didn’t agree with calls for $1 billion in cuts to the NYPD’s nearly $6 billion in spending, he would propose ‘something substantial.’Given the backdrop of protests, riots and looting, even that was reckless pandering. These ‘mostly peaceful protests,’ as much of the media still insist on calling them, destroyed hundreds of businesses and scared sensible people out of their wits — and sent many of them to the exits.A good, courageous mayor would have stood up to the anti-cop crowds and reminded them that the NYPD had saved thousands of black lives by taking illegal handguns off the street, and that a declining prison rate was another consequence. It was the police, not the protesters and rioters, who had made New York the safest big city in America.Such a mayor also would have reminded all New Yorkers that a continuing exodus of taxpayers will leave the city with even less money to spend on anything and everything.But expecting de Blasio to be a good, courageous mayor is a fool’s errand. He caved into the demands and instead of nibbling at police spending, agreed to slash it.”How does de Blasio respond to reality? Simple; like all Radical Left Marxist and Anarchist crazies he denies reality, and huffs and puffs in rage that millions of rational New York City residents would question his judgment, obsequiously bowing to the Mob that is as crazy and as obsessed as he is with tearing down a Nation that the founders placed their life on the line to create and that millions of Americans thereafter placed their life on the line to sustain.Sean Hannity’s media room reports,“Embattled Big Apple Mayor Bill de Blasio enraged millions of angry residents Thursday; saying New York City is “safer and better” with “fewer people in our jails.”‘We now have fewer people in our jails than any time since WW2 and we are safer for it and better for it!’ yelled De Blasio.”The Mayor then goes after the police union. Sean Hannity’s media room again reports:“Big Apple Mayor Bill de Blasio publicly attacked one of the city’s biggest police unions during his daily press briefing Thursday; saying they “foment hatred” and have no interest in ‘moving forward.’“The Sergeants Benevolent Association has only practiced division. They foment hatred. . . . They do not try to help us move forward,’ de Blasio said during a press conference Thursday. ‘They don’t try to create anything good. I have no respect for the leadership of the SBA.’”So much for both public safety in New York and personal safety in New York.We have to ask: Who the hell votes for dangerous jackasses like Bill de Blasio, anyway, and for all the other flotsam and jetsam peppered throughout our Nation, destroying it with all the rapidity, mercilessness, horror, anguish, and mindless terror of the ‘Bubonic Plague?’ Apparently a lot of people once did, at least, support de Blasio, back in 2017, as reported by City & State, at any rate, which suggests that a lot of New York City residents must be into masochism Big-Time. PJ Media writes, anecdotally, and somewhat tongue-in-cheek,“After a couple of conversations with comedian friends of mine from New York this week I am more mystified than ever as to how Bill de Blasio got re-elected. One of my friends is conservative, the other liberal, and both hate de Blasio with a white-hot passion.When Mayor Moron was first elected almost everyone I know who is well-versed in New York City politics was convinced that he would be a one-term wonder. As he went about dismantling twenty years of progress in the city it seemed almost certain that he would be shown the door, Apparently, everyone in New York was drunk in 2017, and de Blasio was given another shot at screwing everything up.”And what does the run-up to the 2021 NYC Mayoral race portend at the moment? The Gotham Gazette writes,“But one year from now, New Yorkers will cast their ballots in another primary election, one that will likely determine the slate of leadership of New York City for the next four years, including the next mayor. With Mayor Bill de Blasio term-limited, the stage is set for a fierce competition, which may not really take off until just after this year’s presidential election but has already begun.With the economy in shambles and the streets echoing with the exasperated cries of a city disillusioned with current leadership, political analysts say New Yorkers will look for a steady hand to guide them through the city’s many crises, whether it’s the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, structural and systemic racism, economic devastation, perennial unaffordability, entrenched homelessness, crumbling public housing, and more.”The entire race will hardly matter to anyone if the Radical Left Democrats take over the Federal Goverment. It will be the end of the Republic. That much is certain.But assuming, hopefully, Trump does win a second term in Office and Republicans manage to hold onto the Senate, the dire situation affecting NYC then and now will be of concern primarily to New York City residents and less of concern to the rest of the Nation. Still, it should be remembered that New York City hadn't always suffered fools for mayors and crime had been brought into some semblance of control.Under the leadership of Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, the extraordinarily effective “Broken Windows” policing policy significantly reduced criminal activity in the City. Even under the leadership of Radical Left virulent Anti-Second Amendment hater, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, criminal activity in New York City remained significantly lower than had existed under the leadership of Radical Leftist Mayor David Dinkins. Bloomberg implemented a highly effective “stop and frisk” policy that took firearms out of the hands of criminals.Bloomberg later, of course, and, unsurprisingly, disavowed the City’s “stop and frisk” policy when he, late in the game, joined the race—semi-seriously, it seems—for the Democrat Party’s nomination for U.S. President in the upcoming 2020 General Election.Now, though, under the pseudo-leadership of the Radical Left fanatic, moronic and abjectly hopeless, helpless, and thoroughly contemptible, Bill De Blasio, the City has once again reverted into a sordid, fetid, festering, extraordinarily dangerous hellhole.To hardened serial criminals, raving lunatics, illegal alien drug cartel gangs, murderous drug lords, dangerous psychopaths of all types, along with home-grown domestic Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and Anarchist terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa and other sociopathic organizations, New York City is looked upon and, in fact, has become a shelter, a haven, a safe harbor, a playground sanctuary where the creatures of the night may rant and rave, shout and scream, rampage and pillage, and assault and murder with total abandon, preying mercilessly on innocent, bewildered, forlorn disarmed citizens.Better, then, for normal, sane, law-abiding residents to remain in secured buildings—apartments, lofts, cooperatives, condominium units—as they have more to fear from the viral flotsam and jetsam of society than from the ravages wrought to our society by the Chinese Coronavirus.To normal, rational, responsible, hard-working people who do not call New York City their home, the City has become a veritable containment center, a quarantined area, a contaminated zone, where no one in their right mind would willingly venture into if that can be avoided, and that now includes police officers from neighboring jurisdictions.Unfortunately, New York City isn’t alone. The Radical Left mob has infected other jurisdictions, resulting in pandemonium, across the Nation. Crime and mayhem are the abnormal norm in major Cities around the Country—those led by Radical Left mayors and Radical Left State Governors, and the Radical Left Democrats in Congress are all too busy whipping their whirling Dervishes up to a fever pitch, and the Republicans are all too lame to oppose them, leaving the President himself, as always, to take up the slack.Where does this leave innocent, rational, law-abiding citizens? Best for them to be well-armed with substantial ammunition. And, if average, responsible, rational law-abiding citizens do not have a firearm in their possession, they ought now to seriously consider acquiring one for their own peace of mind and self-defense because the police will have enough on their mind to secure their own safety. But, if you happen to reside in New York City, your chance for acquiring a firearm for home defense is perhaps 50/50. And, if you wish to carry a handgun on your person for self-defense at all times, you will need to acquire an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license to do so lawfully. And your odds of obtaining one is, if we were to hazard a guess, about .00001%, and that is being optimistic.And, if Biden becomes U.S. President, most of us will be in the same boat as your average New Yorker. Expect to see civil unrest, disorder, and destruction expanding, spreading throughout the Country down to the smallest rural village.The first order of business of the Radical Left will be to implement a large-scale plan to collect firearms from the citizenry. Expect to see life in the U.S. taking on the look, and quality, and feel of Venezuela, Cuba, and Mexico, not the picturesque seeming quaint serenity of such quasi-Socialist Nordic States like Sweden and Denmark.______________________________________________

DE BLASIO’S THREE-PART RECIPE FOR DISASTER: DEFUND AND DISMEMBER THE POLICE; DISMANTLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE; AND DISARM THE CITIZEN

PART FOUR

NEW YORK CITY: ON THE VERGE OF MELTDOWN

How has the jabbering, Bill De Blasio, single-handedly turned the safest Big City in America into a snake pit? Consider what this present New York City Mayor has done——1) He has welcomed criminals with open arms, releasing hardened dangerous, sociopathic and psychopathic inmates from prison; tolerates or actively encourages unruly protests, riots, arson, vandalism, and looting; and has implemented a no-bail policy requiring Courts to release countless more dangerous criminals onto the City’s Streets.2) He has hand-cuffed the City’s own police, the NYPD, preventing law enforcement from providing even minimal protection for the community at large, and has effectively alienated them; treating the New York City Police Department like pariahs as if the police were the enemy of the community rather than the community’s protectors, even as he welcomes private police protection for his own personal security.3) As an anti-Second Amendment fanatic, he, along with the Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, continues to discourage civilian ownership of firearms.Unfortunately, de Blasio isn’t a one-of-a-kind loon. There are many others. The dangerous, ruthless, inordinately wealthy and secretive Marxist Globalist, George Soros, has quietly seeded a plethora of Radical Left Marxists leaders throughout the Country, down to the local level of Government, and the results of his well-organized plan to destroy our Nation from within are in evidence.These Radical Leftists are dutifully operating, as Soros expects them to. We see them working either in concert with or otherwise as passive sympathetic observers of virulent Marxist and Anarchist groups that have been deliberately fomenting violence in Cities across America; engaging in continuous, massive seditious acts of unbridled destruction to property and deliberate, unprovoked assaults on civilians, police, and military—goading and baiting the police and President Trump, daring them to try to stop the rampaging plague of violence.And the seditious Press and Radical Leftist Democrat Party leadership and its members blatantly, chillingly, caustically ignore the carnage and ravaging and rampaging rioters; refusing even to acknowledge their existence; continuing to refer to them peaceful protestors and not agitators, rioters, looters, arsonists, and assailants, even murderers, which is what they are; incongruously blaming the existence of and continuation of violence on President Trump.Community Law enforcement officers, in particular, are ordered by the radical Left local and State governmental leaders either to stand down, or have become wary of doing their job lest they place their own life in danger or face criminal charges themselves, given new police policy directives, designed to constrain them from effectively and quickly and safely restraining vicious predators and rioters. The result is that they have become the target of violent attacks.New police policies are often deliberately vague, ambiguous, or altogether incoherent. And they are clearly inane.NYPD Police Officers, for example, face recriminations or criminal charges themselves for simply attempting to perform their duty: promoting at least a modicum of safety for the community.Not surprisingly, police from neighboring jurisdictions are loath to venture into New York City to apprehend criminals fleeing their own jurisdictions.keep in mind that, under the laws of New York, and around the Country, police do not have a duty to protect the life and safety of individual members of the community, except in very narrow, carefully defined circumstances.The duty of ensuring one’s own life and safety and that of one’s family rests on the individual. See the November 21, 2019 Arbalest Quarrel Article, titled, “Can We, As Individuals, Rely On The Police To Protect Us?” But, as the recent situation with the McCloskey couple of St. Louis, Missouri, makes manifestly and disturbingly clear, the Radical Left intends to handcuff the police, preventing the police from, at the very least, protecting communities at large and; but, at one and the same time, the Radical left has precluded law-abiding, rational, responsible, American citizens from defending their own life and property. See the website, law enforcement todayThus, with their hands effectively tied, NYPD police officers—and those police officers of other communities whose departments have faced defunding and downsizing, disassembling or dismantling—have left their communities in a precarious situation, as those communities do not have even a modicum of protection from the worst elements of society. Residents of these communities cannot now rely on armed police to provide them with even general community-wide protection. And, as if this state of affairs weren’t outrageous enough—brought about by the apathetic and pathetic and totally irresponsible and useless Radical Left State and local governments, innocent, law-abiding, rational, and Americans of these communities once mercilessly denied their God-given right to defend their own life and well-being utilizing the best means available to do so, the firearm. This state of affairs is truly mind-boggling and it is continuing non-stop and likely will continue in the run-up to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.If a Government denies a person the means to protect his or her own life and safety, Government generally covers the gap, bestowing substantial power to the police to maintain law and order and to provide for the safety, security, and well-being of the community at large. This also means that Government would not suffer criminals gladly or kindly but would enforce criminal laws quickly and stringently. Convictions rates would be high and recidivism low.Countries such as Singapore that fashions itself as a Constitutional Republic but, in practice, operates as a “benign” Dictatorship, and China that, curiously, also calls itself a Republic operates as an oppressive, repressive Communist Dictatorship. Both Countries have relatively low violent crime rates. Private ownership of firearms is prohibited in both Nations. The Governments of these Countries don’t tolerate crime. Crime is stamped down fast and it is stamped down hard.  See, e.g., crimes rates by Country, 2020.Other Nations, Switzerland and Luxemburg, may best be described as Democratic Republics. Luxembourg, though, has a strict policy against private firearms ownership. Switzerland’s policy encourages private ownership of firearms. Both Nations have extremely low crimes rates. The populations of both Countries are small and homogenous. See, e.g., crimes rates by Country, 2020.And Venezuela and Mexico both have extremely strict gun control policies but Venezuala, in particular, has exceedingly high crimes rates. And, extremely strict gun control policies in Mexico belie the claim by antigun zealots that Mexico's high rates of gun violence that high gun rates and lax gun laws are directly related, albeit, antigun zealots argue that guns in Mexico emanate from the U.S., as Newsweek reported last year. But, then, who, in Mexico is responsible for all the shootings and killings? Newsweek would rather not say, but the photo accompanying the story more than suggests that it isn't your average law-abiding Mexican citizen who is responsible for the carnage. Dollars to Donuts, we would wager the violence in Mexico is concomitant with rampant criminal activity. In our Nation, companies settle their differences in Court. In Mexico, drug cartels settle business differences through other means.Both Venezuela and Mexico refer to themselves as Republics. They aren’t. The former is an oppressive Marxist Dictatorship. The latter is more accurately described as a Narco-State—that is to say, a Country essentially controlled by criminal gangs. Neither Country is politically, socially, economically, or jurisprudentially functional in any practical sense. The term ‘Republic’ is ubiquitous as a descriptor for governments of Countries around the world; curiously, even among those Countries in which the term is clearly a misnomer.The most oppressive dictatorships invariably refer to themselves as “republics,” ostensibly to convey the idea both to their populations and to the outside world that—however obviously false the nomenclature is to reality—these Countries are responsive to the needs of the people and operate through the consent of the governed.Despite the strenuous and strident arguments generated by those governments and organizations that are vehemently opposed to private ownership of firearms, there is no demonstrable causal connection, nor even a correlation, between high rates of violent crime in a Nation and liberal policies pertaining to private ownership of firearms. This becomes obvious when size of a nation’s population and ethnic and racial composition of that population—whether homogenous or heterogeneous—are factored into the equation, as they should be but rarely are. Nations that historically encourage, even strongly encourage, the private ownership of firearms, such as Switzerland and the U.S., have a relatively low violent crime rate. Nonetheless, Anti-Second Amendment groups and other Radical Left and Progressive political groups proclaim endlessly and vociferously, but erroneously, that the U.S. suffers from a brutally high violent crime rate and that this is due predominately if not exclusively to the notion of too many firearms in the hands of too many people. The conclusion is false. It is predicated on a calculated and deliberate failure of anti-Second Amendment groups to consider critical factors, such as population size and population density in urban areas, the diversity of the ethnic and racial makeup of the population, and lax enforcement of criminal laws, which has grown noticeably ever more lax in recent weeks. _____________________________________________

PART FIVE

THE RADICAL LEFT’S AGENDA AGAINST TRUMP: IGNORE ACHIEVEMENTS; MAGNIFY PERCEIVED FAILURES

The U.S. has the third-largest population of all nations.The Nation's urban centers have dense concentrations of people. And the ethnic and racial composition of the U.S. is extremely diverse. Yet, despite all these factors that contribute to crime, the violent crime rates have, in the last few decades have been falling in the U.S., and the most dramatic decline in violent crime has come during the last few years. This comes to the consternation of the Radical Left in this Nation as President Trump can take credit for that. On October 10, 2019, Forbes reported that:“The FBI released its annual crime report a few days ago, showing the violent crime rate has dropped 4.6% since President Trump took office. Had the violent crime rate in 2018 remained at 2016 levels [that is, during the Obama era], almost 58,000 additional murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults would have occurred.The major property crime rate has also continued its steady national decline, with the rate of motor vehicle theft resuming its downward rate in 2018.” This is no accident. President Trump has focused his energy to reducing crime in our Country, not in constraining and restricting private ownership of firearms. The Pew Research fact tank reports:“Donald Trump made fighting crime a central focus of his campaign for president, and he cited it again during his January 2017 inaugural address. His administration has since taken steps intended to address crime in American communities, such as instructing federal prosecutors to pursue the strongest possible charges against criminal suspects. Here are five facts about crime in the United States.Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century. The two most commonly cited sources of crime statistics in the U.S. both show a substantial decline in the violent crime rate since it peaked in the early 1990s. One is an annual report by the FBI of serious crimes reported to police in more than 18,500 jurisdictions around the country. The other is a nationally representative annual survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which asks approximately 160,000 Americans ages 12 and older whether they were victims of crime, regardless of whether they reported those crimes to the police.Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 51% between 1993 and 2018. Using the BJS data, the rate fell 71% during that span. The long-term decline in violent crime hasn’t been uninterrupted, though. The FBI, for instance, reported increases in the violent crime rate between 2004 and 2006 and again between 2014 and 2016. Violent crime includes offenses such as rape, robbery and assault.”Consider: According to the worldometer, there are at present 235 Countries and dependent territories. Of those 235 Countries and dependent and territories, the three largest, by population, include China, India, and the United States: China has over 1.4 billion people; India has almost 1.4 billion people; and the United States has 331 million people.But, despite the size of the U.S. population, the third largest of all Nations and dependent territories in the world, as of 2020, the U.S. doesn’t even rank in the top 20 nations in violent crime, as pointed out by the UK news source, the Independent. Obviously, the Radical Left Democrat Party leadership, along with their wealthy powerful and secretive benefactors, are desirous of destroying Trump’s singular achievements: a fall in crime rates and a rise in economic activity and growth.But one year before the election the Radical Left Democrats, along with the transnationalist Globalists, realized they had to turn these positive indices of Trump’s effectiveness as U.S. President, around. And, with a few short months remaining before the most important U.S. Presidential election in the last several decades, they have grown desperate. But, in recent months, given two recent events, they are now succeeding: a global pandemic brought about by the Chinese Coronavirus, and by one event horrific caught on video, there has been a marked turnaround.The economy has crumbled and societal breakdown is occurring. But neither one of these two, events, one continuous, one incidental, can reasonably be attributed to President Trump, nor should they be. Yet, the forces at home and abroad that desire to destroy the Trump Presidency have milked these events—a global pandemic and the evident murder of a petty criminal and drug addict by a sociopathic police officer—for all they are worth. None of this is by accident. All of it is by design.The inception of the Chinese Coronavirus pandemic has served the Disruptors and Destroyers of a Free Constitutional Republic well even as the illegal coups to bring down the Trump Presidency through the reprehensible Mueller probe, the ludicrous House impeachment proceeding, the half-hearted and ridiculous effort to utilize the 25^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the insertion of spies and saboteurs into Trump’s inner circle—all this, in a cold, callous, concerted, and calculated effort to undermine and bring to a halt Trump’s policy initiatives and goals—have failed.That Trump has been able to accomplish any policy goal at all in the face of constant, concerted, well-organized attacks directed against him, coming from numerous and diversified forces—including the Democrat Party leadership and rank and file members, Bush Republicans, the massive Deep State Bureaucracy, the mainstream Press, Big Tech, and even the Courts—says a great deal about Trump’s fortitude, his stamina, his tenacity, and his capacity for leadership.For the last three-plus years, Trump has in fact faced more adversity from forces within the Nation than from anything emanating from outside the Country.The Democrat Party has consistently and rapaciously attacked him, refusing to work with him; the bloated Bureaucracy covertly and systematically machinated against him, sabotaging the President’s policies, having the audacity, no less, to admit this and gloat over it; the mainstream media scurrilously and scandalously denigrates him, refusing to credit his many successes, magnifying his perceived failures, even manufacturing lies and attributing all sorts of misdeeds against him; and the large technology companies utilize their power over information dissemination to control messaging, often censoring the President and censoring those Americans who support them.Progressive and Radical Left Marxist and Anarchist groups—unable to get close enough to the President to endanger his life and that of his family—do what they can to physically threaten and assault members of his Administration: his advisors, and administrative staff, attempting to discourage Americans from working for him. And FBI, CIA, and DOJ leadership, for their part, working within the Bureaucratic Deep State, have unlawfully used the awesome power and authority they wield to conspire against those who have assisted the Trump campaign.The misdeeds of those forces at home that have orchestrated and implemented campaigns against Trump to disrupt and disable his Administration, as shameful and disgraceful as those misdeeds are, such misdeeds must be understood, as well, as direct and ignominious attacks on the Nation itself.Those forces aligned against Trump that have worked unceasingly to destroy his Presidency, have, as well, harmed the Nation. They have insulted the American people. They have undermined our system of laws and jurisprudence and have demeaned the very sanctity of our Constitution. They have trampled our sacred symbols and monuments and have made the Nation look ridiculous in the eyes of the world. Their misdeeds are unprecedented in number, wide in scope, and audacious beyond anything previously seen in the annals of history.But, in all this, the forces aligned against Trump have failed to prevent him from attempting to accomplish his goals. They have failed to weaken his resolve or to weaken the resolve of the many Americans who support him.But, in all that these malevolent, malignant forces have attempted to defeat the President and to destroy the Nation—and it is now clearly evident the would-be Destroyers of the Trump Presidency have in mind, have always had in mind a goal beyond even that of disrupting the Trump Presidency, as they truly do wish to destroy a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people—they have not yet succeeded and would not succeed. But, with the onset of a Global pandemic, they might yet succeed.The Global pandemic wrought by the Chinese Coronavirus has devastated our Nation’s economy: quickly and effectively just a few months before the U.S. Presidential election. The pandemic has left millions of Americans out of work, and has left thousands of small companies, and large companies, too, in serious financial straits.And the killing of a small-time criminal and drug addict, George Floyd, has provided the pretext to undermine the safety and security of our communities and of the well-being of our citizenry, thereby undercutting the achievements of a President who, having unerringly focused his energies on having successfully and substantially reduced violent crime in our Country—a singular achievement that none of his predecessors had effectively accomplished or for that matter had even tried to accomplish as they had not seriously focused their energies on trying to reduce the rate of crime in our Country.The plan to secure a Radical Left Marxist victory in November 2020 is actually straightforward. It is grounded on an amalgamation of enticement, fear, and guilt:  Entice the American people into accepting the false belief that the violence impacting our Nation is a result of two centuries of pent-up rage of Black victims at the hands of White oppressors, caused by systemic racism infecting all American institutions; that it is reflected in White supremacism that resulted in the election of Trump as U.S. President; that, if Trump is re-elected, violence will continue; and that such violence will only recede if the electorate repudiates Trump and elects a Democrat in his stead.The Marxists, now controlling the Democrat Party, have a solution. Once they get into Office, they suggest that they will do what, they say, Trump cannot do: restrain the violence infecting our Nation because, after all, they control the mob. This of course amounts to naked extortion. And what will these Radical Left Democrats do, if they take control of the reins of Government?Revamp all political, social, legal, and educational, and cultural institutions in America through stringent, uniform norms that are designed and administered by the Federal Government; disarm the citizenry; control all manner of speech and association; flood the Nation with a new class of indentured servants, namely cheap labor from Third World Countries; reduce or keep the mass of citizenry in a state of penury; convert the Nation into a massive Welfare State; and accept the lion’s share of the burden in arms, manpower, and money, for Europe’s military defense.How will this massive federal Government stay afloat, as we see it?Through increased taxation of what remains of middle America and, conceivably, through private and secret bankrolling and funding by a close, tight-knit, transnational oligarchical world order that controls major economic sectors including finance; technology; agriculture; health; energy; construction; telecommunications; raw materials production; defense; consumer staples; and manufacturing._______________________________________________

AMNESIA AND DISTURBANCE IN THE AMERICAN PSYCHE

PART SIX

The Destructors of our Nation have created a dangerous illusion, and, through the force of propaganda have force-fed this illusion to the Nation’s people. It is one of systemic racism, endemic in our Nation and, particularly, endemic in the entirety of community police forces.The Destructors of our Nation have created this illusion to divide our Nation; to sow suspicion and enmity, division and divisiveness, confusion and discord between races; and even between the sexes. All of it is fabricated; none of it true. The Destructors of our Nation have orchestrated a strategy that is nothing more than an elaborate hoax; a fairy tale will-o’-the-wisp; an artificial construct crafted and implemented to cement, for these Destructors, a coalition of diverse elements to ensure a victory for them in November 2020.Ever since Donald Trump won the Republican Party nomination and the U.S. Presidential election, the Destructors of our Nation, the Radical Left and Globalist transnationalist “elites,” have worked methodically, unceasingly to engineer Trump’s downfall, thereby allowing them to continue where they had left off—where they were so rudely interrupted after the shocking and humbling defeat of their carefully groomed stooge, Hillary Clinton.These malevolent, malignant forces are now anxious to complete their agenda, an agenda that mandates the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic; the erosion of the very concepts of ‘nation-state’ and ‘citizen;’ the eradication of our Nation’s history, heritage, and culture; the deliberate and disgraceful denigration of our Nation’s founders; the wholesale destruction of our Nation’s sacred symbols; all in a reprehensible and transparent attempt to loosen the ties that bind Americans to one another and bind all Americans to their wondrous Constitution; the foundation of a great Nation, comprising the world’s only truly free and sovereign people.Much more than a mere document, the United States Constitution is a blueprint providing the functional framework of our Nation. It establishes the structure of a central, “Federal” Government, the relationship of this central, Federal Government to the American people, the authority of the American people over Government, and the inherent sovereignty of the American people. The Constitution is the very force that binds Americans to each other.The subversion of a Constitution upon which the reality of our Nation exists and that has served this Nation and its people well for 240 plus years would not only entail the destruction of our free Republic, it would entail the utter annihilation of the very thought of natural God-given fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties, that exist intrinsically in man, well beyond the lawful power of Government to modify, abrogate, or ignore.The import of the twin-goals of denying to the citizenry the general security the police provide and in denying to Americans their God-given right of self-defense with the best means available, a firearm, is by design, not accident. It is all part of a deviously, diabolically clever plan. Through a severely weakened economy and a physically defenseless, and demoralized people, the Nation’s Destructors see a path forward.If the Destructors of our Nation do achieve their goals, it means unraveling the very fabric of our society, leaving the public defenseless during an extensive and intensifying period of chaos.If successful, the Radical Left will have created a Collectivist dystopian morass, forcing Americans to bend to the will of and to rely solely on a massive, strong centralized government to meet all their basic needs: from food, to shelter, to safety; that they may need their basic survival needs. What we are seeing today is no less than a wholesale ransacking of our Nation; the theft of our birthright; the attempt—no longer disguised—to transform a free Constitutional Republic and a free sovereign people to a state of abject servitude.Nothing portrays  the sheer rage and desperation and even depravity of the Radical Left Destructors of our Nation and of our Constitution than in their callous disregard for human life even as they claim to assert concern for it.The inanity is reflected in the duplicitous, hypocritical, erroneous, and even incongruous remarks that these Radical Left Destructors of our Nation and its Constitution constantly make and reiterate. In recent days, the messaging has become even at once more strident and even more incoherent, to wit:“American civilians do not need to be armed because they would likely just harm themselves with firearms and the police provide Americans with all the physical safety and protection they need, but that, since the police are a danger to Americans, too, they must be defunded or disbanded. So, social services will be expanded to provide Americans with physical safety and security.”What this really means is that the Nation’s Destructors trust neither the American people nor, at present, the local and State police because they perceive both as standing outside their control. Thus, they wish to disarm American citizenry and drastically revise the nature of community policing.The Radical Left Destructors of society have shown, of late, where their true sympathies rest, if anyone has had any doubt about that.Those sympathies don’t rest with the people or with the police.The surrogate representative for the common people is now Black Lives Matter which really has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life, be it a “Black” life or that of anyone else. It has everything to do with erasing a Constitutional free Republic and the sovereignty of the American people.Black Lives Matter members have called for defunding the police. And Mayor de Blasio has obliged them, defunding the NYPD to the tune of one billion dollars. The Mayor should be increasing funding to the police, not cutting funding, but de Blasio would rather listen to the demands of domestic terrorists whose agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting safety and security and the well-being of residents of a community and has everything to do with tearing down our nation’s institutions, rewriting history, controlling the habits, thoughts and actions of Americans, thoroughly disrupting the lives of us all; transforming America into a nightmarish Dystopia Collective.The fact that Mayor de Blasio expressly endorses the activities of this domestic terrorist group, Black Lives Matter, demonstrates the extent to which he and other radical Leftists intend to remake society, commencing with a massive reorganization of the Nation’s community and State police forces.Indeed, this domestic terrorist group, Black Lives Matter—that news outlets often refer to by the shorthand seemingly innocuous-sounding and charming acronym “BLM,” ludicrously claims,“We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health, and education investments — we will never be truly safe.”Who is this “we” that this terrorist group is referring to? In what way is the criminal justice system in New York City and around the Country corrupt?Does “BLM” see the criminal justice system as corrupt because “BLM” sees it failing to incarcerate criminals who do in fact deserve to be incarcerated for the crimes they commit? Or does “BLM” see the criminal justice system as corrupt precisely because the system is doing what it should be doing, namely incarcerating criminals for the crimes they commit, and “BLM” doesn’t like this scenario and prefers to “reimagine” the criminal justice system as it “reimagines” policing: doing away with both. If it is the latter, Black Lives Matter utilizes an odd definition for the word, ‘corruption.’And is the incidence of crime really a function of a lack of money poured into public housing, health, and education? Or is that merely a false presumption, and an excuse for destroying a free Constitutional Republic in order to create a Marxist world order, where everyone, Black and White, alike, can live happily ever after in a Stateless State of perpetual penury, strife, and subjugation.?Bill de Blasio ought to be asking this small “BLM” domestic terrorist group—that the Press outsize importance to and that Corporations and Soros-funded Marxist organizations flood with money, explain itself. Instead, the Nation sees this jackass helping Marxist Nihilists paint huge and ugly “BLM” graffiti on the City Streets, in front of Trump Tower.And where did this upstart “BLM” movement come from him? If we are to believe the website, three women started it because, as the website says,“Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks’ humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.” That is the myth at any rate. But, how has this organization happen to emerge so quickly into such prominence? Why does it dominate the news? How has it grown into a world-wide organization if in fact it is truly a world-wide organization? From whom is this organization receiving such vast sums of money, and why? How is BLM spending that money if it is spending it? And who, really, is behind this organization and managing it? Might not BLM be a “front” for something else; something secret, something much more powerful, and something much more sinister? And why do the mainstream media and so many political leaders blindly, reverentially kowtow to this group? Is this organization, BLM, being deliberately used as a vehicle or catalyst to destroy community policing?Understandably, the morale among NYPD police officers, as among police officers across the Country, is at an all-time low and fear and anxiety of New York City residents and those of residents in many other communities, is at an all-time high.The New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio, treats the NYPD like pariahs, and, concomitantly, he forbids the average law-abiding citizen to arm him or herself.The NYPD has become a passive observer of crimes committed rather than assertive crime preventive actors, and many NYPD officers have not unreasonably, opted for early retirement.New York City residents who have the means to relocate elsewhere are moving away from the City in droves. That leaves the poor—Black and White residents of the City alike—to suffer the consequences of what has metastasized into a complete breakdown of law and order, leaving the wealthier residents who remain in the City to spend exorbitant sums of money to retain well-armed bodyguards or; leaving the less well-to-do to attempt to obtain, and very rarely succeeding, a highly coveted unrestricted concealed handgun carry license.Since it is next to impossible for the average person and business owner to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license for protection in New York City and as it has become increasingly more difficult for those who presently have one of a very few of these licenses to renew it when the license comes up for renewal, the law-abiding public is essentially denied even the basic right of self-defense.In point of fact, Bill de Blasio has single-handedly turned what had become the safest large City in the Country into a cesspool of rampant violence, confusion, disorder, and fear. Why would anyone wish to relocate to New York City or, for that matter, to any other major City that has become a sanctuary for the worst elements of society.Marxist, Anarchist Radical Left Governors and Mayors are encouraging civil unrest rather than discouraging it; emboldening those who seek to tear down our society to indulge themselves rather than attempting to restrain them.And life in this Nation is only going to get worse, much worse, if the Radical Left Democrats take control of this Nation’s Government in November.____________________________________________________

AMERICA’S CHOICE: PRESERVATION OF A FREE REPUBLIC OR ANNIHILATION

PART SEVEN

“The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’” Anecdotal account, cited from the New AmericanThere is a constant push-pull tension between the natural desire of man to be left alone, to create a world for him or herself, within him or herself, free from Government interference. And there is Government that attempts to create conformity and uniformity; destroying all vestiges of individuality; demanding subservience.The founders of our free Constitutional Republic knew all this of course, and wrestled with it; no easy task at all: How to create a centralized, Federal Government sufficiently strong to withstand external pressures from outside a new Nation to be but at once able to resist the tidal forces within it that strive to corral the independent spirit of its own citizens that is grounded on the sacred right to be left alone, turning the Nation into a despotic, totalitarian nightmare: monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy, and, absolute democracy (majoritarian mob rule). The founders pondered how man might live in harmony in a society with other men, free to go their own way, walk their own path, free from interference by a strong centralized Government that strives to defeat the desire of one to be left alone. And the founders came up with an ingenious solution.The founders realized the need to codify God-given rights existent in the American citizenry upon which Government must not, cannot, ever transgress.The First Amendment right of free speech—free expression—is a codification of Divine Law that tells man to be creative. The right of free speech is a codification of Divine imperative that each individual soul is sacrosanct and inviolate. Government is to let each American alone to realize his or her own potential and attain his or her own goals.The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is a codification of the Divine law that recognizes the cardinal right of defense of self, whether that threat comes from beast, from another man, or from a tyrannical government.The blueprint for such a Nation, a free Constitutional Republic, explicitly established a centralized, “federal” government but with limited powers. These nature of and extent of these powers was set forth in the Articles. But, to contain the urge of those wielding power to amass more power unto themselves as the expense of the public to whom they are sworn to serve, the framers of the Constitution included a Bill of Rights, codifications of God-given fundamental rights and liberties of the people, beyond the lawful power of Government to modify, abrogate, or ignore. This  Constitution has served the American people well through decades and centuries. Our Constitution has successfully resisted all attempts to undermine it. Having allowed the free expression of Americans to flourish unimpeded by Government, Our Nation has become the greatest, most powerful, and wealthiest Nation on Earth.Thus, through a free Constitutional Republic, the framers had developed a political system most beneficial to the individual, and one where man is able to live in a society with other men, in harmony, and through a free Constitutional Republic a society can grow and has grown into a great Nation. This, the framers of the Constitution, the founders of our Republic, had accomplished, but it was no easy task.Yes, our Nation has had its setbacks; a major civil war and economic strife and hardships, but our Nation remained strong; the greatest, most prosperous Nation on Earth; a natural magnet for many people across the Globe.As with the power and might of the Roman Empire that lasted for over a thousand years, our own Nation has, through time, absorbed many different ethnicities, but America was and is perceived as a “great melting pot,” as a unique American ethos was born. This notion of a “great melting pot” is more than metaphor. It says that each American citizen has imbued within him or her a unique American spirit that binds each of us.But something has changed in recent years. A virus has been seeded in the population. This virus is invisible both to the naked eye and to the most powerful microscope because it is non-physical. Yet, it is intensely noxious, highly infective, and extremely tenacious. It affects the psyche of the polity. It has been lying essentially dormant for years in the body politic but has now emerged full-blown, mutating the Nation into a hideous beast.We know the carriers of this plague. We see them. The sources of this plague are New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. In Congress Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Adam Schiff are the “Typhoid Mary” source of this plague. Billionaire sources of this plague include George Soros and the tech moguls. And, they have infected others: political leaders of States and towns, who in turn have infected millions of others; many of them among the younger population, turning them into unthinking, raging, ravaging and rampaging zombies; mindlessly attacking people; destroying and defacing monuments; defiling places of worship; demanding obeisance to false gods.To create a transnational world order devoid of sovereign independent nation-state, it is first necessary to destroy the notion of national identity as tied to the individual nation-state. As Americans have their own individual unique identity, the transnational Globalists must somehow dislodge what they perceive to be an inconvenient conceit from the psyche of each American, no easy task.It is necessary to replace or redefine concepts that are ingrained in the American psyche. One such concept, deeply ingrained in the mind of each American is that of  America perceived as a “melting pot”—the idea that Americans are diverse ethnically, but they all come to inculcate a unified American spirit.The Radical Left and the transnationalist Globalists understand that this idea must be challenged and reshaped or replaced with another concept; something quite different. And the Nation’s Destructors have devised the concept of diversity in America, but diversity divorced from the concept of ‘melting pot;’ diversity divorced from the notion that Americans do have or even that they can have such a thing as a uniquely American identity. And the propagandists in the mainstream media are conveying that new message: that America isn’t a melting pot at all and never was, and never should be considered a melting pot. According to the new State religion, America consists of diverse, distinct people who happen to reside in a particular geographical region that at the moment happens to be referred to as the United States. Diversity, absent assimilation, breeds hostility, antagonism, suspicion, contempt, between and among people and this is playing out in America today as the Radical Left demagogues and Globalist elite puppet masters intended. It is a plague they have sowed; meant to elicit ill-will. And they pin the division, and divisiveness, the confusion and despair, the violence and travails all on President Trump. It is a lie. It is a  False Flag operation, meticulously planned, and orchestrated.Division, Divisiveness, the plague of Diversity has been created by and is being nurtured and spread by the seditious Press, at the behest of their puppet masters, in a deliberate attempt at spreading enmity and suspicion and hatred among Americans, to turn us against each other—the better to control all of us.How many Americans have already fallen victim to this plague: Any of your friends, family, perhaps? Will you fall victim to this plague of diversity, yourself?The virus is suggestive, highly seductive to many. But you can resist. Be prepared to arm yourself. The zombies are coming for you. They are coming for all of us.___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT DOES A BIDEN PRESIDENCY MEAN TO AMERICANS?

PART ONE

Electing Donald Trump to a second term this November is as critical to our Nation’s preservation as the outcome of the American Revolution was to our Nation’s creation.Some Americans, though, who intend to vote for Joe Biden—assuming the DNC doesn’t pull the plug on him and selects someone else to run against Trump in his stead if Biden’s cognitive decline worsens precipitously between now and the day of the Election—don’t see the election as a watershed moment. They see the coming U.S. Presidential election as they see all Presidential elections: political pendulum oscillations from left to right to center, ever back and forth, analogous to the natural tendency of the stock market to self-correct when discordant fluctuations in the market due to panic selling or exuberant buying inevitably drive stock market valuations back to a more sensible level.Periodically, or so these members of the electorate assume, a pendulum swings too far in one direction. When that occurs, a political course correction is necessary. The pendulum must be brought back to the center: to stability, to normalcy, to stasis, to a point of equilibrium in all matters political, social, cultural, and economic. But, if so, this presumes that Trump's 2016 victory represents a radical shift away from political equilibrium rather than, itself, a self-corrective step toward equilibrium from the irrationality of the Clinton/Bush/Obama eras that saw the Nation moving ever further away from its traditional roots. Of course,  the movement away from our Nation's roots, our Nation's core values, has taken place gradually, imperceptibly, over decades. The American public had been mostly unaware of the shift. Yet, perhaps on a subconscious level, many Americans did come to suspect something awry and that would suggest why the electorate voted Trump into Office. Rather than an anomaly, the election of Trump represents, then, a return back to the political mean; a return to sanity, and not a rocket trajectory away from it that the mainstream media has painted ever since Trump took the Oath of Office.Be that as it may, many Americans, poisoned by media propaganda, truly see Joe Biden as the political “moderate,”  someone who will bring the Nation back to a moderate political, social, cultural, and economic stance; back to normalcy; back to equilibrium. This idea is to us either wishful thinking or delusional, but it explains why the DNC, including the RINOs, believes an otherwise weak candidate like Biden has the best shot at beating Trump in November 2020.The also-ran Democrat Party candidates—charismatic, articulate, and/or merely youthful—fell by the wayside because the DNC concluded they were not well known or were perceived by the DNC and the Democrat Party leadership as politically too far afield for the majority of the electorate, or, as in the case of Tulsi Gabbard, perceived as too mainstream: center-right, or dead center, and therefore distasteful to Democrats who, having grown, through time, so radicalized, cannot stomach Tulsi Gabbard even if she, unlike any of the other Democrat Party candidates, might be more palatable to Americans outside the Party. So, Joe Biden, the most inept candidate of all, becomes the default Party candidate.Many in the electorate see Joe Biden’s obvious mental deficiencies as de minimis, of little concern, or even de rigueur, obligatory: a cognitively impaired, uncharismatic, stumbling, bumbling, rambling, fool—just the sort of person to bring this Nation back to its senses and to a sense of decorum, as this shell of a man cedes authority to the Bureaucratic Deep State. But ceding authority to the Bureaucracy is something Trump would never do; has never done; and, in fact, ought never to do, as no U.S. President should ever do, since the President of the United States is the only person under and pursuant to Article II, who wields Article II authority. But, Trump is so loathed by the “establishment”—that the alternative to a continuation of the Trump Administration, is an Administration grounded on obsolescence and decrepitude, as the “establishment” considers that to be preferable to an Administration run by a President who would actually wield Article II powers that the Constitution provides for him; that the Constitution demands from him; and that the voters who elected Trump to Office expect of him. But, the Democrats and RINOs, these Destructors, want none of that. They wan,t from the person who serves as  President, someone who obediently, willingly, happily, answers to those who are supposed and expected to answer to him: the Federal Bureaucracy. No better person to symbolize that obsolescence, decrepitude, and inanity of the Presidency the “establishment”  seeks to install in lieu of Trump than the frail, feeble, fragile, senile, hopelessly lost, unqualified, and ill-equipped shell of a man, Joe Biden. What better man is there to enfeeble the Nation itself than Joe Biden, the weakest, most feeble, infirm, debilitated man ever to run for political office?Other Americans who plan on voting for Joe Biden in November, assuming he does in fact run against Trump, have, as well, no illusions about Biden’s incapacity for Office. They, too, perceive Joe Biden’s infirmities and deficiencies as a “plus,” an opportunity to wipe the slate clean. These people doubt that Biden, if elected, would serve out one term, let alone two, and that is what they want. Indeed, that is what they are banking on. And there will be no placid course correction to the political center if Biden does emerge victorious in November.Even now The New York Times gloats over the fact that Sanders and Biden are, together, formulating the Radical Left agenda, nothing like it ever seen in our Nation's history: an agenda directed to erasing our Nation's history, setting it up for inclusion in a Global world State. Seeing the political pendulum swinging and sending the political pendulum back to center isn’t what those on the radical left of the political spectrum have in mind. For they have no intention of bringing the Country back to the political, social, economic, and cultural centrist midpoint. They plan to use Biden as a surrogate for Sanders, the latter of whom failed to secure the Democrat Party nomination in two election cycles, throwing his supporters into a tantrum, to send the political pendulum to such an extreme position on the left, that it remains frozen there in perpetuity.

WHAT IS THE COMING 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION REALLY ABOUT?

This general election and the one preceding it isn’t an election between “Republicans and Democrats.” In fact, the terms ‘Republican’ and ‘Democrat’ have long ago lost whatever meaning they originally had.From a political, social, cultural, juridical standpoint, the coming election is one between adherents of the tenets of Collectivism and the adherents of Individualism. It is about those who support the Bill of Rights—and the one fundamental right that preserves all other rights along with the sovereignty of the American people, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—and those who abhor, absolutely loathe, the very notion of the supremacy of the individual over that of the Collective, and who intend to erase free speech, free association, and the ability of the American citizen TO BE his own person, individual; to see Government amass unlimited power, usurping the natural sovereignty of the people. These radical Marxists and Billionaire Globalists do not intend to leave the American citizen alone, but to subjugate the citizen, reduce the citizen to penury, and to keep the American citizen in a constant state of fear. We see the plans of these Destructors of our Nation playing out today, even before the General election. These Destructors of our Nation are providing the American citizenry a foretaste of what it can expect, what it will experience if the Destructors do secure complete control over the Federal Government. They will never permit the individual TO BE individual. They will never leave the individual alone. They will control all thought and conduct. And to avoid revolt, they will never sanction the citizenry's ownership of and possession of firearms and ammunition. Guns and ammunition will be the first things they will confiscate. They will reconfigure the Country, turning it from one where Government is the servant of the people to one where the people are the servants of Government, a Government to be merged into a new world order.Supporters of Individualism are fighting back against this push of Destructors both here and abroad who intend to wrest the Nation from the citizenry. Supporters of Individualism wish to preserve our Nation as the founders presented it to us, as set forth in the Nation’s blueprint, the U.S. Constitution; as the framers of our Constitution intended for our Nation to remain: a free Constitutional Republic, in which the people, themselves, are sovereign. Supporters of Collectivism want to eradicate our Nation’s history, culture, and core Christian values. They intend to create an entirely new and alien economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical construct, grounded on an expansive, powerful, centralized governmental authority through which the lives, thoughts, and actions of individuals are strictly controlled and modulated, according to a uniform standard, permitting no deviancy in thought, action, or conduct.Nothing better exemplifies the vast irreconcilable differences between those who adhere to the tenets of Individualism and those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism than in the manner each perceives the Bill of Rights. Individualists perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as codifications of natural law bequeathed to man by the Divine Creator. The Bill of Rights are fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights, and liberties that rest outside the lawful power of the State to modify, abrogate, or ignore. It is through the exercise of these basic, God-given rights that the American citizenry retains its authority, power, and sovereignty over Government; and this is deemed a good thing; the way things ought to be.Collectivists perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as nothing more than codifications of man-made laws that arise with the creation of a State. Collectivists perceive the Bill of Rights as auxiliary laws of man, created by man, bestowed on man by other men; laws that therefore fall within the prerogative of men to modify, abrogate, or ignore at will. They perceive the Bill of Rights, not as permanent ineradicable fixtures, but as an insufferable obstacle to their usurpation of authority. They see the Bill of Rights as no more than a collection of antiquated, obsolete alienable man-made rules, unacceptable constraints on and restraints against their accumulation of Government power; as an unacceptable restraint and constraint on their own unconscionable, unlawful usurpation of authority from and unlawful grasp of the sovereignty of the American people; an unlawful grasp of authority, power, and sovereignty that belongs solely to and rests solely with the American people, themselves, not with Government; not with the usurpers in Government.The Collectivists slowly, inexorably encroach on individual freedom and autonomy; they attack the very integrity of selfhood. They see the average American as intractable, requiring constant guidance and control no less than a wayward child. Thus, Collectivists refuse to accept, cannot even comprehend the idea that, within man's nature, within his very being, exist God-given unalienable rights, intrinsic to man's very being. Collectivists see the Bill of Rights only as mutable privileges, not immutable rights. They perceive the Bill of Rights not as illimitable and expansive in their reach but limited, transitory, to be exercised by the citizenry, if at all, solely by the grace of Government, subject to carefully circumscribed parameters when exercised, at all; privileges that are capable of rescission at any time. These differences in perception of the Divine nature of man and of the relationship of man to Government have more than philosophical import. They have real-world consequences for every American. See the Arbalest Quarrel article on "The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies."Collectivists do not perceive the Bill of Rights as sacred and inviolate but as obstacles to control over the citizenry; and they are correct in their observation that the Bill of Rights does operate as an intolerable, insufferable, frustrating obstacle to those in Government who desire to wield absolute control over the thoughts, actions, and conduct of the citizenry, as of course, the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent. This is as the framers of the Constitution intended so that the sovereignty of the Nation would always rest in the hands of the citizenry, not in the hands of Government, and it is this idea, crystallized in the soul of the American psyche, indefatigable, tenacious notion that Americans will not so easily relinquish, that Biden and his handlers, as with all those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism, intend to wrench from the American citizen. But to accomplish this, the Destructors of our Nation must corral the Bill of Rights; they must turn the Constitution on its head. And they are making headway: shaming Americans, humiliating them; creating victims of us all.______________________________________________

TO CONTROL AMERICANS, DEMOCRATS MUST CONTROL SPEECH AND FIREARMS

PART TWO

Collectivists are sly, deceitful creatures. They erode our fundamental rights under the cloak of morality and pragmatism, hoping that few Americans will notice.Consider the Biden campaign’s war on the fundamental right of free speech. Recently, Biden and other Collectivists argue that free speech ought not to extend to “hate speech.” Superficially, that may seem reasonable to some Americans. But is it? What constitutes “hate speech?” Indeed, what constitutes “speech” as free expression under the Constitution? Does Flag Burning constitute “speech” protected under the First Amendment? Does the display of firearms at rallies constitute “speech” protected under the First Amendment? Is the latter an expression of “hate speech and not the former? If so, how does one make that determination?As one academic writer aptly said: “Hate speech is a vague concept with varying definitions. Generally, it includes speech that is abusive, offensive, or insulting that targets an individual's race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.” “Verbal Poison—Criminalizing Hate Speech: A Comparative Analysis and a Proposal for the American System,” 50 Washburn L.J. 445, Winter 2011, by Thomas J. Webb, J.D. Candidate, Washburn University School of Law. The author continues, “Regulating hate speech in the United States is problematic because of the value the nation places on free speech. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .’” The author adds, “There are three prominent justifications for protecting free speech: (1) it acknowledges human autonomy and dignity, (2) it promotes the marketplace of ideas, and (3) it is an effective tool of democracy.”But, the Collectivist Democrats and other Collectivists of all stripes—Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Globalists, Anarchists, and others—will have none of that.But, assuming that Congress could devise an operational definition of ‘hate speech,’ would such statute prohibiting such speech still conflict with the First Amendment? Yes! The U.S. Supreme Court has made this point clear, succinct, and categorical, opining, in Snyder V. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011): “Such [hate] speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. ‘If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.’ Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989). Indeed, ‘the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.’ Hurley v. Irish-American  Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 574, 115 S. Ct. 2338, 132 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1995).But Collectivists don’t give a damn about the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause; nor do they give a damn about the High Court’s interpretation of it. As a prime example of what this means, what this entails, consider the Collectivists' seamy, degenerate attacks on Zuckerberg's social media vehicle, Facebook. The Collectivists’ have recently vented their fury on Zuckerberg’s Facebook. And, the toady and mentally deficient, presumptive Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, in whose name the Collectivists present their aims to the American public, doesn't really have a clue what is going on all around him; how it is the Collectivist puppet masters are playing him for the fool he is and parading him, now and then, before the public.Of course, Biden’s policy planks, marching ever leftward toward a cliff, are and must be coextensive with those of the Collectivists, who are feeding Biden his lines; his messages. They have simply stepped in his shoes, and, in his dim-witted muddled mind, Biden accepts whatever his handlers require of him, understanding nothing, and caring little, if at all, of the clown he has become; his words meaningless jabber, both to him and everyone else. The website, Reason, says,“After being asked by the Times about previous comments Biden has made regarding Facebook's refusal to remove negative ads targeting his campaign, the Democratic front-runner attacked both the social media platform and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.‘I've never been a fan of Facebook,’ Biden says. ‘I've never been a big Zuckerberg fan, I think he's a real problem.’Biden and Facebook have been feuding for months, as Reason has previously covered. In an October letter to Facebook, Biden's campaign called on the social media site to reject political ads containing ‘previously debunked content’—like a Trump campaign ad linking Biden and his son, Hunter, to corruption in Ukraine. Shortly afterwards, Zuckerberg said the company's policies were ‘grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.’Zuckerberg is correct, but that didn’t sit well with Biden. In a CNN town hall event in November, Biden said he would be willing to rewrite the rules for all online platforms in order to force social media companies to ‘be more socially conscious.’”The Collectivists have gone to task on Zuckerberg. On July 9, 2020, as reported in the NY Times, Facebook’s “auditors,” said, “the prioritization of free expression over all other values such as equality and nondiscrimination is deeply troubling.”Deeply troubling to whom? The Collectivist censors? Apparently, these Facebook auditors aren’t familiar with the critical importance of the First Amendment in a free Constitutional Republic.“Free expression” isn’t a mere “value,” it’s a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, natural right, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, and its meaning is straightforward. The expressions, ‘equality,’ and ‘non-discrimination,’ though, are vague concepts and apply to aspirations, not fundamental rights.In the absence of explication, expressions such as 'equality' and 'non-discrimination,' that the Facebook auditors mention, do not, however, denote “rights,” fundamental or secondary. Equality for whom and in what sense? And, non-discrimination in terms of what? People as individuals are decidedly unequal. Some have been blessed with one or more gifts such as intelligence, or beauty, or athletic ability, or business acumen. Others do not have such gifts. In terms of talents, abilities, physical features, and even with respect to motivations and drives, people are decidedly and decisively unequal. Yet, even in physical, mental, and emotional attributes, Collectivists strive to force commonality on everyone, destroying that especial aspect of a person that defines the individual soul. This generalized, nebulous concept of 'equality' the Collectivists allude to has nothing to do with equal protection under the law as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.But, apropos of “free speech,” everyone has an “equal” right to say their mind. If someone’s words hurt me, then all the worse for me. If my words hurt another, then all the worse for him. But all the worse for both of us and our Nation if the Collectivist censors determine what either of us can assert verbally or in writing, thereby denigrating and curbing the force of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.Similarly, people discriminate all the time: in terms of their interests, their proclivities, their passions, the people with whom they choose to associate or not, and in terms of their political and social and religious preferences; and, while the law prohibits discrimination, as for example, on the basis of race, color, age, or sex, and as, for another example, in employment, and in restaurant or hotel accommodations, anti-discrimination laws are statutory constructs, not fundamental rights.But, Collectivists subsume aspirations to the level of fundamental rights. They raise secondary man-made rights, such as ‘abortion,’ to the level of fundamental rights. And, they dismiss out-of-hand rights that are natural, fundamental, God-given, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment.Biden and his handlers have made clear that preservation of the Second Amendment does not factor into their Party plank. While some Collectivists, like retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens would strike the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights altogether, Biden and the Democrats are, at the moment at least, circumspect about their intentions, couching the denial of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in terms of a desire to curb “gun violence” and a desire to end what they refer to as a “gun culture” existent in America. See: “The Biden Plan To End Our Gun Violence Epidemic.”And, keep in mind how the Biden gun safety plank insinuates the First Amendment into the Second Amendment, and observe how the Destructors of our Nation don't attack the Second Amendment head-on, but obliquely:“Close the ‘hate crime loophole.’ Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual ‘who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission’ from purchasing or possessing a firearm.” This “hate crime loophole” would add another criterium to the Federal Penal Code, denying a person the right to possess firearms for “thought” crimes. Eventually, the Collectivists wouldn’t even bother to use the excuse of a misdemeanor conviction to deny an American the right to keep and bear arms. If one’s speech is construed as “hate speech,” that would be enough to deny a person the right to own and possess firearms, expanding the domain of those not permitted to own firearms, exponentially. Would Collectivists argue that merely to desire to own and possess a firearm is tantamount to “hate speech” on its face? Considering how far the Radical Left Collectivists have come since Charlottesville—defacing the monuments of Confederate War Heroes—to arguing for the removal of monuments to the Father of our Nation, George Washington, and to the other Founders, there is no limit to the extravagant outrageous, laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and executive orders that will come down the pike if the Collectivists take control over all three Branches of Government.But if Radical Left Marxist control of all thought, deed, and action is what you fancy, then feel free to give a sawbuck or two to Biden’s campaign at “Can you donate to Elect Joe Biden?” I’m sure he would appreciate it.___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL AMERICANS ON INDEPENDENCE DAY 2020

#gunvote“Americans have the right and the advantage of being armed—unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms ~James Madison.” Federalist 46Dear Fellow Americans,As we approach the celebration on Independence Day this coming July 4^th weekend we should think about the significance of the War that was fought against tyranny and the sacrifices that were made to give us a Nation unlike any other; one conceived in liberty. We should give thanks to our founders, and give serious thought to where we are today, and how we see ourselves tomorrow.Americans are shocked at the outbreak of law and order in our Nation; of the destruction of businesses and private property; of assaults on and murders of innocent Americans; of violent, senseless acts of rioters, looters, and arsonists that go unpunished.We have witnessed the wanton destruction of our Nation’s history, our culture, and our heritage. We see the defacement, defilement, and destruction of our treasured monuments, statues, and artwork.We are disgusted by the reactions of Democrats to the anarchy and chaos happening all around us, and we are appalled at their constant attacks on the President.The reactions of the Radical Left Democrat Party leadership make clear their contempt for our Nation, for our people, and for our Constitution. The weak-kneed reactions of Republicans to this lawlessness are no less disturbing and alarming.But these radical forces have done us a favor. They show us their true colors and tell us what they want: the end of a free Constitutional Republic. Never before has a U.S. Presidential election been so important.This is a modern Civil War. See the AQ article titled, “In The Throes Of America’s Modern-Day Civil War.”    In some ways, though, this modern Civil War bears more relation to the American Revolution than to the American Civil War because we are seeing something different, something potentially more catastrophic. The eradication of our Bill of Rights, all ten of them.Our representatives in Congress do not represent our interests. We had national concealed handgun reciprocity legislation in our grasp but the Senate threw it away. Of all the timely issues the Arbalest Quarrel has written on over the years, this was one of the most important, the right to own and possess firearms unrestricted.If we are to ever see the reality of national carry legislation, we can only do so with Trump as President and with Republican control of both the House and Senate.The 4^th of July should remind all Americans that true freedom and liberty always exists in an armed citizenry.We see, firsthand, in States like New York, Illinois, Washington, and California, to name a few, Democratic strongholds, where State and local leaders have either capitulated to lawless mob rule or have actively participated in the breakdown of law and order.These recent events have also demonstrated how vulnerable the American people are, how helpless they are, and how they are made to feel.Just take a look at New York City. This is a City that had for years seen a reduction in crime. It is now experiencing a massive resurgence as violent crime and murder rates have soared, equal to or surpassing those seen in Chicago.Democrat Mayor Bill DeBlasio has still refused to allow licensed Federal Firearms Dealers, gun stores, and shooting ranges to open as “essential” businesses.Yet, he has let criminals out of jail to prey on innocent people while, at the same time, he has defunded and dismantled the Police Department, disbanded undercover units, given them conflicting orders, and emasculated what remains of the police.DeBlasio has made it extremely difficult for average, sensible, law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to possess firearms for personal protection. He claims citizens who reside in New York City don’t need firearms because the police serve that function. That, of course, is a bald-faced lie, as the police have no duty to ensure the life and safety of individuals.The function of the police is to protect the safety of the community as a whole. The AQ has discussed this issue at length, in its article, “Can We, As Individuals, Rely on the Police To Protect us?”But, today, DeBlasio isn’t even providing New York City residents with that minimal level of protection. Instead of reinforcing the police, and supporting them, he has bowed to the will of the mob.DeBlasio has empowered the criminal, sociopathic elements. He has demoralized the police and left the average, responsible, law-abiding citizenry helpless. If this is DeBlasio’s intention, he has succeeded. If not, this is evidence that he is an incompetent and moron.This is repeated across the Country. You see it happening every day. America is on fire!Americans need to understand the issues, know the facts, and be proactive.DeBlasio continues to let criminals out of jail to prey on innocent people, leaving them defenseless. While also not allowing licensed Federal Firearms Dealers, gun stores and shooting ranges to reopen because he declares them “non-essential” businesses.This is repeated across the Country. You see it happening every day. America is on fire!These same governors and mayors fail to protect us; fail to protect society-at-large, and deny us the right to protect ourselves. They exercise absolute control. They ignore their own legislatures, arrogantly issuing illegal executive orders to exert control over Americans. They use that same authority to benefit themselves and the Democratic Party platform. This must stop.Well-funded and well-organized Radical Left-wing forces, from within our country and from outside it, have infiltrated our government, our schools, our social and business institutions; our very way-of-life.Their focus, for the time being, is on the Democrat-controlled sanctuary cities and States.These destructive forces aim to accomplish their goals through a seditious “Fake News” media to create a totalitarian regime. They hide behind the protections of  “Free Press.” Beware if you are not “politically protect.”Fortunately, President Donald Trump is not their puppet. He will not stand for their antics. He calls them out for the corrupters they are. He cannot be bought.Radical Left forces intend to defeat Trump, at all costs. They constantly proclaim a runaway “Blue Wave” victory. It is the same strategy they used in a failed attempt to elect Hillary Clinton.These Radical Left forces will be met by a counterforce. It is the same counterforce that succeeded in electing Trump President in 2016. That counterforce will see Trump reelected in 2020.  That counterforce consists of you, and me, and the great “Silent Majority.”We will put out the fire burning in America with a backfire!  The Presidential 2020 Election is only a few months away. The stakes are high.Voting has consequences, as evidenced in the Midterm Elections of 2018 allowing the Democrats to take control over the House of Representatives while the Republicans just narrowly held onto the Senate.The Midterm election upset put a hold on any possibility for the passage of a new “National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity” bill. See the AQ Article,“It’s Time For National Handgun Carry Reciprocity To Secure The Citizen’s Right Of Armed Self-Defense, Throughout The Country.” Then, too, the recent swing-vote by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on the NYC Gun Transport Case has done nothing to strengthen our Second Amendment rights. The AQ discusses this in its article, “Antigun Crowd Breathes Collective Sigh Of Relief After Supreme Court Majority Gives NYC A Victory In Gun Transport Case.” Only Trump’s reelection, along with Republican wins in the House and the Senate, will preserve a Free Republic and preserve our fundamental, unalienable rights.Republicans must also gain control of States and localities presently under the grip of Radical Leftists.Reach out and touch someone!We cannot take anything for granted. The stakes are too high!We must prioritize and plan our battles. But, to successfully counter the forces that wish to undermine our Nation, we must keep informed.We need to understand the issues, know the facts, and be proactive.Get accurate news through FOX and OAN cable television, and read and subscribe to accurate reporting news sites like the Epoch Times.We also suggest you subscribe to pro-Second Amendment websites. There are several.Among the best of the pro-Second Amendment websites, we strongly suggest you subscribe to the following if you have not already done so:AMMOLAND/Shooting Sports News; NSSF/National Shooting Sports Foundation; DRGO/Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership; and, our own, ARBALEST QUARREL. All these sites strongly and uncompromisingly support the citizens’ fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.All of us must do our fair share.You can also support us and encourage others to do so as well by reading our AQ articles and to share them on social media sources like Facebook and Twitter.Let your voice be heard.Call President Trump and Republicans in your Congressional Delegation. Let them know how you feel about the important issues. Remind them that they work for you, not for themselves. Make it clear to them that you will monitor how they vote on legislation and that you can easily vote them out of Office as vote them into Office.The Capital telephone number to reach anyone in the Federal Government is 202/ 224-3121. This is a working number and a switchboard operator will connect you to the person you want to reach. We use this phone number often. It only takes a few minutes. You, too, can make a difference.We trust you will share this message with your family, friends, and acquaintances.Remember full well, if we do not retain control of the Federal Government, this July 4^th Independence Day Celebration may well be our last.Sincerely,/s/Stephen L. D’AndrilliAQ President___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CHURCHES “UNDER THE GUN”

“And God spake all these words, saying,I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”  ~from The Old Testament, Exodus and Deuteronomy, King James Version; source: www.Bartleby.com­­­­­­____________________________________________“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” First sentence from the Declaration of Independence, In Congress, July 4, 1776; source: archives.gov

THE DEFIANCE AND BRASHNESS OF STATE GOVERNMENT TYRANTS IS APPARENT FOR ALL TO SEE

America is first and foremost a Christian Nation. This isn’t hypothesis, or hyperbole, or manifestation of hysteria. It is fact. This fact is the backbone and linchpin of our Constitution. It is the foundation of our natural rights; rights bestowed on man by a loving, Divine Creator. It is self-evident true.In recent years, the would-be destroyers of our Nation have attacked this notion; and, with the intentional or reckless unleashing of a pandemic on our Nation and on other nations by the amoral, irreligious, autocratic, and diabolical, Communist regime of Xi Jinping of China, the would-be destroyers of our Nation have renewed their assault on the Christian Church. They have done so with unusual feral ferocity.Who are these would-be destroyers of our Constitution; these betrayers of our National heritage, of our natural rights and liberties; these sowers of ill will; these destructive, hateful forces who disingenuously, hypocritically, coldly, callously, calculatedly assert a need, an impulse to tear down the Christian framework of our Nation, ostensibly, as they say, or so they claim, to save it? We know them. They are all around us. They comprise a heterogenous, amorphous conglomeration of malcontents both here and abroad who seek to remake the world in their own image: Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Neoliberal Billionaire Globalists, and others. They all share the same belief system, the same value system: distrust of the common man; a strong, tenacious, insatiable desire to control and subjugate humanity; and a strong bias toward and a disturbing penchant for Atheism, Agnosticism, or Satanism, and concomitant amorality and immorality, albeit disguised as seemingly benign secularism, moral relativism, and nontheistic humanism.

A MODERN CIVIL WAR

America is in the midst of a Civil War. This war isn’t fought with guns or bombs, at least for the moment. But it’s war, nonetheless. We see this war waged in the attempt to control the mind, the thoughts of Americans. The despoilers of our Nation have sought to drive a wedge between Americans and their sacred rights and liberties. If successful, our Nation will cease to exist, for the sovereignty of the American people exists and thrives only in the unfettered exercise of their God-given rights and liberties. For only in the exercise of those rights and liberties may the power of Government be restrained and constrained.These would-be annihilators of our Nation use calamity to drive a wedge between the citizenry and their fundamental rights and liberties. They are adept at seducing many Americans to surrender their rights and liberties for security. Recall Benjamin Franklin’s famous, oft reiterated, prescient quote: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

THE PRESUMPTUOUS, CALCULATED, CONCERTED, INCESSANT, INSOLENT ASSAULT ON OUR BILL OF RIGHTS

After the attack on the World Trade Center, the assassins of our Bill of Rights said Americans don’t require freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures because Government must protect Americans from terrorists; ergo, Americans came to lose their sovereignty through a slow, inexorable process toward creation of the Surveillance State, and the concomitant whittling away of the sacred right embodied in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.After some lunatics went on a shooting binge, in the last couple of decades the assassins of our Bill of Rights said Americans ought not exercise their unalienable God-given right to keep and bear arms because Government must promote public safety and ensure public order; ergo, we see the rapid evolution toward restricting ownership and possession of firearms, and the concomitant whittling away of the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.And now, with the Chinese Communist Coronavirus unleashed upon us, the assassins of our Bill of Rights have said Government must constrain the free exercise of religion, restrain the freedom of speech, preclude the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to curtail the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; ergo we see the rapid evolution toward controlling the thoughts and actions of the citizenry; the subjugation of the people, and the concomitant whittling away of the sacred rights embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

STATE GOVERNMENTS USE FORCE TO ENFORCE CHURCH CLOSURES

Ironically, it isn’t the Federal Government, now, but the Governors of a few States who seek to curtail the free exercise of religion.With all the bluster of the Radical Left that calls President Trump an autocrat, the actions of Radical Left Governors make plain who the autocrats really are. Their actions are both unconstitutional and unconscionable.Radical Left New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, Illinois Governor, J.B. Pritzker, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, California Governor, Gavin Newsom, and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer have closed churches claiming, as a rationale, the need to promote public health due to the Chinese Coronavirus.Unsurprisingly, a website that calls itself, the “Friendly Atheist,” says, that State Governors can do this:“ ‘Policies don’t violate religious freedom laws if they’re created in order to save people’s lives,’ said Michael Moreland, director of the Ellen H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova University.” ‘So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them,’ he said. . . . So, yes, governors can and should shut down church gatherings in the same way they’re shutting down public schools and restaurants. Treat them fairly. Treat them equally. There’s nothing illegal going on no matter how many pastors whine about religious discrimination.”Let’s deconstruct a couple of these comments. First, the “Friendly Atheist” draws a false dilemma, claiming that either the Church remains closed or people will fall sick and die. That’s untrue. Churches are cognizant of the threat. Church officials have been implementing proper protocols to preclude the spread of the Chinese Coronavirus all along. Second, the remark of the legal expert, Ellen McCullen is vague and ambiguous. She asserts, “So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them.” What is she saying? There are two possibilities.McCullen may be saying that, so long as State Governors force every religion in a State to close its doors, not just Christian denominations, then Church closure orders are lawful. In the alternative, McCullen may be saying that, so long as closure restrictions apply to all political, social, educational and religious associations and organizations, and apply t0 all business establishments—literally to every conceivable entity throughout the State, apart, say, from hospitals, pharmacies, and food establishments—then Church closure orders are lawful. Now, if the former statement is what Ellen McCullen means, then Church closure actions are not “content-neutral,” and are, then, unconstitutional. They are clearly unlawful. If the latter statement is what she means, then Government ordered Church closure actions are still, likely, unconstitutional, and, so, still unlawful.Why? It comes down to what reasonably, rationally constitutes an “essential service” and what constitutes a “non-essential service”: terminology State Governments have themselves concocted to create winners and losers; to divide those whom they count as friends from those they perceive as enemies.No one would deny that severely ill people need the care of health care providers that, in many cases only hospitals can effectively provide. And no one can honestly deny that many people require prescription medicines to remain well. And no one can reasonably deny that everyone requires food sustenance to survive. So a case can be made for application of the essential versus non-essential dichotomy but only if applied in a rational, non-arbitrary manner. What about Churches? Does the Church provide an essential service? Well, houses of worship do fall under the category of essential services, as spiritual need is arguably just as essential to the well-being and survival of a person as are food, medicine, and medical care. Moreover, the free exercise of religion isn’t a mere privilege; nor is it a minor right. It is a fundamental, unalienable right. In fact, the right to worship the Divine Creator in a house of worship, and the right of self-defense, and the right to maintain one's personal autonomy are the most sacred of rights. Yet those State Governors deny a person the right to attend Church, even as they permit a person to visit an abortion clinic, a liquor store, or a cannabis shop. That is the height of arrogance, foolishness, capriciousness, and outright stupidity.

IN A FREE REPUBLIC CHURCHES MUST REMAIN OPEN

These State Governors who would dare close Churches are simply wrong. Churches must remain open.Curiously, it is the U.S. President, not the State Governors who recognize the importance of our sacred rights and liberties. As recently reported in the website, usnews.com, for one:“President Donald Trump on Friday said he has deemed churches and other houses of worship ‘essential’ and called on governors to allow them to reopen this weekend despite the threat of the coronavirus.”“ ‘Today I’m identifying houses of worship — churches, synagogues and mosques — as essential places that provide essential services,’ Trump said during a hastily arranged press conference Friday. He said if governors don't abide by his request, he will ‘override’ them, though it’s unclear what authority he has to do so.So, then: Who is the autocrat? Who is the tyrant? It isn’t Donald Trump. The real autocrats and tyrants are those State Governors who usurp the sovereignty of the American people by denying to the people their fundamental right to worship the Divine Creator: the one Being who gave man free will, and who bestowed on man fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights.There are those of us who adore and worship the Divine Creator; and there are those who don’t.But for those who would deny the Divine Creator, there is no limit to their capacity for evil. They don't wish to attend Church? Fine. But, to prevent others from doing so is not to be countenanced, and should be roundly condemned. These atheists dare to use a catastrophe as an excuse to destroy rights and liberties they never created yet have the audacity and the temerity to annul. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” said Rahm Emanuel, one-time Chicago Mayor and White House Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration.* ______________________________________*Rahm’s Rule—the arrogant “first principle” of the deniers of the Divine Creator.____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

OUT OF THE SHADOWS: GLOBAL ELITES FORCED TO MAKE THEIR CASE FOR NEW WORLD ORDER

PART ONE

NEW VISION FOR NATION SUBVERTS AMERICAN VALUES; WOULD MAKE AMERICANS SLAVES TO FOREIGN MASTERS

The Radical Left Democrat Party Leadership and the seditious Press represent merely the outward manifestation of the dire threat posed to the sanctity of our Constitution and to the well-being of our Nation and its people. They are merely the mouthpiece for others: powerful, sinister, secretive elements, both here and abroad, intent on destroying the very social, political, economic, financial, and cultural fabric upon which Western Civilization has prevailed for hundreds of years: the independent sovereign nation-state.These extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, abjectly ruthless, amoral sinister forces that comprise a small cadre of Neoliberal Global “Elites,” no longer attempt to hide their intentions from the mass of average, ordinary, law-abiding, morally upright people that make up the majority of the population of our Country; that make up the populations of Western Europe; and that include the populations of the major British Commonwealth Nations: New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. These global financiers and corporatist disrupters, along with their toadies in the Press, both here and abroad, and in the governments of the EU, the U.S., and in the UK Commonwealth Countries, have come to the dawning realization—and for them a disturbing realization, that their goal for a one-world political, social, economic, financial, corporate system of governance, that had hitherto moved methodically, inexorably ahead, according to plan, gathering steam, especially, in the last decade of the Twentieth and for much of the first two decades of the Twenty-first Centuries had hit a confounding brick wall.This brick wall they encountered included: the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President; the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (Brexit); and the growing nationalist fervor of Europe’s populations, who accurately observed, and who justifiably resented, the actions of the EU ruling “elites,” who had, since the inception of the EU, slowly eroded the culture and history of those nation-states and increasingly usurped the political, economic, financial and legal power and authority of Europe’s nation-states, concentrating that power in instrumentalities established in the Belgium Capital of Brussels.The tacit aim of these “New World Order” (NWO) “elites” is to suffocate the life out of, and eventually to eradicate, the independence and sovereignty of the individual nations of the EU. The Neoliberal Global “elites” are accomplishing this goal through centralization of power in Brussels, and through the deliberate infestation of tens of millions of unassimilable malcontents, terrorists, diseased, uneducated, and poverty-stricken people of Africa and of the Middle East to wreak havoc on the culture and core values of Europeans, introducing systemic violence and upheaval in Europe’s nations.The EU institutions of oppression and suppression include inter alia: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) The Global elites also exert control over nations of the EU, and over the British Commonwealth Nations, and over the U.S., too, through several international organizations—many tied directly to the UN.The creation of secretive international agreements, pacts, treaties, and accords, have entwined Nations, and their unsuspecting citizenry, in intricate, elaborate economic, geopolitical, and military superstructures, difficult to disentangle and difficult for nations to extricate from; requiring the subordination of a nation’s own body of laws, constitution, and Court structure to nebulous international law and norms and to contractual arrangements established in those nefarious, abstruse and duplicitous agreements, pacts, treaties, and accords, to be enforced through supranational courts and tribunals.The Neoliberal Global Elites wanted their plans for world domination to remain hidden, slowly tightening the noose around the U.S., the nations of the EU, and the British Commonwealth nations, entrapping Western Civilization in a mammoth web of deceit and corruption. But faced with a concerted global backlash, they have come to realize they must come out from the shadows and admit to the world what their plans entail. They realize they have to make their design explicit and make their case directly to the peoples of the U.S., and to the peoples of the EU, and to the populace of the British Commonwealth Nations.In our own Nation, the Neoliberal Global “Elites,”—through the Democrat Party Leadership and other Radical Left Democrats in Congress, and through the mainstream seditious Press, and through Democrat State governments and legislatures across the Country, that comprise the mouthpieces of the Global “Elites”—are beginning to vocalize their case.They are attempting to make their case for upending the U.S. Constitution; for constraining or erasing our fundamental, unalienable, and immutable rights and liberties, especially those pertaining to speech and to the right of the people to peaceably assemble; and to the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and to the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.These Neoliberal Global Elites dare openly and brazenly to thrust an entirely alien political, social, economic philosophy on Americans—one inconsistent with our core values; one that undermines our Judeo-Christian heritage; one that demeans our forefathers; and that denies and denigrates our glorious history. They desire to shame Americans; to compel an absurd, obsequious, repulsive, self-loathing and contrition upon Americans. And through it all, they are becoming increasingly emboldened, and flamboyant about their plans, self-righteously shouting down all detractors, all dissenting voices.They intend to remake the face of America, distorting it into a horrific mask of self-reproach. And, if they succeed, Americans will have no will to fight back, no ability to prevent the coming ruin.The floodgates will spring open. The decrepit, diseased leprous, zombie hordes will descend upon us—tens and perhaps hundreds of millions to overwhelm our Nation, our people, bringing the Nation to its knees.Naturally, these Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and Anarchist Collectivists would remonstrate against and deride Trump’s Campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” (“MAGA”). They would do so because they have no desire to preserve a free Constitutional Republic. They have no desire to defend our Constitution, our Judeo-Christian Ethic, our culture, our morality, our core values, our fundamental rights and liberties. They have no desire to preserve our history. Why would they exalt our Nation? They have only contempt for it.They consider Trump’s Campaign slogan an outrage against the Collectivist vision of a one-world political, social, and economic system of governance, and they will not tolerate it or tolerate those Americans who choose to embrace it. Like Obama and the Clintons and the Bushes, they are apologists for our Nation.It was no accident that New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo remarked, on August 13, 2018,“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great. We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.” See AQ article, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Says: “America Is Not Great.”When these toadies for the Neoliberal Global “Elites” say they wish to impose an entirely new vision on our Nation, they mean that literally. Recall, as reported in the Washington Times——“The House Majority Whip [Representative James Clyburn (D-SC)] who almost single-handedly saved Joe Biden’s bacon in the Palmetto State’s primary, advised his fellow Democrats to see this as a ‘tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.’”And, Recall, as reported in Breitbart, that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo seeks to reimagine what we (he) wants society to be——“In his daily press briefings, [New York Governor Andrew] Cuomo [who] said he wants to use the task force to ‘reimagine what we want society to be’ with a focus on ‘better’ public transportation, healthcare, housing, and public safety. ‘Let’s use this as a moment to really plan change that we could normally never do unless you had this situation,’ the governor told reporters about the plan.”A “new vision” for the Nation? “Better public transportation, healthcare, housing, and public safety?” “Every American fully engaged?” How so, and for whom, exactly?What is the nature of this vision, this plan that Clyburn and Cuomo mention, at the behest of the Global “elites,” their puppet masters? The blueprint is well-known; it is predicated on the precepts of Collectivism. But the blueprint for our Nation is grounded not on the precepts of Collectivism but on the precepts of Individualism, set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The two social and political philosophies, Collectivism and Individualism, are wholly antithetical. The two  cannot be reconciled. But then the Global elites never intended for the tenets of Collectivism to be squared with the tenets of Individualism.The Arbalest Quarrel has laid out the basic precepts of each philosophy in a past article: The Modern American Civil WarOut of the frying pan, and into the fire. Is that where our Nation is headed?________________________________________________

A NEOLIBERAL, GLOBAL ELITE SPEAKS OUT IN SUPPORT OF COLLECTIVISM

PART TWO

PETER WALKER, EX-MCKINSEY EXEC, DEFENDS CHINA IN FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON

There are two salient political and social philosophies, upon which a nation-state or other political, social, economic and cultural organization can be constructed: Collectivism and Individualism. One or the other philosophy may be the blueprint for a state or other political, social, economic and cultural entity; one or the other, but not both; and not an amalgam of the two, for the two are wholly incompatible.A brief description of the two philosophies may be found in Peter B. Walker’s book, “Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the misconceptions and differences between China and the US.” Who is Peter B. Walker? He’s a senior partner emeritus of McKinsey & Company. And what is McKinsey & Company? It is an extremely powerful, extraordinarily successful global management consulting firm that was instrumental in convincing major U.S. manufacturers to offshore their business to China. And, McKinsey & Company is growing. On its new website, McKinsey proudly announces:This week [February 29, 2020] we’re starting to roll out a new visual identity to better express who we are and what we do today. For instance, more than half of our work for clients now, in areas like design, digital, and analytics, didn’t exist at our firm just five years ago.“We’re excited about the new visual identity, which we think is beautiful,” says global managing partner Kevin Sneader. “But this is about more than how we look. It’s about updating how we communicate, so we can engage with the world more effectively, now and in the future as we continue to change.”The refresh includes an updated graphic element, new fonts, a new color palette, and a revamped approach to data visualization and photography. Blue still figures prominently, symbolizing the constancy of our mission and values. Only now it’s a deeper shade set against a white background.“We think the contrast depicts our clarity of thought and our ability to cut through and deliver what really matters,” says senior partner Peter Dahlstrom. “It symbolizes our aspiration to bring those qualities to all our clients.”To learn more, check out this overview of the new identity in action. And for a refresher on the importance of good design to business, don’t miss our article, “The business value of design.”Despite the hype and glitz, the Company’s announcement, begs the question, what does the Company really offer; what does the Company provide its business clients—those well-heeled multinational companies that can afford McKinzie’s services? One digs through various webpages on the site to find this:“We help organizations across the private, public, and social sectors create Change that Matters.From the C-suite to the front line, we partner with our clients to transform their organizations in the ways that matter most to them. This requires embedding digital, analytics, and design into core processes and mind-sets, and building capabilities that help organizations and people to thrive in an ever-changing context.With exceptional people in 65 countries, we combine global expertise and local insight to help you turn your ambitious goals into reality.”The Company’s services are curiously, deliberately opaque. Nothing to emulate, really, but it does attract a certain kind of people: the smug, ambitious, amoral, insensitive, and abjectly ruthless. Who are some of these people who have worked for Company, Mckinsey? The names of a couple of them shouldn’t surprise you. They include the Radical Left Globalist toadies: Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton; and Mayor Pete Buttigieg, erstwhile contender for the Democrat Party nomination for U.S. President, to take on President Trump in the coming General Election.Senior Partner Emeritus, Peter Walker, is one of the neoliberal global elites who has come out of the shadows, out of the woodwork, in the last few days, to make his case on behalf of the New World Order, and, it would be our guess, on behalf of the Bilderberg Group, whose own seemingly benign opacity, hides a most sinister intent:“Since its inaugural Meeting in 1954, the annual Bilderberg Meeting has been a forum for informal discussions to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, approx. 130 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, labour, academia and the media are invited to take part in the Meeting. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields. The Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues.  The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen and reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.” 

PETER WALKER EMULATES POLITICAL POWER BROKERS AND THOSE WHO WORK FOR THEM

Whom does Peter Walker admire? The names shouldn’t surprise you any less than those from the Ivy League schools that desire to work for McKinsey.In his book Walker mentions Henry Kissinger: former Secretary of State; National Security Advisor; architect of regime change in Chile that brought the brutal dictator, Augusto Pinochet to power; author of a book with the candid title, “World Order;” and regular participant at the annual Bilderberg Group conferences.Walker also mentions Hank Paulson, past Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush, and principal architect of the massive 2008 Bank bailout.Then there is Thomas Friedman, regular columnist for The New York Times, and perennial Trump hater, whose presumed areas of expertise include global trade, foreign affairs, globalization, and environmental issues, and whom the National Review dubs a “Liberal Fascist.”Walker would be just another secretive Global elite centimillionaire or billionaire, perhaps, but for the fact that he appeared recently on Tucker Carlson Tonight? How did this come about, given the usual almost painful reticence of powerful, wealthy Collectivist Globalists who hate to appear in the limelight?Walker’s name came up in the last couple of days when Tucker Carlson, Fox News host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, explained the tremendous crippling influence of  McKinsey & Company our manufacturing base and, impliedly, how McKinsey has endangered our National Security, helping to make China a preeminent global economic, and geopolitical power.Why did McKinsey CEO appear on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Carlson didn’t indicate that he reached out to Walker. Apparently, Walker reached out to Carlson, not the other way around. Why would Walker do this? Perhaps, he was pressed to do this in an attempt at “damage control” for the Global elites, lest the American public take notice of the threat to the Nation should Trump win a second term in Office and defeat the quest toward NWO Armageddon that Walker and other neoliberal Global elites seek to return to and will be able to return to if they can seat their stooge, Biden, in the White House.Carlson treated Walker respectfully, allowed Walker to talk; wanted him to talk; did not barge in on his responses to questions. And talk and talk, Walker did!Walker said at one point during the fox news interview:“[China] is a collectivist society . . .  That difference between collectivism and common good is a huge disconnect with the U.S. We regard and always have been proud that every human life is sacred and therefore any unjustice or injustice is something we ought to be railing against and they are just not wired that way,” Peter Walker told Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” AQ continues analysis of the Carlson-Walker interview in our next segment.__________________________________________________

CHINA OR AMERICA: WHO DOES MCKINSEY'S SENIOR PARTNER, PETER WALKER, REALLY SERVE?

PART THREE

NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST ELITE PETER WALKER SELLS OUT U.S. TO CHINA

What the Arbalest Quarrel found particularly fascinating from Walker’s mostly frank discussion with host, Tucker Carlson, that aired Thursday, April 23, 2020, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, was Walker’s specific reference to the expressions, ‘Collectivism’ and ‘Individualism.’Walker admitted that China is a Collectivist society and that our own Nation is founded on the principles of Individualism. That much is true. But what Walker carefully avoided asserting is that Collectivism is inherently evil, insofar as it is a danger to individual liberty. Walker equivocated, suggesting that Collectivism does have merit. What Carlson didn’t ask Walker and what we would have liked to hear is whether Walker felt it was time our Nation adopted the precepts of Collectivism because Walker’s comments about the origin of our Nation doesn’t mean that he agrees we should continue to adhere to the tenets of Individualism, given especially his effusive praise for China and for the manner in which this Collectivism has worked to benefit China. AQ would have specifically liked to have asked Walker this question: By serving China’s interests as well as McKinsey has, to the detriment of the interests of the United States, how has McKinsey reconciled, or, at least, has tried to reconcile the desires and goals of the autocratic Communist Regime of China, with the desires and goals of our own free Constitutional Republic, whose economic, geopolitical, and military interests are antithetical to our own? We would, then, have liked to have followed up the first question with this one: As an American citizen, do you feel some remorse for having harmed our Nation’s interests, for the sake of profit alone, given the power that McKinsey wields to benefit one Nation, China, over that of your own? And, third, we would have liked to have asked Walker this: How might McKinsey assist this Nation in gaining an edge over China since you have admitted that the key to strengthening our Nation’s economy is to reinstate a measure of self-sufficiency in our productive capacity?But, then, we can intuit the answers to our questions since avoided asserting the U.S. should, after all, remain a viable sovereign, independent Nation-State, where the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people remain intact. Walker, on behalf of McKinsey, has encouraged McKinsey’s business clients to offshore production to mainland China, thereby setting into motion, the very decline of America’s strength as a manufacturing powerhouse. Walker would know that, even if he had some misgiving as to how he helped to weaken our Nation’s economy when he worked as a senior partner for McKinsey, he would know that McKinsey could not, in good faith, reverse that process as that would mean contravening the very advice McKinsey had given to its corporate clients, harming the McKinsey’s own reputation and standing with its clients. McKinsey made a decision early on: either to work for both the benefit of our Nation and our businesses; or join forces with the forces of neoliberalism globalization, for the benefit of the coming dyarchy that it helped to create: a dyarchy comprising, one, China, and, two, a new transnational political, social, and economic global system of governance, composed of the hollowed-out shells of once-powerful sovereign, independent Western Nation-States.Walker asserted, but Carlson didn’t further explore Walker’s dissembling. Simply to acknowledge our Nation’s history doesn’t ipso facto imply or entail Walker’s belief that our Nation should continue to espouse the tenets upon which our Nation, as reflected in the U.S. Constitution, are based: the tenets of Individualism, which Walker explicitly concedes. Walker’s decades at McKinsey would seem to have done nothing to suggest he gives a damn about the well-being of our Nation, its Constitution, and the autonomy and sanctity of the individual, since his efforts have been directed essentially to increase the power and stature of China in the world at the expense of the power and stature and well-being of the U.S., as an independent, sovereign nation-state, and at the expense and well-being of the American people.But AQ wouldn’t describe Walker as a mere opportunist, who has been selling out our Nation for money alone, unlike sell-out Democrats and Centrist Bush Republicans, who simply wish to make a killing for themselves, and to retire in luxury, forgetting that the Oath they took was to serve the Nation and its people by defending the Constitution of the United States, rather than themselves. For, after all, one would expect the servants of the people to rein in China, and therefore to rein in Companies that, in their quest for profit, have irreparably harmed our Nation. But they do no such thing. Rather, they kowtow to lobbyists for China for their own benefit.Certainly, McKinsey’s Walker has done everything in his power to assist China in becoming a predominant geopolitical, economic, and military power in the world and in the process has certainly been able to pad his own wallet. But Walker, it is our opinion, has a bigger picture in mind. As a neoliberal Globalist elite, he must see the world of the future—as we point out, supra—as tending toward a massive Dyarchy, where two emerging powers in the 21st Century—China and a supranational new world order, comprising the shells of Western Democratic States—divide the world between them, keeping each other in check.McKinsey is no ordinary mega-company. It is helping to shape the future of the world on behalf of both the Collectivist superpower China, and the Collectivist neoliberal Global Western elites. Neoliberal Globalist elites are Collectivists. And Walker is no exception. Walker and those employed by McKinsey believe in the tenets of Collectivism and are fervently working toward the realization of the Collectivist super-state goal: China, as the Communist Asian Autocratic powerhouse; and the Western supranational Global empire, ruled by the Rothschild clan and those aligned with them. The world is to be divided between the two. The population of China is subjugated, reduced to penury, and under constant surveillance and control. And the populations of Western Civilization are in the process of being subjugated, reduced to penury, and are, themselves, in the process of losing all freedoms. Worst to be faced with the loss of freedoms are American citizens since, unlike, the populations of Europe, our fundamental rights and liberties are accepted as rights emanating from the Divine Creator, not from man; and, so, cannot be lawfully denied, modified, abrogated, ignored. But, the loss of those God-given rights would ensue anyway as Collectivists do not ascribe to a Divine Creator and do not, therefore ascribe to divinely created rights and liberties that rest beyond the lawful power of man to rescind. But the Collectivists don’t care in sacred Truth. They only care about the effects. They will not abide rights and liberties that impede the creation, implementation, and preservation of the Western Collectivist super-state. In our Nation, at least, the attempt to subvert fundamental rights and liberties, especially the right of the people to keep and bear arms upon which all other fundamental rights and liberties depend, because, only through force of arms, can the American people effectively resist the Super-State from successfully preventing the exercise of any other fundamental, unalienable, immutable right and liberty.___________________________________________________

RADICAL LEFT NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO HIRES MCKINSEY & COMPANY TO CREATE “TRUMP-PROOF” PLAN FOR NEW YORK

PART FOUR

When one makes a pact with the Devil, one shouldn’t expect to receive anything approaching a fair deal. It doesn’t happen. Never would. It is always a deal from the bottom. Yet, Andrew Cuomo has decided to make just such a pact with the Devil. He did so just recently. It has come to light in the last few days. Who is this Devil? Well, the Devil goes by many names. One of the Devil’s names is McKinsey. Why would Cuomo make such a deal?Andrew Cuomo, a Radical Left Collectivist has recently looked to McKinsey to assist the State to recover its edge as a major financial center, given that the Chinese Coronavirus has ravaged the City’s economic vitality. That is rather odd, don’t you think, considering that China unleashed the virus on our Nation, and McKinsey is in league and has been in league with the source of our Nation’s recent woe, and greatest foe, China. Can Cuomo reasonably expect McKinsey & Company would really come to the assistance of the people of New York? What would that even look like? What does Cuomo have in mind? Will Cuomo let New York’s residents in on Cuomo’s deal with McKinsey? How much taxpayer money is Cuomo expending for McKinsey’s “assistance?” These are just a few of the questions we would like to pose to Andrew Cuomo?The website Nation and State recently posted an article by The Epoch Times: “The headline in The Hill screams out: “New York state hires McKinsey to create science-based, ‘Trump-proof’ plan for the safe economic reopening.”“Okay, we live in an era where propaganda dominates our media to an almost unprecedented degree, but this is beyond the proverbial pale and headed for Alpha Centauri.McKinsey? Whose science are we talking about here? The Wuhan Institute of Virology—the laboratory consensus now accepts, from whence the pandemic that destroyed the health and economies of nearly the entire globe emanated? It would seem so.To put it bluntly, McKinsey & Company, the giant American consulting firm with 127 offices worldwide and some 27,000 employees, has been in bed with communist China for decades.But don’t believe me. Believe the unstintingly liberal New York Times that did an extensive exposé of the company in 2018 entitled “How McKinsey Has Raised the Stature of Totalitarian  How McKinsey Has Raised the Stature of Totalitarian Governments”:McKinsey advises a good swatch of China’s state-owned companies, including those building the artificial islands in the South China Sea that the United States and much of the West, not to mention the World Bank, holds to be illegal. These islands are an integral part of the escalating Chinese military threat.McKinsey has also been deeply involved with China’s Belt-and-Road Initiative, a program many see as the linchpin of communist imperialist expansionism. The company has reassured Third World countries about China’s “benign” intentions with this project in places as far flung as Malaysia only to find themselves embroiled in corruption scandals, according to the Times.Domestically, McKinsey, quite recently (November 2019), has also been dealing with a criminal inquiry over bankruptcy case conduct.But even more troubling than the degree to which the company is alleged to have skirted the edges of the law is its formative, and in some ways decisive, role in a once-accepted concept that has lately come under tremendous scrutiny because of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) behavior—globalism.In a Tablet article—‘The Coronavirus Didn’t Cause This Crisis By Itself. McKinsey Helped’— Michael Lind wrote:‘If we ignore our ritual partisan debates and try to be as objective as possible, I think we can agree that the pandemic has exposed two weaknesses in contemporary American society: the loss of critical manufacturing capabilities and the decline of the one-earner family.”See also article in the Federalist, "Cuomo's Handpicked Consulting Firm Has Shady Past With China."In all this turmoil impacting our Nation, Americans must remain steadfast. We are in the midst of a war to be sure. But the Chinese Coronavirus is one major battle within that war. The outcome of the war itself will determine whether our Nation remains true to its origin or loses everything; whether our Nation does indeed return to greatness or, instead, is reduced to a hollowed-out shell.Will our Constitution remain untouched, revered, exalted, or will it be erased and replaced? Will our Nation’s name, ‘The United States of America,’ truly continue to refer to a powerful, independent nation-state where the American people are sovereign, not the Federal Government, or will our Country’s name be reduced t0 an empty phrase, devoid of import and purpose, an expression the Neoliberal Globalist Elites scoff at while bantering among themselves; referencing the Nation's name as a joke they tell each other on occasion, their orchestrated deception on Americans finally accomplished; at last, complete?_____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SUPREME COURT MAJORITY SIDES WITH NEW YORK CITY IN GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION

PART ONE

SUPREME COURT DECISION BAD FOR NEW YORK AND BAD OMEN FOR REST OF NATION

The U.S. Supreme Court just released its decision, April 27, 2020, in the New York “Gun Transport” case: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020), and it isn’t good. You can read the decision here on the SCOTUS website.

WHAT WAS THE NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE ABOUT?

“Petitioners [NYSRPA] sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claim. See 883 F. 3d 45 (CA2 2018). We granted certiorari.  586 U. S. ___ (2019).  After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint.”New York City changed its law, fearing the Supreme Court would find the law unconstitutional. The last thing anti-Second Amendment forces want is a high Court opinion that strengthens the Second Amendment. The City’s gambit paid off. In a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court held that, since the City changed the old rule, the case is moot, because Petitioners can now lawfully transport their handgun to a second home or shooting range outside the City. But can they really? What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? This will almost certainly embolden New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.Cuomo has threatened to destroy the Second Amendment to the Nation many times in the past. In a previous AQ article, titled, “Andrew Cuomo Seeks To Impose New York’s Restrictive Gun Laws On The Entire Nation,” published on our site, on March 31, 2019, we pointed out that,“In January of 2019 . . . Cuomo announced plans . . .  to increase gun control within the first 100 days of the new legislative session,’ and he chortled, ‘New York already has the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, and we are taking additional steps to make our laws even stronger and keep our communities, and our schools, safe. Together, we will pass this common sense legislation and send a clear message to Washington that gun violence has no place in our state or nation. . . .’ ‘[t]he rest of the country should take up legislation similar to the Safe Act gun control. . . . ’” The high Court’s gun transport case decision gives Cuomo and others who seek to destroy the Second Amendment” confidence that the high Court will be doing nothing to rein them in.

HOW DID INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES VOTE?

As you may have suspected, the liberal wing of the Court, along with Chief Justice Roberts, voted in favor of the City, to dismiss the case. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.Curiously and disturbingly, Trump’s second nominee to the high Court, Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing, but filed a “Concurring Opinion” acknowledging that Justice Alito’s concern over some State and federal Court mishandling of Heller and McDonald warrants high Court review but that the Court can do so in other cases pending before the Court.The high Court remanded the case to the New York Court of Appeals but only to discuss Petitioner’s argument for damages. But the issue of damages is of no consequence. It is injunctive relief the NYSRPA wanted. Anti-Constitutional forces in government consistently, unconscionably, and contemptuously enact laws designed to infringe the core of the Second Amendment without regard to the Heller and McDonald rulings. The NYSRPA wanted and expected the high Court to stop this. The gun transport case would have operated as a good test case. But the Court’s majority folded. What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms?

JUSTICE ALITO'S DISSENTING OPINION

The Majority decided the case in a two-page decision. Justice Alito, who penned the McDonald decision, wrote a thirty-one page Dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. In his opening remarks Justice Alito began his Dissent with a blanket rebuke of the Majority’s Decision. He says:“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.  Twelve years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests. On January 22, 2019, we granted review to consider the constitutionality of a New York City ordinance that burdened the right recognized in Heller.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?

The Supreme Court Majority did not want to deal with the Second Amendment if that would jeopardize the Heller and McDonald precedents. The liberal wing of the Court for its part would wish to avoid a review if the outcome would serve to strengthen the Heller and McDonald precedents.Of course, the liberal wing never agreed with or accepted the Heller and McDonald rulings, and has consistently gone along with government actions to infringe the Second Amendment as if Heller and McDonald rulings never existed.But, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch have had enough.Alito made clear New York City’s rescission of the transport gun case rule simply amounts to City’s acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the rule and that the high Court would overturn it.Justice Alito said, in closing:“In sum, the City’s travel restriction burdened the very right recognized in Heller. History provides no support for a restriction of this type.  The City’s public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing. And once we granted review in this case, the City’s public safety concerns evaporated. We are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern. This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners’ Second Amendment right, and we should so hold.  I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court to provide appropriate relief.”The liberal wing of the Court consistently legislates from the Bench. They abhor the Second Amendment and if they were confident that they could overturn Heller and McDonald, they would do so in a heartbeat. At the moment, they cannot.Chief Justice Robert’s decision comes as no surprise. Justice Kavanaugh’s vote does, however. His concurring opinion reflects that his heart and mind are with Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, but he went along with Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court anyway. Why did he do this? To say that the Court will have other opportunities to deal with unlawful attacks on Heller and McDonald doesn’t explain why he would pass on dealing with an outright attack on those seminal cases with a clear opportunity to do so with the gun transport case before him.  That is a “cop-out” pure and simple and Kavanaugh, a careful, perspicacious legal thinker and writer must be called out for an obvious act of frailty, unbefitting him.Is Kavanaugh so really afraid the Radical Left will impeach him, as they have threatened? Does he think they will make good their threat if Biden defeats Trump in the upcoming General Election and if the Democrats not only hold onto the House, but win a majority in the Senate, too? Is the New York City gun transport case just an anomaly or does it signal what we may expect from Kavanaugh in the future: currying favor with the Radical Left and betraying intellectual honesty to halt an impeachment proceeding and trial?On January 24, 2019 AQ wrote an extensive article on the New York gun transport case that, at the time, the high Court agreed to take up. Mayor DeBlasio and The New York Times were fearful and furious. You may read our article, “U.S. Supreme Court To Hear New York Gun Case; Mainstream Media Visibly Worried.”In a forthcoming article AQ will analyze Alito’s dissenting opinion, along with Kavanaugh’s odd, evasive concurring opinion. We will deal with the issue of mootness which deserves serious attention; and will examine how dangerous this decision is for the entire Nation._____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART ONE

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

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

LISTEN UP CHUCK!———

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

THE ENTIRE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS “UNHINGED.”

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

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

A MESSAGE FOR MITT ROMNEY

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

HOW CAN THE JEWISH PEOPLE BEST DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST VIOLENT ANTI-SEMITIC HATE-CRIME?

The recent violent attacks against Jews in New York City and in other cities around the Country are not the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last. But all Americans can be subject to violence.National pro-Second Amendment websites such as Ammoland Shooting Sports News, NRA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, The Truth About Guns, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, Second Amendment Foundation, and the podcast Lock N Load Radio, among many other pro-Second Amendment rights websites, podcasts, and pro-Second Amendment alternative media organizations, know this.Immersed in illusion and delusion, incessantly bombarded by lies spawned by the seditious mainstream media propaganda machine which controls much of what the average person sees and hears, Americans are not only encouraged to act against their own best interests but are psychologically conditioned to do so. Mass psychosis is slowly and inexorably descending on the American citizenry, callously orchestrated and mercilessly executed through a massive, monstrous indoctrination and brainwashing disinformation campaign.The Radical Left and mainstream media argue that the Second Amendment is no longer a necessary guarantor of Americans’ life and liberty but a dated and useless artifact.Many Americans, especially those who are members of minority communities, learn this the hard way when they face brutal attacks. They find that responsibility for one’s physical safety and well-being rests, as it must and always did, with them, as individuals, and not in others; and certainly not in Government—and that Government, amassing complete control over the thoughts and actions of the American public, would be the ruin of us all.First, the Government, through the police, does not have the resources to protect every citizen even if they wanted to. Second, there is no legal requirement that the police have a duty to guarantee the physical safety of an individual even when informed of an imminent threat to the physical safety of that individual. The Courts have made this point clear, as the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out.It is deception on the part of both government officials and the mainstream seditious Press to suggest otherwise, and it is deceitful of Government and the Press to keep this critical information from the American public. Why do Government and the mainstream seditious Press do this? They do this because they want the American people to believe that the police exist to protect Americans, as individuals. Police, though, cannot protect the life of every innocent American and they do not have the legal duty to do so except in very rare circumstances. These Radical Left government officials, and the mainstream seditious Press that is in league with them, are needlessly placing the lives of innocent people at serious risk of harm. Even as they claim to care about the sanctity of human life, they demonstrate their blatant disregard for it. The Arbalest Quarrel has written about this, pointing to the inconsistency, duplicity, and hypocrisy of the Radical Left government officials and the seditious Press that echoes their sentiments. On October 27, 2018, a lunatic shot and killed eleven people and wounded six other Congregants of a Synagogue, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Then, fourteen months later, another raging, rabid, hate-filled lunatic, armed with a machete, brutally stabbed and slashed, one critically, members of a deeply religious sect of the Jewish Community in New York, who were simply, innocently celebrating their Holiday at the home of their Rabbi. This incident received wide coverage, and ABC News did extensive reporting on it, providing New York's Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and New York City's Mayor, Bill de Blasio, another political platform in which to enunciate the usual platitudes. And what were their answers to horrific violent hate-crime? As one might expect Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio merely offered Government as the sole solution to violent hate crime.On his website, Governor Cuomo reiterates with pretentious certitude the demonstrative falsehood that the public can rely on government alone for protection. Cuomo snorts: “And government’s jobs is to protect people and this state government will protect people of the Jewish faith and every other religion in this state.”Americans, though, are coming around to the truth; and the truth is that one’s physical safety and security rests with the individual. What counts is meaningful action, not more hollow government rhetoric.Following the brutal attacks on innocent people, the Arbalest Quarrel consulted with a Rabbi, a leader of the York City Jewish community, who expressed concern over the proposed solutions offered by Cuomo and de Blasio. The Rabbi asked us: “What can members of the Jewish community, as individuals, do to truly protect their life and that of their friends and family members.” We stated matter-of-factly that the answer is self-defense and that “self-defense is not only a fundamental, natural right but a duty, and the best means of self-defense is a firearm.”Having made the points that we did, the Rabbi asked us how individuals in his Congregation can responsibly protect themselves with a firearm. We told the Rabbi that we would consult with the Seneca Sporting Range, and, after doing so, we prepared a letter on behalf of the Range which then sent the letter to members of the New York City Jewish community. The exact content of the letter is as follows:__________________________________SENECA SPORTING RANGE RESPONDS TO THE URGENT NEEDS OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK CITYJanuary 10, 2020The recent violent attacks against Jews in New York City and in other Cities around the Country are not the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last.How can Jews best protect themselves and their families against continued violent attacks spawned by hate? Governor Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recognize the threat.Governor Cuomo says that the December 28, 2019 violent attack on the home of a Hasidic Rabbi is an ‘act of domestic terrorism.’ New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio calls the recent attack against Jews, a ‘crisis.’ And, in response to the horrific attack Mayor de Blasio announced more police patrols in Jewish communities and ordered an “‘intensified curriculum’ focused on anti-Semitism, to teach young people that attacks motivated by hate or ignorance breed more violence.”City officials said they would add more security cameras and light towers in ultra-orthodox Jewish Communities.This is all fine, but the burning fact remains antisemitism and violent attacks against Jews are not a new phenomenon.The burning question is why didn’t Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio implement enhanced security measures all along to prevent from happening the very tragedy that occurred?The problem is that politicians tend to operate reactively not proactively, and all too often a government’s response to a crisis is half-hearted, insufficient, and demonstrably deficient, aimed at defusing political fallout rather than on actually solving a serious problem.But, if Mayor de Blasio’s proposals if implemented are not adequate to provide the Jewish community with the safety and security it needs and deserves, what, then, is the answer?What can the Jewish community do? What can you do? The first thing you can and, in fact, must do is accept the fact that the matter of securing your physical safety and well-being and that of your family rests ultimately on you, not Government. We are talking here of personal defense: self-defense.Self-defense is a fundamental, immutable, unalienable right. It is a primordial right and the most sacred of God-given rights. And self-defense is an absolute duty.Further, contrary to common belief, it is not the duty of Government, through the police, to guarantee your personal safety, security and well-being, and it never was. The Government is immune from liability to individuals for failure to ensure their protection. You can read about this here: http://arbalestquarrel.com/can-we-as-individuals-rely-on-the-police-to-protect-us/ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IS THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST AGGRESSIVE ATTACKA firearm in the hands of a responsible, law-abiding, trained individual is the best defense against a serious physical threat. This isn’t supposition. It is fact. But, the decision to obtain a firearm is a serious one; never to be taken lightly.At Seneca Sporting Range we take the ownership and possession of a firearm seriously.We provide a complete package of services that includes preparation of City handgun license applications.Our certified instructors will guide you in the selection of and training in the use of and proper, safe handling and caring of a handgun. You will learn how to shoot a handgun and will gain proficiency in doing so. We will teach you techniques and the strategies of armed self-defense.I am here to assist you in your personal decision to lawfully possess, handle, and safeguard your firearm. Please call Seneca Sporting Range at (917) 414-2186.Our website is at this link: www.senecasportingrange.com. We operate by appointment only and all communications are confidential.Sincerely,John Deloca,Owner, Seneca Sporting Range, Inc._______________________________________It is our fervent hope that we can eventually change the false perception about guns and gun ownership that Radical Left politicians and a seditious Press have planted in the mind of many Americans. It is unfortunate that it takes a horrific act of violence before many Americans come to their senses and realize that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not an archaic and obsolete phrase, but an immutable, unalienable truth, as relevant and as necessary today as it was when the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791.A Grassroots Movement in America has begun as a response to the serious imminent threats to the physical safety of individuals. Conversations are underway in Synagogues, Churches, Mosques, and other places of worship. And discussions are also taking place, if quietly, in our schools, universities, and workplaces, over the question of how a person can effectively defend his or her life in light of Government’s obvious failure to do so.A firearm in the hands of a law-abiding, responsible, trained individual was, is, and will forever be the best means of self-defense. It is futile, dishonest, and vain for anyone to deny this.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

THE RADICAL LEFT’S PLAN: PROTECT CRIMINALS; CONSTRAIN THE POLICE; AND LEAVE THE PUBLIC DISARMED AND DEFENSELESS

PART ONE

THE RADICAL LEFT CALL FOR MASSIVE BAIL REFORM MAY BE A BOON TO CRIMINALS, BUT IT IS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC

In the summer of 2015, The Left-wing New York Times, ever the friend and close confidante of seditious Deep State Government Bureaucrats and of smug, fabulously wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, and abjectly ruthless Radical Left establishment “elites,” ran a feature in its Magazine, titled “The Bail Trap.” The Times ran the story as a purported exposé of an unfair criminal justice system. The Times’ reporter, Nick Pinto, laying out the theme of the feature story, wrote: “thousands of innocent people are sent to jail only because they can’t afford to post bail, putting them at risk of losing their jobs, custody of their children — even their lives.”Typical of “feature” stories at the NY Times’ newspaper, the writer of this feature, “The Bail Trap,” attempted to garner public sympathy for the plight of seemingly innocent people by drawing the reader’s attention to one cherry-picked anecdote.The NY Times writer, Pinto, mentioned a New Yorker, Tyrone Tomlin, who, having been arrested for carrying a controlled substance, was faced with one of two unpleasant choices resulting from that arrest: one, Tomlin could either plead guilty to a misdemeanor, serve thirty days on Rikers Island, and then walk free; or, two, he could plead not guilty and then await trial. The Court set Tomlin’s bond at $1,500.00 if Tomlin refused the plea deal and wished to remain free while awaiting trial. Tomlin did refuse the plea deal, pleaded not guilty, but, unable to post bond, had to remain in jail until his trial date. The NY Times thought this patently unfair: namely the bail, not the circumstances leading to Tomlin’s arrest the latter of which Tomlin bears sole responsibility for as there was no doubt about Tomlin carrying a controlled substance.The Times’ reporter, alluding, as he apparently thought, to the immorality of arresting a person for simply carrying, and not selling a controlled substance, did acknowledge that Tomlin had a lengthy criminal history, and that history included multiple felony convictions. Still, unperturbed by and dismissive of the fact of multiple felony convictions, the reporter argued that requiring bail of individuals like Tomlin, who, apparently, can ill afford bail, is patently unfair. The gist of Pinto’s argument became the germ for radical bail reform measures Leftist governments would institute several years later. The article demonstrates how closely tied a seditious activist Press is to Radical Leftists in Congress and to Leftist State Governments—constantly feeding ideas to each other for the purpose of dismantling our Constitution, undermining our fundamental, immutable, natural rights, and destroying a free Republic.The New York Times feature writer, Pinto, sanctimoniously and deceitfully remarks:“Of the 2.2 million people currently locked up in this country, fewer than one in ten is being held in a federal prison. Far more are serving time in state prisons, and nearly three-quarters of a million aren’t in prison at all but in local city and county jails. Of those in jails, 60 percent haven’t been convicted of anything. They’re innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases. Some of these inmates are being held because they’re considered dangerous or unlikely to return to court for their hearings. But many of them simply cannot afford to pay the bail that has been set.”“. . . innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases”? The Times’ feature writer is evidently referring to the oft-used mainstream media phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ a well-known platitude.The idea conveyed is that the accused is presumed innocent until or unless guilt is proved in a Court of law. Often bandied about as self-evident true, this notion, as with so many others—some concocted out of whole cloth, like the idea that semiautomatic weapons that may happen to look like military weapons are to be classified as ‘assault weapons’ and are therefore to be banned from the civilian citizenry as ‘weapons of war’—is facially false. Yet the false idea, taken as true and absolute, becomes the basis for instituting a plethora of unconstitutional and bizarre governmental policy measures.That is the case with the presumption of innocence platitude. The false idea behind the platitude becomes the rallying cry of Leftists calling for extreme criminal reform measures—measures that are both unnecessary and that, once implemented, are dangerous to the safety and well-being of the polity.

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ARREST, ARRAIGNMENT, OR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

Radical Leftist activists of all stripes—Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and Leftist anarchist groups—misapprehend, misconstrue the legal significance of the concept of ‘presumption of innocence’ that they flippantly and frivolously toss around in their baseless attack against the criminal justice system.The phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ is nothing more than an informal and inaccurate banality. It is not an affirmation of innocence. Yet, Leftist activists, such as our NY Times Reporter, ever evincing concern, real or imagined, over the seeming plight of criminals awaiting trial, lose sight of this fact. They attach more import and purport to the platitude than the platitude merits, and fail to appreciate, or otherwise ignore, what it does apply to. We explain, below._____________________________________________

LEFTISTS CRY OUT: “GET RID OF BAIL AND REMOVE GUNS FROM CITIZENS!” AFTER ALL, “INNOCENT” CRIMINALS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!”

PART TWO

WHAT DOES THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE REALLY MEAN AND WHEN AND TO WHOM DOES IT TRULY APPLY?

The presumption of innocence platitude applies to criminal trials. It has no application to pretrial events: arrest, arraignment, or detention awaiting trial. The platitude alludes to a legal procedural safeguard afforded the accused at trial, nothing more. The phrase appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution and does not invoke a substantive right. It is merely a colloquial expression, not a legal term of art, and, like many colloquial expressions, it conveys erroneous and exaggerated ideas that the seditious Press and Leftist activists latch onto in their ceaseless attack against our Constitution and our system of laws.

UTILIZATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

The prosecution must, in the first instance, present evidence to prove the accused’s guilt of a crime. The accused does not bear the initial burden of having to prove his innocence. And the prosecutor’s burden—guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—is a difficult one to meet; deliberately so, decidedly so.Further, the burden of proving guilt in a criminal prosecution falls solely on the Government. The accused need not present evidence in his or her defense. What does that mean? It means the accused need not make a showing of—namely demonstrate—his or her innocence at all. If the prosecution fails to make a case for the accused’s guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt—the highest bar set in our system of law and justice—the Court must acquit the accused of the crime. The Court has no other choice.If, however, it appears the prosecution has met the difficult burden of proof, it behooves the accused to present evidence to rebut the State’s evidence. But the accused need not do so. The accused need not do anything to prove his or her innocence of the crime charged, and the prosecution must do everything to convince the trier of fact that the accused is guilty of the crime charged.The presumption of innocence platitude does not, then, really attach to anyone or to anything.The platitude simply alludes to the burden of proof and the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. In a criminal proceeding the burden of proof rests initially, and, in fact, solely, on the prosecutor, not on the accused.The prosecutor must prove, one, that a crime has been committed, two, that each statutory element of the crime has been met in the proof; and, three, that the person accused of committing the crime probably did commit the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. The platitude, contrary to common belief, does not impute innocence onto the accused.Once trial concludes, the trier of fact, often a jury but sometimes the Court itself, if the accused agrees to a “Bench Trial” in lieu of a jury trial, considers whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving the accused committed the crime he was charged with, weighing the prosecutorial evidence of guilt against such contrary evidence the accused presents if the accused wishes to present any evidence in his defense. The trier of fact then renders its verdict: to convict or to acquit.The prosecution has a heavy burden to lift and won’t generally prosecute a crime unless there is substantial and compelling evidence of the accused’s criminal conduct.Critically, such evidence a prosecutor wishes to introduce at trial must be admissible, which means that, on occasion, evidence of guilt of the accused may be incontrovertible and, yet, inadmissible in Court because, under the rules of evidence, the evidence that the prosecutor would like to use but cannot, is legally tainted.Thus, if a prosecutor does bring a case to trial, the prosecutor does so because the accused likely did commit the crime he or she was charged with, and the prosecutor has substantial, compelling, and admissible evidence to support a conviction.*Leftist activists, though, ever quick to condemn our system of laws, justice, and jurisprudence, in their zeal to promote the welfare of criminals over that of the safety and security of the law-abiding citizen, demonstrate their obliviousness to the heavy burden our legal system imposes on the State to prove the accused committed the crime he or she is charged with.Leftists routinely attack and constrain the police and concoct schemes to undermine our legal system. One such scheme involves bail reform. By ‘bail reform’ they mean doing away with the requirement of bail altogether, because they assume, erroneously, that the requirement for bail is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence platitude, which, as we explained, supra, doesn’t apply to pre-trial events at all. If the requirement of bail were incompatible with due process in all criminal proceedings, the Bill of Rights would have condemned the requirement of bail as inconsistent with a person’s necessary, fundamental, immutable, natural rights and liberties. Yet, that is not the case at all, as the Eighth Amendment makes abundantly clear. The setting of bail is permissible, but it cannot be excessive.

IS BAIL REFORM AND CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE POLICE REALLY A GOOD IDEA AS THE RADICAL LEFT AND NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT MAINTAIN?

A seditious Press, like the NY Times, operating in flagrant disregard to news accuracy and truth, obsessively desirous of and complicit in achieving the Radical Left agenda, in service to millions of criminals and illegal aliens who daily dare to flaunt our laws—undermining our institutions, preying on our citizenry—argues for application of the prosecutorial burden at trial to pretrial events. Thus, a misunderstanding of the phrase “presumption of innocence” becomes the impetus for enactment of ludicrous laws and dangerous practices such as doing away with bail altogether and harboring a dismissive attitude toward prosecuting crime at all.Flash forward in time: NYC’s lackluster Mayor, Bill de Blasio, whose bid for the DNC nomination for U.S. President quickly fizzled out, devised a plan to protect the criminal class: simply do away with the requirement for posting bail, while awaiting trial, and hamstring the police while you’re at it. The New York Post writes,“New York City voters passed a ballot measure Tuesday that will boost a government watchdog’s oversight of the police department — coming just a day after the resignation of Police Commissioner James O’Neill and after years of tense cop-community relations.The amendment to the city constitution gives the Civilian Complaint Review Board more power to investigate cops it suspects lied to the panel regarding alleged brutality or other misconduct.“This slate of reforms will make the CCRB more efficient, make discipline more transparent, and bolster public confidence in the integrity of the agency’s process,” he said.But police unions fired back that the public’s decision undermined cops.“Today the NYPD was stabbed in the back by the very same people we swore to protect. With bail reform taking effect in January of 2020 and the passing of CCRBs political power grab, New Yorkers can only expect the NYPD to provide paralyzed policing on city streets,” said Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins.O’Neill — who is leaving to take a private-sector gig in California — had been heard repeatedly warning others in law-enforcement that “It’s only going to get worse” under the changes, police sources have told The Post.”­­­­­­­­­­­It’s wondrous strange that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio claims the public doesn’t need firearms for self-defense because, as he contends, the police provide the public with all the safety they need. At least this is what he told the political commentator Sean Hannity on Hannity’s nightly Fox News program.But now we learn that Bill de Blasio doesn’t even want the police to do a modicum of police work, as he hampers their work, second guesses their actions, and releases hundreds of individuals charged with serious crimes from jail without requiring bail, presenting a threat to the safety and well-being of the citizenry.And, lest we forget, New York City is making it next to impossible for average American citizens residing in New York to obtain a handgun license for self-defense. And Leftists contend they care about the value of human life? Really? It is as if the Leftists in their condemnation of civilian ownership and possession of firearms and in their hasty desire for criminal reform, do intend to leave the citizenry defenseless. But, then, this is all part of the Radical Left and New Progressive Left game plan: to conduct a scarcely soft revolution, to tear down our free Republic.We are even now seeing the results of the Leftist game plan tragically playing out in major cities across our Nation.______________________________*Corrupt prosecutors may, as we unfortunately learn, manufacture false evidence of a crime or fail to provide exculpatory evidence of innocence. That’s always a problem, and, on an “industrial” scale, a serious problem, dangerous to the integrity of our entire judicial system. The sham Mueller investigation is a casebook study of a massive prosecutorial corruption scheme instituted for the sole purpose of unseating a duly elected President and harming many law-abiding citizens on the way. Ruthless forces both here and abroad, that seek to destroy the Trump Presidency, planned and carried out this charade. And the charade continues today, now in the guise of a Congressional impeachment against Trump. The forces that seek to unseat Trump perceive his policy goals summed up in the campaign slogan, “Make American Great Again,”—which, for Radical Leftists, amounts to a four-word phrase obscenity—as incompatible with their own goal of a one-world system of governance. But these forces that would crush this Nation and its people into submission don’t stop there. Through the despicable secretive actions of George Soros, a henchman of the Globalist “elite,” prosecutors of a different sort, who Soros has inserted into several City Governments: Radical Left activists or willing toadies of Soros and of the Radical Left, who won’t prosecute crimes, even serious crimes, at all. As reported by the Washington Times, these puppets of neoliberal, Globalist, Transnationalist forces—who include Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and Rachael Rollins in Suffolk County, Massachusetts—regularly refuse to prosecute crimes, thereby endangering the safety and well-being of the public and making a mockery of our entire system of law and justice. That, of course, is all in accord with the Radical Left’s plan intentionally to disrupt the judicial process to destroy our Country from within.______________________________________________

PART THREE

NO POLICY IS TOO EXTREME FOR THE RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVES IF IT SERVES THEIR AGENDA

Just how far is the radical Left willing to go to carry out their vision for a new America? Well, let’s consider how far one Leftist, namely, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, is willing to go. The Wall Street Journal provides us with an inkling, reporting on May 28, 2019:“More teens accused of serious felonies will be released from jail without bail under New York City’s latest push to limit incarceration, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Tuesday.The new policy, which begins June 1, would affect hundreds of teens accused of serious crimes like assault, robbery and burglary, allowing them to be eligible for release without bail, while they await adjudication of their case.”Releasing dangerous people, charged with serious crimes, on the street, and, at once, hamstringing the police will hardly make the City safer.And doing away with bail altogether serves only to worsen the situation. Doing so is foolhardy and takes the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which cautions that bail cannot be excessive, too far. The Eighth Amendment mandates only that the bail amount set must be commensurate with the crime. But there is nothing in the Eighth Amendment to suggest that the imposition of bail is inconsistent with due process in criminal proceedings.The Eighth Amendment sets forth:“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”Obviously, bail has a basis in criminal law and procedure. It isn’t a mere legal nicety. It has a place in our criminal justice system to ensure the accused will appear for trial. A dollar amount set by the Court reflects the seriousness of the crime charged against the accused. If the accused does not have funds on hand to meet bail, the accused has recourse to bail bondsmen.But Leftist activists like de Blasio have an agenda and that agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with safeguarding our citizenry and preserving both a free Republic and the Constitution. The Leftist agenda has everything to do with tearing down our free Republic and rewriting the Constitution to cohere to the Collectivist tenets of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism—tenets at odds with those of Individualism upon which our Constitution, the blueprint of our Republic, rests.Recently, the New York Post reported:Nearly 900 city jailbirds could be celebrating Christmas early courtesy of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a plan to quietly free them before the state’s bail-reform law goes into effect next year, The Post has learned.And if that weren’t enough of a gift, Mayor Bill de Blasio is promising to follow up with even more presents for the lucky accused criminals — by giving them free baseball tickets, movie passes and gift cards to encourage them to return to court, sources familiar with the program said.'You’re literally rewarding them for committing a crime,' said a disgusted senior staffer in Manhattan Criminal Court.The proposed early jail release is tied to a law that Cuomo signed in the spring to eliminate bail for defendants charged with an array of misdemeanor and felony crimes.The more than 400 offenses include such heinous acts as criminally negligent homicide, aggravated assault on a child under 11 and selling drugs on or near school grounds, according to a memo being circulated by prosecutors across the state and obtained by The Post.The law goes into effect Jan. 1 but it will be retroactive — meaning inmates who are already locked up on such cases can apply to have their bail lifted and to be freed.In the Big Apple, court officials estimate that 880 prisoners — about 16 percent of all pretrial detainees housed by the Department of Correction — will be eligible for the get-out-of-jail-free cards.”

A PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME ALREADY HAS A FULL PANOPLY OF PROTECTIONS BUT DE BLASIO AND CUOMO DO NOT SEE THIS AS ENOUGH

Substantive and substantial legal Constitutional and Procedural safeguards and protections exist to protect the rights of the criminal accused at trial. We don’t need more. This would only serve to endanger the public.First, common law crime no longer exists in our Country. No conduct is illegal unless such conduct is set forth statutorily, in our State and Federal Criminal Codes. The elements of each crime are set forth clearly and unambiguously. To support a conviction, the prosecution must prove each element of a crime.Second, the accused enjoys substantial procedural safeguards under extensive State and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.Third, and most critically, the U.S. Constitution accords the accused a full panoply of substantive, fundamental, natural rights. Under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, along with rights laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment, the accused has substantially more legal protections than those accorded the accused in any other Nation.Regardless, Radical left activists continue to malign our Constitution and our system of laws, contending that those charged with crimes don’t have enough legal protection. That notion is patently false; even ridiculous. But, why does the Radical Left constantly go on about the presumed inequities and iniquities of our criminal justice system? Is it that they truly care about what befalls serial criminals or do the motivations of Leftist activists lie elsewhere?

WHY DOES THE RADICAL LEFT CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF CRIMINALS OVER THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE POLITY?

Radical Left groups and politicians, along with a seditious Press, foment societal confusion, dissension, and unrest. They encourage disrespect for our Constitution, our laws, our social and political institutions, our culture, our history, our core ethical Judeo-Christian values, and our National identity.Through a caustic, diabolically planned and orchestrated agenda, they seek to induce mass hysteria and rend the very soul and psyche of the Nation, thereby disrupting societal cohesion and creating societal instability. Thus, the polity becomes soft, malleable; and open to a completely new vision of reality: The Collectivists’ vision; a vision that entails the end of our Nation-State; the end of our fundamental, natural rights and liberties; and the insertion of the tatters that remain of our Nation into a new transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance where the polity sees itself subject to abject penury and misery, subjugation and harassment, and under constant surveillance.Leftists, swift to promote social justice for the criminal class, in their zeal to tear down the social order and to rebuild it in accordance with the tenets of Collectivism, the criminal class becomes a useful tool to accomplish their goals, and, so, dismiss the safety and welfare of the law-abiding citizenry.Thus, do Leftists show their disdain for the welfare of human beings, as they, one, release upon the citizenry, a plague of criminals, free to disrupt and harm; two, constrain the police, making it difficult for them to promote the public welfare; and, three, dispossess average, law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans of their firearms, leaving them defenseless in the face of the criminal element now given carté blanche to run amok in society. This, then, is a major component of the Leftist plan for the re-ordering of society.Would these Leftist policies establish a Socialist or Communist Utopia? If so, what might that Utopia look like? Do you really want to know? Peer down at Cities like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Do you like what you see? If so, you will be most happy to know this is what the Radical Left has in store for the entire Nation.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.