LEAHY DEFIES GRASSELY BY HOLDING JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON OBAMA’S THIRD U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: MERRICK GARLAND

"And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788"If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government." Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, Aug 28, 1794

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT SENATE DEMOCRATS ON JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STRUGGLE TO CAPTURE A FIFTH SEAT, LIBERAL-WING MAJORITY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, TO RIP APART THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat-Vermont, Ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, held an open hearing on Merrick Garland’s nomination. This hearing is the one Leahy had alluded to last month.No, this wasn’t a confirmation hearing on Obama’s third appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Charles Grassley, Republican-Iowa and Chairman of the Committee, didn’t preside over the hearing; nor did he appear. No other Republican member appeared. No member of the Committee, Republican or Democrat, should have appeared because Senator Grassley didn’t sanction a hearing on Garland—any hearing. Yet, the Ranking Member of the Committee, Patrick Leahy, held a hearing anyway. He held the hearing in defiance to the will of the Chairman of the Committee. He held the hearing in defiance to the will of the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican-Kentucky.Senator Leahy admitted: “I can’t convene a confirmation hearing,” adding, “We’re in the minority.” The “minority” Leahy refers to include: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Franken, Klobuchar, Durbin, and Coons. They all pressed for Garland’s nomination.Why did Senator Leahy hold a hearing against Senator Grassley’s wishes? What did Leahy and other Judiciary Committee members and members of the Democratic Party hope to carry out?Senator Leahy and other Democratic Party members of the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing not simply to air personal grievances. They did so to push a personal agenda—one inconsistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Senator Leahy and the Democratic Party Senators virulently oppose “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Understand, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary doesn’t merely consider U.S. Supreme Court nominations, Appellate Court nominations and District Court nominations. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has other important roles. “The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in the consideration of nominations and pending legislation.” Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee draft legislation to obstruct “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” They draft legislation to defeat the Second Amendment under the pretext of serving the citizenry. They hoodwink the public. The goals they aim toward do not serve Americans’ sacred rights and liberties. They watch Americans’ behaviors, habits, and actions to control and constrain Americans. They treat Americans like wayward children. These Legislators are deceitful. They lure us in with pious words. They are America’s betrayers.So, who appeared at Leahy’s unsanctioned, May 23, 2016 “open hearing?” Those whom you would expect: Feinstein, Schumer, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Franken, Klobuchar, Durbin, and Coons appeared. They all support and press for Garland’s confirmation; and they all oppose “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

THE POSITIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS CLEAR, CATEGORICAL AND CERTAIN. THEY DARE TO SPEAK FOR ALL AMERICANS, PROCLAIMING:  AMERICANS DO NOT NEED AND OUGHT NOT HAVE FIREARMS.

Leahy’s position on the Second Amendment is no secret. For years Leahy pushed Obama’s antigun agenda. The New York Times reported on Leahy’s strategy in 2013. It said, “The view of Mr. Leahy, a Democrat . . . is crucial because the work of his Judiciary Committee will be central to advancing any new gun legislation.” The Committee “will hold hearings on potential gun legislation this month [January] proceed[ing] with Mr. Obama’s request to push legislation that includes a renewal of an assault weapons ban, a limit on magazine size and universal background checks.”Sheldon Whitehouse also signals hostility toward the Second Amendment. During Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican-Oklahoma tried to get her to issue an opinion on whether gun owners have a fundamental right to bear arms.” She wouldn’t make a pronouncement.” Sheldon Whitehouse came to her defense. He said, “he was worried that the judge had been pushed too far, perhaps, in a lobbying way, to expound on an issue that is probably going to come before the Supreme Court. He suggested that a message was being sent that nominees need to signal how they will rule on gun-rights cases. He called it almost unseemly to seek commitments on future cases.”As you might expect, U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are a charade. Leahy isn’t kidding anyone. If Garland received a confirmation hearing, he would say nothing to reveal his antipathy toward the Second Amendment. We know U.S. Supreme Court candidates hide their personal jurisprudential and philosophical predilections during confirmation hearings, as coached, to avoid offending anyone, thereby strengthening their chance at confirmation. Justice Sotomayor hid her antipathy toward the Second Amendment at her confirmation hearing. Judge Garland would do so at his confirmation hearing, were one scheduled. Senator Grassley isn’t planning one. For, if a confirmation hearing were in the offing, Senators Whitehouse, Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer and others would come to his aid, lest he reveal his aversion toward the Second Amendment. Senator Grassley certainly knows this.Thus, Senator Leahy’s intimation that confirmation hearings are effective at eliciting truth is dubious and disingenuous. At the May 23, 2016 hearing, Leahy asserted, “what bothers me is because he [Garland] does not have a hearing and they’re not allowing him to have a hearing, his record is being smeared by outside groups, some of these Pacs, and others. Senate Republicans are denying a distinguished public hearing and a fair opportunity.” "No," Senator Leahy. Judge Garland's record as revealed in our letter to you isn't a smear. It's the plain, unadulterated truth--truth the American public would not learn at a public hearing. That's why Garland won't receive a confirmation hearing; and that's why Garland shouldn't receive one. No person deserves a seat on the high Court who does not respect, in fact, revere our Bill of Rights--all Ten Amendments. Obama and the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats’ Trifecta bet is: Sotomayor, Kagan, and Garland. Obama is two for three. He aims for all three. For these three the Second Amendment is an anathema. Obama knows this. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have considered them. He wouldn’t have considered them if they were merely neutral on the Second Amendment, much less a proponent of the Second Amendment. Obama wants fanatics on the U.S. Supreme Court. He wants individuals on the U.S. Supreme Court who share his hostility toward the continued existence of our Nation's Second Amendment. Ranking member Senator Leahy and his fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee also want fanatics on the U.S. Supreme Court. These cohorts of Senator Leahy willingly support and do their part to promote Obama's antigun agenda.If Garland secures a seat on the high Court, the liberal-wing gains a fifth vote. The liberal-wing then has its majority. The liberal-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court strenuously opposes the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment.Let’s consider Senator Dianne Feinstein’s position on the Second Amendment. Does the American public truly harbor any doubt? Feinstein’s resentment toward the Second Amendment is well-known, her remarks against gun ownership, legion. She took personally the failure of her bill to ban over two thousand types of firearms but continued undeterred. Charles Schumer also attacks the Second Amendment with passion. In 1994, then “Representative” Schumer, with the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat-Ohio,  “introduced a ‘kitchen-sink’ bill that covered everything from licensing to lists of weapons to be prohibited. It proved politically ahead of its time.” Richard Blumenthal uses sporadic shooting sprees to couch attacks on the Second Amendment. He said, “he hoped that the latest [2014 Santa Barbara] shooting would ‘provide an impetus to bring back measures that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who are severely troubled or deranged, like this young man was.’” Blumenthal’s remark may sound sensible. But, the remark carries dangerous implications. Millions of American’s would lose their Second Amendment rights. Even if Legislators carefully tailored a law, can Americans trust the federal government to interpret the law narrowly? Not likely! Consider, too, the difficulties in defining English words. How do we define the word, ‘severely,’ as a modifier for the word, ‘troubled’? How do we define the word, ‘deranged?’ Medical doctors don’t use these words. They are not medical terms of art. Lawyers don’t use these words either. They aren’t legal terms of art. They are rhetorical words. They merely suggest but point to nothing.Before we exclude a group of Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights, give the matter thought. Millions of law-abiding Americans may lose their Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” simply because their doctors prescribe an antidepressant for them.What can we glean from Al Franken’s record on the Second Amendment? Franken is cagey, but his contempt for the Second Amendment is obvious. Sure, he sounds like a supporter of the Second Amendment. He says, “Minnesota has a long tradition of gun ownership, and I support Minnesotans’ right to own a gun for collection, protection, and sport. I also believe that the Second Amendment protects that right against both the federal government and the states. But the right to own a firearm is not one to be taken lightly. I believe Minnesota has struck the proper balance, for example, by requiring background checks and live firearms training for carry permits.” Let’s parse one phrase in that passage.We ask, “what does Al Franken mean here by ‘proper balance’ as applied to law-abiding Minnesota residents?" What does Al Franken mean by 'proper balance' as applied to all law-abiding Americans? Franken means strict gun control Consider: Al Franken “voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.” In 2008 Franken said he supports a federal ‘assault weapons’ ban but then oddly claims he supports the Second Amendment. The claim means nothing. It’s a trick. Antigun zealots employ it, continuously, to keep proponents of the Second Amendment at bay, guessing. But Americans recognize the ploy. Antigun zealots won’t rest until the Second Amendment ceases to exist. Franken reiterates antigun sentiment through rehearsed talking points, lacking substance.Senator Klobuchar sponsored an antigun bill, heralded by Michael Bloomberg’s antigun group, “Everytown for Gun Safety.” Klobuchar suggests she, too, supports the Second Amendment. But, she doesn’t. She asserts, “I would do nothing to hurt hunting”  but she also says she voted for bans on “assault weapons” and on “high-capacity magazines”—those magazines holding over ten rounds.Senators Klobuchar and Franken don’t understand their actions belie their words.Senator Richard Durbin fiercely attacks the Second Amendment. His distaste for the Second Amendment is as virulent and venomous as Feinstein’s.To his shame Senator Durbin defends U.N. efforts to repeal our Country’s unique and sacred Second Amendment. He voted, “no,” on “Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State’s International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.” Previously cited. Senator Vitter, Republican-Louisiana, pointed out, that SA 2774 “is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens’ guns.” Previously cited. Plainly, the UN’s bold attack on America’s Bill of Rights doesn’t offend Senator Durbin. He supports UN efforts to undermine our Bill of Rights.Last, let’s not forget, Senator, Chris Coons position on the Second Amendment. Coons urges President Obama to use executive action to undermine the Second Amendment. Imagine, Coons would sacrifice the Second Amendment and Congressional Article 1, Section 1 Legislative authority to the U.S. President simply to continue a partisan antigun agenda.

A PANEL OF GARLAND SUPPORTERS GATHERED TO BUTTRESS ANTIGUN JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND’S NOMINATION

Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Member Leahy and fellow Senate Democrats on the Committee contacted associates of Judge Merrick Garland. The panel comprised a former jurist, a law professor, an appellate law attorney and former judge, and a former U.S. Attorney.Each spouted the usual praises: “wonderful judge,” “eminently qualified,” “wonderful human being” “engaged and committed parent,” “sharp, analytical mind,” and so on. Fine traits, yes wanted of all who aspire to sit on the high Court. We have heard them before; we hear them now, constantly. But Judge Garland’s finer qualities aren’t in dispute. His judicial record is.The hour-long hearing comprised a multitude of flowery pronouncements, empty oratory, and, from the Senate Democrats, spiteful insults, criticisms, and whispers.Senator Feinstein piously declared a concern over a Supreme Court constrained, “for a substantial period of time” by a “tie,” “a four to four position.” Senator Leahy says the failure of the high Court to act on cases—given the present 4 to 4 tie—places the Federal Appellate Courts “in limbo.” But Leahy’s statement isn’t true. Feinstein’s remarks and Leahy’s lay bare an agenda, underscored by their assertions. They seek a five to four liberal-wing majority on the high Court. They say consistency among the Circuit Courts is necessary, but is it?Do we want consistency if U.S. Supreme Court rulings weaken Americans’ rights and liberties throughout the Country? Do we Americans want consistency among the Several States if U.S. Supreme Court rulings reflect foreign law antithetical to our traditions and values, and inconsistent with our Bill of Rights? Wouldn’t Americans find judicial rulings peppered and laced with alien jurisprudence and philosophy singularly bizarre? Wouldn’t Americans detest U.S. Supreme Court opinion that undermine their rights? Is not the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s philosophy and jurisprudential approach to U.S. Supreme Court decision-making worth preserving? If so, Senator Leahy’s remark we need a “fully functioning [nine Justice] Supreme Court”—with a five-to-four liberal wing majority—is to wrongheaded.Tie votes are not necessarily a bad thing. If a tie vote occurs, the decisions of the Appellate Courts remain valid. Yes, conflicts in the Circuits exist absent a U.S. Supreme Court decision. But conflicts always exist. The high Court hears only a handful of cases. A liberal wing majority would decide cases contrary to the well-being of the Bill of Rights. A liberal wing majority would also canvass cases to hear—cases involving matters best left to the States under the Tenth Amendment. Consider the remarks of Justin Driver, Professor of law at the University of Chicago. He clerked under Judge Garland from 2005 to 2006. Driver said, “The [U.S. Supreme] Court views itself as articulating general applicable principles, not merely resolving a dispute between a few parties.” How do we square that remark with Professor Driver’s other assertions? Professor Driver asserts, Judge Garland “avoids grand sweeping pronouncements, and keeps the opinions narrow,” that Judge Garland “is measured in his approach to the law,” and that “he honors existing precedent”?How might Judge Garland’s jurisprudence as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit translate to the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment issues? A fifth liberal-wing vote would weaken or overturn, outright, the Heller and McDonald case holdings?

A QUESTION ABOUT IDEOLOGY ON THE SUPREME COURT

Senator Leahy and his fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee self-righteously assert a hostility toward ideology. They proclaim the U.S. Supreme Court must remain pure, empty of “politics.” Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court, as the third Branch of Government, is, a political institution. Politics exists in the third Branch no less so than in the other two. Ideology, too, exists. Ideology is not necessarily a bad thing. Ideology defines every person. Each jurist espouses an ideology, and that ideology suffuses each jurist’s decisions. Judge Merrick Garland expressed his ideology toward the Second Amendment in the Parker and Reno cases.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND MUST NOT SECURE A SEAT ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

We know Judge Garland’s position on Second Amendment issues. We looked at his record. With Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the high Court—a jurist who espouses a philosophy hostile to the Second Amendment—the assault on the Second Amendment continues. The Arbalest Quarrel amply shows Garland’s hostility to the Second Amendment in multiple articles.The conclusion is plain. If Judge Merrick Garland secures a seat on the high Court, we know he would undermine the Second Amendment. The high Court’s liberal wing would have a majority and would undo Justice Scalia’s legacy.If Judge Garland sits on the high Court as Justice Garland, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as a sacred individual right, will come under renewed assault. Protection of our sacred rights and liberties ought to take precedence over presumed Senate protocol. Senator Leahy doesn’t think so, despite his remarks. He insists a confirmation hearing for Garland is proper. Perhaps for him, not for us. Leahy doesn’t speak for most Americans; neither does Hillary Clinton.In a May 24, 2016 editorial, the Wall Street Journal editorial staff said, “Mrs. Clinton did criticize the Supreme Court [in Heller] for being ‘wrong on the Second Amendment.’” The editorial staff also said, “Mrs. Clinton knows that four liberal Justices dissented from Heller. . . . Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the dissenters, told a luncheon of the Harvard Club in 2009 that their dissent was crafted with an eye to helping a ‘future, wiser court’ overturn Heller.” Previously cited. The editorial staff added, poignantly, “If Mrs. Clinton selects Antonin Scalia’s replacement, she knows the Court’s liberals with get their opportunity to overturn Heller. The Second Amendment really is on the ballot this November.” Previously cited.Senator Leahy and other Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee want a jurist on the high Court who represent their ideology—one antithetical to the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton won’t disappoint them if elected U.S. President. Judge Garland is their man. He isn’t ours.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

VOISINE: A SECOND AMENDMENT CASE THAT ISN'T?

JUSTICE THOMAS SPEAKS OUT IN THE VOISINE CASE

UNITED STATES VERSUS VOISINE

PART 1: PRELIMINARY REMARKS

This is the first of a multi-part series article on the most important Second Amendment case to come before the U.S. Supreme Court since the two seminal Second Amendment cases: District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008) and McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 320, 177 L. Ed.2d 894, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5523 (2010).  Two points must be made apropos of this remark before we undertake a comprehensive analysis of the Voisine case, at this juncture, up through the legal argument that goes to the matter whether the present case is properly considered a Second Amendment case at all; and the other point goes to the matter concerning the extent to which lower courts, throughout the Country, whether State or Federal, and the extent to which State Legislatures throughout the Country adhere to the holdings and to the reasoning of the majority opinions in the two cases. The late Justice Antonin Scalia penned the majority oAnyone who keeps abreast of the U. S. Supreme Court knows that Justice Clarence Thomas broke a ten-year silence when he posed questions to counsel during oral argument on February 29, 2016 in the case United States vs. Voisine, No. 14-10154 (S. Ct. Dec. 17, 2015). The other seven Justices retained an austere demeanor. But they must surely have been surprised at Justice Thomas’ uncharacteristic lack of reticence. The Press, for its part, was noticeably, and understandably, thunderstruck.One may speculate why Justice Thomas chose to take part in the questioning of counsel in this case, at this time. Not improbably, Justice Thomas did so, in part, out of deep respect for the memory of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia would have had much to say in Voisine as the case touches on two landmark Second Amendment cases: District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald vs. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). “Heller holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home (or making their use in the home infeasible) violates the individual right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.”In the subsequent McDonald case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, “the Second Amendment creates individual rights that can be asserted against state and local governments.” Together, the two cases strengthen the Second Amendment more so than any previous holding of the high Court. The two cases constrain local, State and federal governments from whittling away at Americans’ fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in their individual capacity.Justice Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion in Heller, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the Opinion for the Majority in McDonald, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Not surprisingly, the liberal wing of the Court, comprising Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer dissented, and they did so strenuously.Now, contrary to common belief, the U.S. Supreme Court, does not have to accept and, indeed, does not accept every case that happens to come before it. No one can appeal an adverse decision to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right. Indeed, the Supreme Court grants A Petitioner’s writ of certiorari in only a few cases in any given term. And, in the Court’s information sheet, presented to those who seek to have their case heard, the Court says clearly, even bluntly, that “review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion.”Generally, the high Court will agree to hear a case where there is disagreement and conflict among the various federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. This often takes years to develop. Even so, many cases that the high Court does agree to hear often involve arcane legal issues, very narrow in scope, that are difficult for the non-lawyer to grasp, and, so, quite understandably, difficult for anyone but a lawyer to appreciate. The Voisine case may, at first glance, appear to be just such a case. It isn’t.To be sure there is a complex, arcane issue here, but there is also a straight-forward Second Amendment issue as well. The Second Amendment issue would have been given no consideration at all but for Justice Thomas’ interjection. Be thankful that Justice Thomas spoke up during oral argument. This is not theatrics as presented by the mainstream media. Justice Thomas' questions and remarks were precise, well-honed, to the point and surely took the U.S. Government off guard.In the Opinion to be handed down in another month or so it is unlikely that the Court will not give the Second Amendment issue at least some consideration and will do so precisely because of, one, Justice Thomas’ questions to counsel for Respondent, U.S. Government, two, counsel's responses to the Court, and, three, Justice Thomas' comments. If no other Justice mentions the Second Amendment in the Majority's Opinion, or in a concurring or dissenting Opinion, Justice Thomas most certainly will.Now, a salient issue in Voisine does involve the meaning to be given a word phrase in one particular section of a lengthy federal Statute. Nonetheless, as we heretofore explained, the Voisine case is the first Supreme Court case to be heard by the high Court that does impact the Second Amendment. In fact, Petitioners did timely and properly raise a Second Amendment claim in their Briefs to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. And that claim was preserved; and that issue was ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court when it granted Petitioners’ Writ of Certiorari. Moreover, while the Second Amendment issue was set forth with particularity as a salient issue in Petitioners’ Brief, the Second Amendment claim was not set forth as an issue in the Government’s own Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners. And the Government, in its Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners, addressed Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim only perfunctorily, giving little thought to it, seemingly in deference to and happily therefor to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's treatment of it, for the First Circuit dismissed Petitioners' Second Amendment claim outright.In fact during oral argument before the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment was only mentioned twice and that occurred toward the end of oral argument when Justice Thomas brought the issue up. Justice Thomas did so, in part, as we said earlier, because Justice Scalia certainly would have done so had he lived. And, Justice Scalia would have done so for a very good reason, quite apart from and notwithstanding the otherwise cursory treatment of the Second Amendment issue by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Court. For Voisine is the first case to come before the Supreme Court that implicates the Second Amendment, however obliquely or tangentially, or seemingly cursorily since the high Court decided the Heller case in 2008 and, subsequently, Heller's important progeny, the McDonald case in 2010, over one-half decade ago.Although the other Justices took great pains to avoid entertaining the Second Amendment issue in Voisine – preferring to address, alone, the meaning attached to a few words in one federal Statute – Justice Thomas would not let the matter rest, much to the satisfaction of Petitioners, who clearly sought to have their Second Amendment issue heard, and much to the chagrin of Respondent, the United States Government, that sought to keep the Second Amendment issue moot.Moreover, by querying Government’s counsel on Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim, Justice Thomas may have been initiating a not so subtle payback to other Justices for a snubbing that both he and Justice Scalia suffered at the hands of those other Justices. For, both Justices Scalia and Thomas were more than a trifle perturbed that the majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). The Seventh Circuit in Friedman clearly manifested its contempt for the high Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald. Justices Scalia and Thomas clearly wanted, and had expected, the high Court to grant certiorari in Friedman and, by failing to do so, Justices Scalia and Thomas expressed their righteous indignation by drafting a dissenting opinion in Friedman -- an unusual occurrence.Very rarely do Justices explain their reason for refusing to grant a writ of certiorari in a case. Even more rarely will one find a dissenting opinion written by a Justice, expressing disfavor in the failure of the majority of Justices to grant the writ in a case.Surely, had the Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s writ of certiorari in Friedman, Justices Scalia and Thomas would have taken the Seventh Circuit to task for patently ignoring the Heller and McDonald holdings. The Arbalest Quarrel discusses the Friedman case at length in the article, titled, “A Court Of Law That Rejects U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Undermines The Rule Of Law And Undercuts The U.S. Constitution,” posted on December 14, 2015.  For our discussion of Friedman and its importance to the Heller and McDonald cases, readers are encouraged to read our article.In spirit Justice Scalia was certainly in attendance during oral argument in Voisine. Since the Supreme Court would not entertain the Friedman case which was a direct and audacious attack by a United States Circuit Court of Appeals on the clear and cogent holdings in Heller and McDonald, Justice Thomas, on behalf of Justice Scalia, clearly intended to raise and, so, did raise Petitioner’s Second Amendment issue in Voisine – a case that the U.S. Supreme Court did decide to entertain.From the get-go it had been clear that no other Justice would weigh in on the Second Amendment implications of Voisine, and take the Government to task. Justice Thomas made certain that Justice Scalia’s disdain for a federal Government that cares not one whit for the sanctity of the Second Amendment would dare not go unchallenged.Americans who understand and can appreciate the importance of our Bill of Rights as the foundation of a free Republic and who can, in particular, understand and appreciate the importance of the Second Amendment as a critical check on the accumulation of power by the Federal Government, and by improvident State governments as well, will do well to ponder the Nation's incredible loss. Justice Scalia, together with Justice Thomas, made adamantly clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to a person’s participation in a militia. The Heller decision rankles several Justices on the Supreme Court and many Globalists, both in this Country and outside it, as well, who are working quietly but incessantly and inexorably in the shadows, intent on undercutting America’s Bill of Rights, generally, and undermining America’s Second Amendment, particularly.We know, without doubt, that President Obama – or her royal Majesty, Queen Hillary Rodham Clinton – seek to nominate to the highest Court of the Land, a person who would chomp at the bit to reverse Heller and McDonald on the ground that, for them, the cases are discordant. They are discordant to these judges and to powerful, ruthless individuals because they happen to strengthen rather than weaken America’s Bill of Rights.In Part 2 of this Article, we will deal in depth, with the legal issues in Voisine and you will come to understand, one, why the high Court, apart from Justice Thomas, does not wish to deal with the impact that a negative decision in Voisine would have on the Second Amendment and, two, how it is that a specific question posed by Justice Thomas to counsel for the U.S. Government elicited from counsel a most remarkable, illuminating, and, in fact, frightening comment. You will come to see why a negative holding in Voisine does have negative implications for our Second Amendment.So it is that the mainstream media would much rather keep the dire implications of Voisine in the shadows. We, on the other hand, intend to bring the implications out, for all to see, into the light of day. In so doing, we trust we will help keep the memory of Justice Scalia alive, and in keeping Justice Scalia’s memory alive, preserve, as well, the holdings in Heller and McDonald that bespeak Justice Scalia’s devotion to the import of the Second Amendment. Ever mindful, then, are we of those who are hell-bent in destroying it.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SENATOR KIRK CAN’T WHITEWASH MERRICK GARLAND; THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

Editor's note: this is a revision of an earlier version of this article. The revision includes new material.Senator Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican, urges Republican colleagues to “man-up” and just cast a vote on Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, whose views on America’s Constitution, according to Senator Kirk, are “a lot like Justice Scalia.” Really? But that's what he said as noted, with approval on the liberal web blog, "Think Progress," in a March 18, 2016 article titled, "Republican Senator says Colleagues Should 'Man Up' And Vote On Merrick."Yet, not even Obama has the audacity to suggest that Judge Garland’s ideology and jurisprudence are even remotely like that of Justice Scalia; and Senator Kirk's attempt to shame the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary through Kirk's use of the term, 'man-up,' is nothing more than a child's dare or is otherwise incoherent. Indeed, the mainstream New York Times admits that, ideologically, Judge Garland is well to the left of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.” See, the NY Times article published, March 17, 2016, titled, “Where Merrick Garland Stands: A Close Look at His Judicial Record.” And, we know that Justice Kennedy, the “swing-vote,” stands ideologically well to the left of Justice Scalia. So, who is Senator Kirk kidding? Indeed, how is it that a United States Senator, a Republican at that, would support Obama’s call for Senate action on Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court in the first place? Might there be something about Senator Kirk that doesn’t quite ring true?We were curious about Senator Kirk’s own position on the Second Amendment. So, we checked. What we have found is disconcerting to say the least but does much to explain Senator Kirk’s support of Obama’s nominee for U.S. Supreme Court Justice.It turns out that NRA gives Senator Kirk, the Republican, a rating of “D.” See, "Mark Kirk on Gun Control." Senator Kirk does beat Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders candidly, exuberantly remarks that NRA currently rates him, “F.” But, a “D” rating by NRA, no less than an "F" rating, is hardly cause for celebration. Such a dismal rating by NRA is definitely not something a Republican U.S. Senator to be proud of. Senator Kirk does, understandably, prefer to keep that fact quiet -- spoken in whispers, if at all. In fact, in 2010, NRA rated Kirk “F,” according to the weblog, "sunlightfoundation." Not surprisingly, Senator Kirk supports the Brady Bill, and was, apparently, the only Republican who voted for the 2013 ban on rifles that are considered "assault weapons” by antigun groups. Perhaps, Senator Kirk ought, himself, to “man-up,” and admit to the American public he is a hypocrite who is deliberately leading both the American public and Congress astray by urging his Republican colleagues to cast a vote on Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.The Christian Monitor, in a 2013 article, titled, "Obama's quiet ally: Who's behind gun control bill no one is talking about," is on point in calling  Senator Kirk, Obama’s “quiet ally.”  But, even The Christian Monitor could not have envisioned, at that time how portentous its 2013 'quiet ally' reference to Senator Kirk would be. For, three years later Senator Kirk is now, in fact, lending his support to Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland; and, in so doing, actively defying Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, and, in fact, going to war against the Republican Party, by operating in the background as Obama’s “quiet ally.”Senator Kirk’s assertion that Judge Garland is of the same ideological bent as the late Justice Scalia is an abominable lie. Senator Kirk certainly knows the assertion to be untrue and he is unashamedly fomenting an outrageous lie. Apparently, it is okay, though, to assert a bald-faced lie to the American people to accomplish a desired goal.Republicans like Senator Kirk, who infect the Republican party with schemes poisonous to the well-being of the Republic and destructive to our sacred Bill of Rights, give cover to Obama, who can then plausibly and piously argue: see, even Republicans understand I intend to safeguard Americans’ Bill of Rights, and that I will, especially, safeguard and defend Americans’ Second Amendment right through commonsense actions and commonsense nominations and appointments to the federal courts. One thing is clear: if Judge Garland secures a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the tenuous balance that existed for some time between the Court’s right-wing Justices and the Court’s left-wing Justices will be lost. The Court will swing violently to the left and that will be reflected in the Court’s decisions.Consider what one reviewer in a recent NY Times article, published March 18, 2016, -- titled, “What Do You  Need to Be a Justice?” – had to say. Ian Millhiser, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and the author of the article, said, in his NY Times Op-Ed, “Some of the court’s worst decisions were the product of rigid ideology. But many are rooted in the fact that the justices in the majority lacked what President Obama said he was looking for in a nominee: ‘an understanding of the way the world really works.’”An “understanding of the way the world really works?” Millhiser took that quote from the SCOTUSblog, which posted certain remarks of Obama, supporting his nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. Explicating one of three points he was looking for in his nominee, Obama said: “. . . a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.” Obama also says that anyone he nominates to the U.S. Supreme Court "will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity," and that the person he appoints will be someone who "recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role." On a cursory inspection this may all sound reasonable and noble. But how much of it rings true? And, further, is there anything in Obama's remarks that, on deep reflection, do not suggest something ominous. Let’s analyze and extrapolate what Obama is really saying here.A perusal of Obama's remarks illustrates an inconsistency. He plainly states, in his remarks, that he wants a person who "recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role, someone who will not legislate from the Bench. But, that singularly critical and, in fact, correct point, is at odds with the third point he makes, although obliquely, namely that he seeks a person who holds a certain philosophy, akin to Obama's own, suggestive of utilitarian ethical concerns which, then, if acted upon  may very well amount to adjudicating a case on the basis of social theory irrespective of legal constraints. So, Obama is saying that U.S. Supreme Court decisions should not be decided merely through an application of America’s own case law; its own history; its own case law precedent. Rather, those who sit on the high Court should decide a case in terms of how a decision impacts the lives of people who reside in this Country, whether they are here legally or not. By extension, he is asserting that U.S. Supreme Court decisions should also take into account how a decision impacts people globally. He is saying that the U.S. Supreme Court should take into account the manner in which  U.S. Supreme Court decisions reflect multicultural values. This last point entails a consideration of and belief in utilitarian ethical systems along with notions of moral relativity.So, Obama is asserting and maintaining that a U.S. Supreme Court decision should encompass a worldwide perspective, and not simply one that reflects our Nation's values, manifested in our unique Bill of Rights, our unique history, our own culture, our own legal precedent. Obama is arguing for a cosmopolitan approach to U.S. Supreme Court decision-making. Obama is, then, definitely, espousing enacting law -- legislating law -- from the Bench, not merely interpreting law -- the latter of which is the high Court's principal duty and responsibility.The Judicial authority of the U.S. Supreme Court does not encompass the Legislative Authority of Congress as set forth with particularity in Article I of the U.S. Constitution; and, neither the Legislative authority of Congress nor the Judicial Authority of the U.S. Supreme Court encompasses the Executive authority of the President of the United States as set forth with particularity in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The demarcation of duties and responsibilities of each Branch of the Federal Government is established by and codified in the Constitution, and the duties and responsibilities of one is never to cross over into the domain of the other. But, Obama has deliberately and unconscionably argued for expanding the legislative functions of Congress into the domain of the Executive Branch and now suggests that the Judicial Branch of Government ought to do the same. In fact, Obama has himself used the power of the Executive Branch to unlawfully encroach into the Legislative arena, either by failing to execute the laws of Congress -- which we see in his adamant refusal to enforce existing immigration laws and which we see through his unlawful use of executive directives to curtail the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, and which we see in both his callous indifference to a citizen's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and in the expansion of police and intelligence activities into areas that clearly transgress Congressional enactments.Obama has, apparently, no reservation about using the Office of the Chief Executive to make law, thereby transcending Constitutional authority to faithfully execute the laws, whenever he feels compelled by his personal morality and multicultural propensities and political philosophy to override the Separation of Powers Doctrine. And, he demonstrates the same contempt for the Separation of Powers Doctrine when he pompously suggests the U.S. Supreme Court should inject utilitarian ethics and multiculturalism into its decision-making, thereby uprooting 200+ years of carefully developed and cautiously applied American jurisprudence.What Obama is looking for in a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and what he sees in Judge Merrick Garland is someone who shares his personal Weltanshauung -- his personal world view: someone who is prepared to, and who would, upend our entire legal philosophical system by  secreting moral relativity and geopolitical considerations and trans-national, multinational goals and objectives into U.S. Supreme Court decision-making. Obama’s ideal candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court manifests a view for deciding cases also held by the left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer, as laid out methodically and comprehensively in his book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities.” Justice Breyer’s jurisprudence is a mélange of laws, values, social mores, and ethical systems that extend well beyond a consideration of our own Constitution, our own laws, our own precedent. Justice Breyer’s  jurisprudence – one reflected in the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court – is an anathema. It undermines our Constitution, our laws. It undercuts the very sovereignty of our Nation and the sanctity of our Bill of Rights.What is noticeably lacking in Obama’s praises of Judge Garland Merrick and in Obama’s recitation of the factors he deems important in an individual who sits on the high Court is any mention of the need to consider how the core of our rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, is to be protected – indeed, that the core of our fundamental rights and liberties ought be protected at all. Apparently, Obama doesn’t consider our Bill of Rights, around which American U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence is built, to be particularly important in this new age, in this new world, that Obama envisions, in which the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ is perceived as a relic, eventually to be discarded in favor of a neo-corporate, financial world union.By the way, in the event anyone believes that Obama does not consider, would not consider, or has not considered the role a Judge's personal philosophy plays in Obama's consideration of a nomination of a person to the high Court, think again. In a February 16, 2016 article, titled, "Obama Filibustered Justice Alito, Voted Against Roberts," appearing in the conservative weblog, "front page mag," the author, Daniel Greenfield demonstrates Obama's clear attention to a Judge's philosophical bent. No one can reasonably attack the ability, intellect, credentials, and integrity of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito; yet, President Obama, as U.S. Senator Barack Obama, has voiced serious reservations for these nominations of President George W. Bush to serve on the high Court, and chose not to support the nomination of either one of them. So, when Obama asserts that, what he is looking for in a person who serves as a U.S Supreme Court Justice is a person whose analysis of cases will, when the need arises, "be shaped by his or her own perspective ethics, and judgment," he is being duplicitous. For, he will not consider a person, as a nominee, whose perspective, ethics, and judgment do not coincide with his own. Otherwise, he would have voted for and supported Chief Justice Robert's nomination and Associate Justice Alito's nomination to the high Court. We know, of course, that the values expressed in America’s Bill of Rights are not universally emulated by many Western Countries. In particular it is abundantly clear that America’s Second Amendment, far from being praised by other Countries, especially those comprising the EU, is often disparaged. But, it is disparaged in part, no doubt, because in no other Country in the World does a nation’s government accept and respect the idea that a nation’s government exists only by grace of the people, of the nation’s citizenry.America’s Second Amendment, however, makes absolutely clear that the federal Government exists only by the grace of the American people. The federal Government does not “own” the American people. We are free citizens in a free Republic, not enslaved subjects residing in an autocratic realm. The federal Government cannot dispense with our Bill of Rights; nor is it permitted to erode the fabric of our Nation’s sovereignty through international treaties and conventions that the American people are little if ever adequately aware of, nor their representatives in Congress ever completely privy to.America’s Bill of Rights – certainly the Second Amendment – is perceived by the left-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court as representing ideas and values no longer reflective of the modern age. But, the founders of our Republic were no fools. They knew that the rights and liberties set down in stone in the Bill of Rights were “constants” that never change, never become obsolete, and must never change or be perceived as obsolete if our Republic is to continue to exist in the form envisioned by our founders. Justice Scalia knew this, respected this, and his decisions reflected that principle – a principle omnipresent in his decisions.Justice Scalia believed that U.S. law must dictate and inform all U.S. Supreme Court decisions and that the Bill of Rights – all ten of them – must never be compromised or be considered relevant only to a bygone era. The left-wing of the high Court does not agree with this. They hold to the idea that Americans’ rights and liberties only have meaning relative to a particular era – that Americans’ rights and liberties are not “constants” applicable to all eras. That idea percolates through their legal opinions, and is often reflected in their own ad hoc and peculiar jurisprudence.The notion that our Bill of Rights transcends all time is considered an aberration and antithetical to the reasoning of the left-wing of the high Court because that notion is not compatible with “the way the world really works” today, as Obama says. All the more reason, then, for the U.S. Supreme Court to hold fast to the principle that Americans’ rights and liberties are “constants,” never-changing absolutes, as our founders perceived them and meant for them to be as applied to the continued existence of our Nation State as a Sovereign Nation State and as a free Republic – never subordinated to another nation or subsumed into a larger political or economic union, like the EU.Americans’ sacred rights and liberties are never to be seen as outmoded. They are never to be cast aside when deemed, by some on the high Court, to be incompatible with the “way the world really works” – with global realities, according to Justice Stephen Breyer, as laid out in his book, and as echoed by President Obama in his praises of Judge Merrick Garland.Judge Garland is certainly not cut from the same cloth as Justice Scalia. If Judge Garland does acquire a seat on the high Court as an Associate Justice, he would definitely fit in with such fellow travelers as Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Certainly, that is what President Obama, and, apparently, one “Republican” Senator, Mark Steven Kirk, would like very much to see.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

FIRST AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK . . . IN CHICAGO WHERE THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS TRAMPLED ON!

U.S. Under Attack: Chicago, Trump, Outrage . . . And the Trampling of Our Constitution

The American public must ask and a serious investigation to find answers must ensue: did the disruption in an auditorium in the City of Chicago, at a rally for the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States, that occurred Friday evening, March 12, 2016, just happen or did it happen because someone or some group intended for a riot to happen?In other words, was the disruption in Chicago that led to cancellation of a rally for the leading Republican candidate for U.S. President, on the eve of the most important Super Tuesday 2016 primary elections, a happenstance – a mere spontaneous outpouring of anger and rage expressed by certain unhappy segments of the population toward the leading Republican candidate, as the mainstream media is playing this, or was the disruption something more – a staged event in and of itself – carefully orchestrated and choreographed by certain powerful and ruthless interests that are willing to do and, apparently, are capable of doing whatever it takes to destroy the momentum of a popular political candidate for the highest Office in the Land?At the moment the public can only speculate as to the root cause for the disruption. One thing is certain, though. Our Bill of Rights is under attack and has been under incessant assault for many years. Our Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms” has, for many years, slowly and systematically suffered erosion through Congressional enactments and State action. If the leading Democratic Party contender for the Office of U.S. President gets the nod and ultimately secures the Oval Office, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will likely cease to exist except as a short footnote in the history texts. And, what shall become of other fundamental rights and liberties of the People?The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Since the early years of the twenty-first century, that fundamental right has been quietly and systematically eroded by federal Government intelligence and police apparatuses – all in the name of promoting “safety” for the collective, for the masses, generally. But, one would be hard-pressed to find, through a careful reading of the U.S. Constitution, any clause, sentence, or passage that authorizes the federal Government to undermine an individual citizen’s fundamental right to privacy – the sacred right to be left alone and the sacred right clearly setting forth that an individual’s personal effects are to remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as entailed by and codified under the Fourth Amendment – ostensibly to promote and ensure public safety; and one would be hard-pressed to find, through a careful perusal of the U.S. Constitution, any clause, sentence, or passage that authorizes the federal Government to undercut the fundamental right of an American citizen to keep and bear arms – the inviolable right of the individual to take responsibility for one’s personal security, as entailed by and codified in the Second Amendment – ostensibly to promote and ensure public safety.Yet the federal Government – especially in recent years – incessantly, unashamedly, and unapologetically invades the sanctity of both these natural and fundamental rights – all under the mask, the guise, of ensuring public safety. But, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the United States Constitution, either explicitly or impliedly, that authorizes the federal Government, under any set of actual events or, as we are more likely to see, under any set of contrived circumstances, to denigrate the fundamental, natural rights and liberties of the people – the rights and liberties that are clearly, cogently, and unambiguously set down in the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.And, what of the First Amendment guarantee? The First Amendment as set forth in the Bill of Rights says, in meaningful part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . . .”For many years the American people have been asleep. They have been fed pabulum by the mainstream media as the rug has been pulled out from under them. But, as law-abiding Americans, hard-working citizens, have seen their wages stagnating, their jobs shipped overseas or given over to foreigners here – whether those foreigners are in this Country legally, having secured temporary visas, or are in this Country illegally, having simply walked across unsecured borders – Americans have begun to wake up. The Americans are now placing their support behind candidates who have not been paid off by wealthy, powerful, ruthless interests to do the bidding of their sponsors.All bets are off now. Those powerful, ruthless interests that have been slowly, quietly, insidiously taking over our institutions, rewriting our history, forcing an alien morality and an alien culture down our throats are now aghast that the American public is no longer falling into lockstep behind the newly minted puppets or, in one case, a dusted off old puppet. The American public is no longer listening to the vapid, insipid, soothing, carefully rehearsed melodies that the song writers have composed for their ears, as sung to the public by their string pullers in sweet-sounding three part harmony.There is, in this U.S. Presidential election cycle, one candidate from each major political Party who dares to speak his mind rather than parrot the views of paid sponsors. That fact bothers the ruthless interests that have slowly taken over this Country. It has made them uneasy. It is even making them frantic. These ruthless interests are devising ways – legal, quasi-legal, and even illegal – to silence those candidates they have not been able to buy and whom they can never control.The University administration officials in Chicago must certainly have known that elements would be attending the political rally on Friday who were not interested in hearing what one particular candidate from one particular political Party had to say. They were only interested in creating a disturbance, to silence a voice, and these University officials must take responsibility for the disturbance that did occur and that occurred quite spectacularly on their turf. And, they did, indeed, silence a voice, if but for a moment and only for a moment.In a City that has in place some of the most stringent gun control measures anywhere in the Country – in a City that requires its citizenry to place full stock in the police to protect it – University officials did not take sufficient advantage of police utilization to protect those individuals who sought simply to attend a political rally to hear what one candidate for high political Office has to say. University administration officials should have seen to it that the right of free speech and right of the people to peaceably assemble – rights guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – was assured. Instead those officials chose to send the First Amendment down the toilet just as the City of Chicago had, years ago, sent the Second Amendment down the toilet.Had there been an adequate police contingent at the auditorium on that Friday night, the police would certainly have been able to vet those individuals who sought attendance at the event, permitting entry only to those who honestly and sincerely wished to hear what one candidate for President of the United States had to say, and turning away those who sought to prevent the candidate from exercising his guaranteed freedom of speech and voicing his beliefs, his views, his policies and in his typical blunt, candid manner. And, in their desire to prevent an American citizen from exercising his right of free speech, those individuals who attended the political rally for the purpose of disrupting it showed their defiance of and contempt for the First Amendment, and, for some of those individuals, their obvious ignorance of the import and purport of the First Amendment.Make no mistake, the American people bore witness to a savage beating that took place the other night in Chicago, a beating abetted by both a complacent University administration and a treacherous news media. But, it wasn’t an individual who was harmed. It was the sanctity of the First Amendment itself that was savagely assaulted Friday night. Yet, that fact was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media either during the disturbance, nor at any time thereafter. Instead the mainstream media, at the behest of those interests that control it, have placed blame squarely and bizarrely on the candidate who was compelled to cancel the event and who was thereby silenced! The First Amendment freedom of speech died that night and without a whisper of its death.The mainstream media – the press – mentions the First Amendment in passing but never takes the First Amendment to heart. The press has lost its focus and direction, its purpose. It sensationalizes rather than enlightens. It seeks merely to sell a product, a commodity, rather than to inform and educate the American public.The mainstream media further denigrates the freedom of speech, guaranteed under the First Amendment, by demanding that the candidate apologize for the disturbance. Really? To whom and for what ought the candidate apologize?The First Amendment provides for and guarantees the right of every American to speak his or her mind, even if the ideas expressed are unpalatable, even repugnant to some individuals. Certainly, the public has a right to hear from a candidate, who seeks the highest Office in the Land, that candidate’s views on those topics and matters impacting all Americans. And each American may choose to hear, or not, what that candidate has to say. But no candidate should be silenced on the ground that some people do not like what the candidate has to say.There are mechanisms for peaceful protest. But, no person is permitted, in our Democracy, under our First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble, to shut out the voice of another person with whom one happens to take exception. To understand  Americans’ First Amendment guarantees is to appreciate the benefit it serves in a Democratic society and free Republic. For those few among us who do not appreciate the First Amendment, they should view it as the obligatory cost of living in a Democratic society and free Republic; and, if they are not content with that, such individuals ought to leave the Country.Of late we see our institution of higher education – an institution that should welcome diverse expression of thought – becoming decidedly intolerant, inhospitable to any view that is deemed inconsistent with a particular bland norm. That intolerance, that pretentious, impertinent, pious regard for the irrefutability of one’s own set of beliefs and values is now spilling over and into the political arena. Certainly, the American public has the right under the First Amendment to hear, unfiltered and unmediated, the thoughts of those individuals who seek to secure the highest Office of the Land.No candidate for public Office should be ostracized and denigrated simply because some individuals think that person’s views extend beyond the pale. No candidate should ever be silenced. The American public has the right to hear all viewpoints, to hear all sides of a debate. The First Amendment dies when the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, is shattered because some people don’t like the message recited and personally abhor the manner of recitation. Odd it is that the press – our press – that should be the first to recognize and defend the freedom of speech – becomes, instead, the voice of oppression that would gag free speech. Is the press – colloquially and affectionately referred to, in times past, as the “fourth estate” – not now, less an independent and necessary institution of a democratic society and free Republic, and more reminiscent of and, in fact, reduced merely to a tool of government – a tool of oppression that one witnesses in despotic nations?How is it, then, that we see our First Amendment guarantees crumbling before us? The public must understand: the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee does not guard against offending one. It was not designed to do so. It was never designed to do so. An adult should not be so easily offended anyway. And the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the freedom of speech clause has such parameters carefully woven around it, to protect the sensibilities of peculiarly sensitive souls. The American public ought to be made of sterner stuff.The mainstream media, instead of supporting a candidate’s right to speak freely, in accordance with the First Amendment guarantee, has the temerity to denigrate America’s fundamental First Amendment right of free speech. And, what does the mainstream media – the press – suggest a candidate for the highest Office in the land ought acquiesce to? Just this: timidity, banality, sophistry, careful modulation in thought and speech lest this or that sensitive or ignorant soul be offended. Nonsense!The American people are not supposed to think too deeply lest they begin to see what roils beneath the surface; lest they see through the vapidity of the puppet masters’ “talking heads;” lest they come to recognize the cupidity and ruthlessness of the creatures who seek to destroy the sanctity of the individual; lest they become aware that their Constitution is becoming no more than a curious relic of a by-gone age; lest they come to realize the loss of a free Republic, through the loss of the Bill of Rights; and lest they come face-to-face with the very real possibility of annihilation of a once great sovereign Nation State.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

FBI vs. APPLE: Surrender Privacy for Security?

The Fourth Amendment Deserves No Less Respect And Protection From Government Encroachment On A Sacred Right And Liberty Than Does The Second Amendment

The U.S. Constitution Constrains, And Was Meant To Constrain, Power Grabs By The Federal Government

A sovereign nation cannot long prevail among other sovereign nations without a central government. This is axiomatic. The founders of our Republic certainly knew this. But the founders of our Republic also knew that a nation’s central government is invariably at odds with individual liberty. A natural tension exists between government on the one hand and the rights and liberties of the citizenry, on the other. The Constitution the founders drafted for the American people is indicative of and serves, at once, as recognition of the conundrum our founders faced: that a strong central government is incompatible with individual liberty. A strong central government would eventually destroy individual liberty by amassing power unto itself at the expense of individual liberty unless a nation’s constitution places express curbs on such accumulation of power and unless the citizenry of a nation remains ever vigilant that those curbs are stringently adhered to.The founders of our Nation dealt with the conundrum by creating a Constitution that embraces three fail safe devices. The founders hoped and trusted that these three fail safe devices would operate as an effective counterforce against the destructive impulses of government to acquire ever more power for itself and, in so doing, reduce, or end altogether, the exercise of individual rights and liberties. The three fail safe devices are: one, a three branch system of government; two, clear delineation of and demarcation of the powers each branch is permitted, lawfully, to hold and wield; and three, a Bill of Rights. The three branch system of government precludes outright concentration of legislative, executive, and judicial functions in any one person or group of people. Each branch serves to check the power of the other two branches. This is what is meant by the phrase “checks and balances.” The “Separation of Powers” doctrine is also a feature of our three branch system of Government. The “Separation of Powers” means that each branch of our central – federal – Government has its own distinct function with no overlap or, at worst, with very minimal overlap.The delineation of powers each branch wields prohibits both the amassing of additional powers by that branch of Government and the encroachment of one branch of Government on the purview of the other. Each branch of Government has, then, through the exercise of a specific function, a limited set of powers. If the Constitution does not prescribe a specific power for that branch of Government, such power cannot be lawfully exercised by that branch.Lastly, the Bill of Rights secures for the people not only specific enumerated rights and liberties but reserves to the people unenumerated rights as well. The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And, the Tenth Amendment provides that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”The powers of our central – federal – Government are, then, limited, since the Constitution sets forth the powers each branch of Government may wield, consistent with the primary function of each branch. The powers residing in the States and in the people, on the other hand, are essentially open-ended. Moreover, the rights and liberties of the people are unbounded as they include both specific, especial enumerated rights and liberties and unenumerated rights and liberties. Importantly, the rights and liberties of the people, as codified in the Bill of Rights do not stem from the federal Government. They are neither a privilege bestowed by Government onto the people; nor are they a license issued by Government to the people. The rights and liberties are considered by the founders of our Republic to be preexistent in the people. The rights and liberties of the American people are neither created by government nor fashioned by the founders. The Bill of Rights simply codifies natural rights and liberties that are part of humanity that our federal Government – unlike the central governments of most other nations – are required, under our Constitution to respect.Our Bill of Rights is, in essence, a codification of and assertion of the fundamental rights and liberties preexistent in the people. That fact is clear from the context of the U.S. Constitution. Since the federal Government is not the source of those rights and liberties, the federal Government cannot lawfully circumvent those rights and liberties. If the Government were to do so, the Nation, as a free Republic, as our founders intended, would cease to exist. If anything at all remained of our Nation, it would be but ornamental coverings, trappings. The Nation – our Nation – would be merely a dried husk, an empty shell.

OUR FOREFATHERS' FEAR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  MIGHT ONE DAY ENCROACH UPON THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS WELL-FOUNDED

The American people are aware, today, as the founders of our Republic had long ago feared that the Nation’s federal Government’s true and natural impulse – and that of many State Governments, as well, and often at the behest of the federal Government – is to encroach on the rights and liberties of the people. We see this as the federal Government slowly but insistently encroaches on and infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We are seeing State and local governments also encroaching on and infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The infringement of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, is, at once, noticed by the people. For, the American people either have access to firearms or they do not. They either exercise complete control over their firearms or they do not. The right to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, as with all rights and liberties, is intangible, but the expression of the right – possession and ownership of the firearm – is not. A firearm is a tangible, physical object. The loss of one’s firearms to government is immediately and emphatically felt by the gun owner.The loss of other rights, however, such as the loss of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” may not be immediately and emphatically felt because both the right and, in many instances, the expression of that right are both intangible. Yes, the seizure of one’s papers, or smart phone, or personal computer amounts to the capture of physical items. But, the content is what the government is really after and content is intangible. If government can “lift” that content without even obtaining the physical hardware, unlawful invasion of the privacy right in that content is lost. Loss of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” may not be recognized but it does exist and it is no less critical to the safeguarding of a free Republic than is the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”All of our rights and liberties, as codified in our Bill of Rights, are critical to our survival as a free Republic!

GOVERNMENT ATTACK ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

The Fourth Amendment right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is under attack by the federal Government – most noticeably and ominously since enactment of the Patriot Act. Recently, the FBI demanded that Apple Computer, Inc., -- maker of the iPhone -- unlock the encrypted data held in the iPhone of one, Syed Rizwam Farook.You may recall that Farook, an American citizen and Islamic jihadist, together with his wife, a foreign born, non-American Islamic jihadist, went on a murderous rampage, murdering 14 American citizens and injuring another 22 in San Bernardino, California. This occurred late last year. The Government has finally acknowledged that this incident amounts to an Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.The FBI has obtained Farook’s iPhone but, the content is encrypted. The FBI has said that, despite several attempts, it has been unable to unlock the phone to obtain access to the content. The FBI has therefore enlisted the aid of Apple to assist the FBI in its efforts but complains that Apple has been uncooperative. In a lawsuit filed against Apple the Government contends, as reported in mainstream newspapers, that Apple refuses to assist the FBI in unlocking the content of the iPhone. The implication is that, through its failure to comply with the FBI’s order, Apple Computer is deliberately preventing the federal Government from performing a basic function on behalf of the American people, as expressed in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . provide for the common defence . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Is this simply an instance of a major computer company inappropriately and inexplicably refusing to assist the federal Government in the Government’s efforts to provide for the common defence of the Nation as the mainstream media, on behalf of the FBI, asserts, or is there more to this?The federal Government, through its docile and compliant servant, the mainstream media, has certainly sought to create the impression that Apple Computer’s actions are unlawful and even unpatriotic because Apple is thwarting the Government’s legitimate attempt to fight terrorism on behalf of the American people. But Apple Computer takes strong exception to the charge. In an open letter posted on the internet, Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer of Apple, sought to exemplify and clarify the issues, saying in principal part:“For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.”Tim Cook, on behalf of the Company, claims that the Company has cooperated with the FBI in the past and desires to continue to do so. But, according to Tim Cook, the FBI is demanding of Apple something much more ambitious than the FBI would wish for the American public to know – and something clearly dangerous to preservation of individual rights and liberty. According to Tim Cook, the FBI is ordering Apple not merely to assist it in unlocking the contents of one iPhone – that of the dead Islamic terrorist – but to develop a new operating system that, once designed and installed in all iPhones would allow the FBI to gain access to encrypted data from every iPhone the Company produces. If Tim Cook’s account of the matter is true, then the Government is demanding that Apple create – in common parlance – a backdoor key. This key would enable the federal Government to peruse, at will, the content of every iPhone that Apple manufactures. Encryption, then, can be easily defeated. If encryption can be easily defeated, then the very import of encryption ceases to exist and no iPhone is secure.Millions of people, both in this Country and worldwide, use iPhones for work and business. Apple’s customers rely on Apple to provide them with security that is impenetrable to anyone other than the owner of the phone. Apparently, Apple has been very successful on that score. But, if the FBI is requiring Apple Computer to compromise the security of every iPhone it makes – although superficially claiming interest in obtaining data from only one iPhone – then the FBI’s ambitions are far-reaching and truly ominous. The FBI is treading uncomfortably on the Fourth Amendment.To say the FBI can be trusted to use a backdoor key sparingly, wisely and consistent with our system of laws and with the U.S. Constitution, strains credulity and is naïve in the extreme, especially in light of the FBI’s past mistakes. Moreover, as Apple has pointed out, and as computer engineers from other firms concur, the creation of an iOS that bypasses security invites hacking by criminal gangs and foreign governments.It is difficult enough today for the average person and businessperson to protect his or her computer devices from the myriad viruses, worms, spybots, ransomware, and other assorted malware that daily infect computers. This has become a disturbing fact of life. Customers who spend hard-earned money on a particular smart phone, tablet, PC, and on other computer devices depend on the reputation and integrity of the manufacturer to provide the customer with a reliable device and a secure device. That the FBI would require – as Apple Computer contends – a computer device maker to compromise the integrity of all of its iPhones, not only encroaches on the Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy interest but is also harmful to Apple’s business.The FBI has, apparently, nothing to say, about protection of the public’s Fourth Amendment privacy right, but has much to say about the idea that Apple Computer’s real interest in this matter extends merely to business concerns and maintaining its Market share. The mainstream media, on behalf of the Government, has pressed the FBI’s accusation, in lengthy news reports and commentary, pointedly attacking Apple, arguing that Apple’s reluctance to give the FBI what it wants – a backdoor key – is predicated on shallow business concerns. Even so, protection of free market capitalism is not to be construed as an improper, if unstated, motive of Apple; for our economic system, predicated on free market capitalism, is a bulwark of our free Republic. Moreover, even if – as the FBI asserts, and, as the mainstream media echoes on its behalf, and, as the public may reasonably infer and concede – Apple Computer is more interested in preserving its market share, that it fails to assert, than in protecting, as it overtly states, the iPhone user’s privacy and security – consistent with “the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” – the fact that the Fourth Amendment is implicated at all is enough to warrant the American public’s grave concern in what the FBI demands of Apple. Thus, Apple’s underlying business motive in the case at bar is at most a tangential issue here, designed to divert the public’s attention away from the federal Government’s penultimate goal of creating “the surveillance society” as a conjunct of America’s “Police State.” If, in fact, as Tim Cook says, the FBI is demanding a backdoor key to unlock encrypted content on every apple iPhone, then the federal Government is in the process of undertaking a frontal assault on Americans’ Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” because the sanctity of and security of sensitive personal and business data would be placed in jeopardy if Apple Computer is ultimately compelled to create a backdoor key for the FBI. Apple’s iPhones would be open to continuous unlawful federal government surveillance and to breaches by foreign governments and criminal organizations as well. Of that, there can be no doubt. One’s ability to confidently and securely protect his or her private communications and sensitive data from prying government eyes and from the nefarious actions of criminal organizations would inevitably be severely weakened.Of course, the federal Government has been attempting for some time now to compel all computer companies to provide the government with backdoor keys to enable Government to unlock, as it wishes, encrypted content held in every American’s computer devices.So, we must ask: is the federal Government, disingenuously, insidiously, even arrogantly, using the Farook episode to garner public support for further unlawful Government intrusion into the private lives of Americans, under the guise of providing for the common defence of the Nation, but contrary to the precept of the Fourth Amendment? If so, this is not something new. The public has seen this before. For the same technique has been used by antigun groups as well when seeking to garner public support for legislation to weaken the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Then, as now, the mainstream media willingly trumpets the call of those forces that seek to upend the Bill of Rights. The antigun groups jump on one horrific incident of gun violence, perpetrated by one or a few lunatics, or criminals, or Islamic jihadists and, through that one, particular incident, coax the public to support measures that further weaken and eventually curtail the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Of course curtailment of a fundamental right and basic liberty is presented to the public, not as a loss but as a benefit, namely that, for the good of society – the collective, the masses – an American must surrender his or her firearms. If you do not buy into that – and know sane, rational American should – you should not buy into the argument proffered by the FBI that, for the good of society, you must allow Government to pry into your sensitive private data – into your personal and business life – and trust that the Government will use good judgment and refrain from doing so except when necessary “to provide for the common defence” of the Nation.

NOTHING LESS THAN THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF AMERICANS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE AT STAKE

Americans should never for one moment doubt that Government will, if the public is not continually astute and vigilant, undermine the rights and liberties of the American people. The federal Government is continually pressing the public to relinquish its rights and liberties for such security the federal Government says it can and will provide Americans in the alternative. Americans have seen before where this has gone and they know where this is headed. Nothing good can come of it.The federal Government wishes to know what Americans are thinking. It wishes to control Americans’ thoughts and will do so by gaining entry to their secrets in derogation of the Fourth Amendment, just as it seeks to control Americans’ speech, in derogation of the First Amendment, and as it intends to control Americans’ access to firearms, in derogation of the Second Amendment. All of this is done under the guise of providing for the common defence of the Nation. But, the Nation suffers all the same as Government power increases commensurately with a decrease in the rights and liberties of the American people. What is occurring today in America is demonstrative of the founders’ greatest fear: that Government would turn on the people. As the doctrine of the separation of powers collapses, as the parameters of Government exercise of power extends, and as the rights and liberties of the American people continues to erode, the continued existence of our Nation as a free Republic begins to crumble.Congressional Republicans and Democrats who play along with the carefully orchestrated charade and pretense of providing for the common defence of the Nation are not doing Americans a service. They should be protecting Americans rights and liberties. They are not. Instead, they are actively, insidiously, at work destroying those very rights and liberties, in defiance of and contemptuous of the oath of Office they have taken. They are a disgrace to this Nation and to its People.The web blog, Salon, had an interesting point to make about Governmental lust for power, desire for control over the citizenry, and its attack on the Fourth Amendment, when it stated the other day:“Security officials keep the public focus on the limits of surveillance rather than on its excesses; at the very same time, the frequent exposure of new surveillance capacities perversely functions to normalize those excesses. If widespread surveillance is ordinary, it cannot be shocking. Instead, the anomaly becomes whatever surveillance capability lies just beyond law enforcement’s capability or authorization.”If Americans are to place their faith in something of value, that faith should rest first and foremost in the Bill of Rights. Americans’ faith will be ill-spent if that faith is placed solely in institutions of Government; in the empty words of politicians; in the propaganda spouted through the mainstream media on behalf of Government and on behalf of groups bent on destroying the Bill of Rights; in the operations of Government intelligence agencies and federal police forces who claim to provide for the common defence of the Nation, at the expense of the rights and liberties of the American people. Government, after all, does not have a vested interest in preserving Americans’ rights and liberties. It never does. The primary interest of our federal Government – indeed, of all central governments is acquisition of power for itself. If the Bill of Rights is to remain tenable, if it is to exist as something more than a mere but empty expression of the sanctity of the individual, the public must be cognizant of the natural tension that exists between a strong central government and the rights and liberties of the citizenry. If the citizenry willingly accedes to the loss of their rights and liberties, what truly remains of the Nation? Security proffered by Government? But security – real security – of the Nation – for our Nation – truly rests in the rights and liberties of the people as codified and sanctified for the people by the founders of the Nation in our Bill of Rights. CONCLUSIONIf you are harboring any second thoughts about the sanctity of and importance of your Fourth Amendment privacy rights, or about the critical importance of the Bill of Rights to our Nation’s survival as a free Republic, generally, consider where the greater threat to your rights and liberties reside: Islamic terrorists threatening our shores or a central, federal Government that hungrily amasses for itself ever more power, ostensibly for our benefit if we would be ever so kind to allow the Bill of Rights to fall by the wayside?We invite reader comment on this article.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE ANTIGUN MOVEMENT

The ultimate goal of the antigun movement is this: the universal elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and possession. This is true and incontrovertible. Everything the antigun movement does is directed to the attainment of that goal. Nothing the antigun movement does diverges from the path to that goal. When asked to admit the truth of the assertion, the antigun movement, and its sounding board, the mainstream corporate media, will deny it, curtly and vehemently. But, the antigun movement’s actions belie its blunt denial.Realization of the movement’s goal amounts to de facto repeal of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms – a right expressed clearly and cogently, succinctly and indelibly, in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, if there exist any residual doubt as to the import of that right, the U.S. Supreme Court laid such doubt to rest in the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions.In Heller the Supreme Court held: “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” This right, the high Court maintains, operates as a constraint on the federal government. The question subsequently arose, in McDonald, whether the Heller holding applies to the States as well. The high Court held that it did, asserting, clearly, categorically, unequivocally, “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”Still, the antigun organizations, and many lower courts amenable to their views, resist Heller and McDonald, and continue to advance strategies altogether inconsistent with the High Court’s holdings. The arguments – actually rationalizations – for more and more restrictive gun measures may be distilled to the following: one, no one needs a gun because the police will protect you; two, curtailing civilian gun ownership precludes gun violence and gun accidents; three, civilized people don’t want guns and are repulsed by them; four, since no one can know who, among the population, will go off “half-cocked” – presenting a danger to self or others – it is best to curtail civilian gun ownership and possession; and, five, the Second Amendment is obsolete; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. shouldn’t either. These five arguments are a ragbag of elements gleaned from utilitarian ethics, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, and even aesthetics. But they all embrace one central tenet: governmental control of the American public.The antigun movement does not recognize the sanctity and autonomy of the individual, which is the linchpin of the Bill of Rights. Rather, the antigun movement sees each individual American as a random bit of unharmonious energy, running hither and yon – an individual who is likely to harm self or others unless appropriately constrained for his or her own good and for the good of the greater society. A firearm in the hands of a civilian lessens government’s ability to control that individual. Ergo, the government must keep the two – firearm and individual – separated. What NRA works to keep conjoined, antigun groups wish to sever and keep disjoined.As the antigun movement works incessantly, inexorably toward its ultimate goal, the movement invariably butts up against the NRA, which the movement routinely and pejoratively refers to as the “gun lobby.” But, the antigun movement refrains from referring to itself as the “antigun lobby.” Now, lobbying activities are protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and NRA is open about its lobbying efforts on behalf of its millions of members. Yet the antigun movement cloak’s its own lobbying activities and blatantly panders to the U.S. President. President Obama, for his part, has not shied away from using the power of his Office to further the agenda of the antigun movement through issuance of executive actions, and he has formally announced, in January of 2016, his intention to do so.Now, Congress, under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, has sole authority to make law. The question is whether Obama’s antigun measures operate within the framework of existing Congressional firearms laws, as he claims, or operate beyond the boundaries of existing law. That Congress might obtain some resolution of that question, U.S. Senator Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., Chairman of the Subcommittee On Commerce, Justice and Science, requested Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appear at a hearing, held on January 20, 2016, to discuss the President’s recent executive actions.Senator Shelby made abundantly clear that the President does not have the authority to tell Congress what it must do. But the President has done just that, using the mechanism of executive directives, crafted by the Attorney General, herself, to conduct an “end-run” around Congress. The President isn’t asking Congress and the American people for permission to do what he wants to do. He is telling Congress and the American people what he’s going to do and cajoling both Congress and the American people to get on board with his game plan. That is extreme hubris.If the antigun movement is able to harness the Office of the President to craft its own laws to further a personal agenda, in defiance of both Congressional legislation and U.S. Supreme Court decision, then the Constitution is belittled and the Republic is endangered.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEBATE THAT WASN’T

On December 19, 2015, on Saturday night, the week before Christmas, when vast numbers of Americans are out and about, the Democratic Party held its last “debate” of the year, hosted by ABC News. If you missed it, you weren’t alone. The Democratic Party bigwigs obviously don’t want Americans to see it – hence, the reason for holding it on a weekend night, and the New York Times didn’t even bother to report on it. Take a look at the Sunday, December 20, 2015, print edition of the NY Times; you will find nothing about it.The “debate,” which took place in what appeared to be a small lecture hall at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, was filled with a handful of the Party faithful. Hillary Clinton, grinning, as always, but not smiling, looked as if she would rather be somewhere else. She did her best, as always, to avoid answering pointed questions. Her responses invariably carried the message: if I am elected your President, you can rely on me! Two of the salient issues covered during this debate concerned the continuing threat posed by Islamic extremism, and, one of the Democratic Party’s favorite subject: gun control.So, where does Clinton stand on threats to the Nation posed by Islamic extremists and on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms in their own defense? Since Clinton has a lock on the Democratic Party, her responses to last night’s debate, give some clue of what a Clinton Presidency would look like.The ABC news moderator, David Muir, established the setting for the first set of questions, directed to Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley. They concerned the San Bernardino incident. As Muir pointed out, that incident, is deemed to be an act of terrorism, as acknowledged by Obama, who had said, dubiously, just before Thanksgiving, that there was no credible intelligence, indicating a plot on America. Muir pointed out that the couple who had committed the act of terrorism on U.S. soil had assembled an arsenal, were not on law enforcement’s radar, were completely undetected by intelligence and yet, for all that, just before Christmas, Obama is again telling the American people that no credible terrorist threat exists against America. That remark is inconsistent with the reality of the fact of an Islamic terrorist attack on our land. Therefore Obama’s remarks are altogether inexplicable.Muir asked Clinton to respond to how confident Americans should be, in spite of, or, perhaps, precisely, because of Obama’s remarks, that there aren’t other such couples in the U.S. who are as yet going undetected, and how Clinton would go about finding them. Clinton responded as she usually does, by evading the question and interjecting empty feel-good pronouncements. She said that her job is to keep America safe and to keep the families of America safe and that she has a plan to go after the Islamic State. That, of course, is all well and good. But, what would she actually do to keep Americans safe in this Country? She said only that she would work with Muslims in this Country who would be “our early warning system” and that she would rely on them to learn what they are doing about dealing with the radicalization of Muslims.Clinton intimated that technology companies must work with government. What she meant by that, as she clarified her remarks, later in the debate, is that technology companies must be willing to give up their encryption keys to government. This of course weakens our Fourth Amendment right to privacy and opens Americans’ computers to hackers both here in this Country and abroad.Martha Raddatz, the second ABC news moderator, pointed out to Clinton that, in the wake of the San Bernardino attack, Clinton has emphasized gun control but that in recent ABC poll most Americans now feel that arming themselves, rather than stricter gun laws is the best defense against acts of terrorism. Raddatz pointedly asked Clinton, “are they wrong?” Clinton responded, with her wry smile, that you have to look at the role that terrorism plays at home and abroad, “and the role that guns play in delivering the violence that stalks us.” Clinton then went off on a tangent talking about the need to build a coalition at home and abroad to take on the "Islamic State."Raddatz then brought Clinton back to the question at hand, asking Clinton, “can we stick to the question about gun control? Clinton responded: “Guns in and of themselves, in my opinion, will not make Americans safer. Arming more people . . . I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism.” Applause from the peanut gallery. “I think what is, is creating much deeper, closer relations, and, yes, coalitions, within our own Country. The first line of defense against radicalization, according to Clinton, is in the American Muslim community. People we should be welcoming and working with.” Clinton then goes into a diatribe against the Republican Party generally and Donald Trump in particular. Clinton begs the question when she says that the Republicans are sending the wrong message that there is a clash of civilizations. Perhaps, there is just that: a clash of civilizations. Certainly, from the standpoint of Islamic State, there is a clash of civilizations. And, we would do well to consider the problem posed by Islamic State as just that serious. Clinton ends her response, with this: “guns have to be looked at as their own problem, but we also have to look at how we are going to deal with radicalization here in the United States.”Guns, in the minds of both Clinton and Obama are seen as a broader problem that encapsulates terrorism. Thus, Clinton speaks of the San Bernardino attack on innocent Americans, not as an act of Islamic terrorism but, rather, as a gun issue. The killers are described as “shooters,” not “terrorists.” Thus, Clinton places emphasis on the weapon used in the attack, rather than emphasizing the reason for the attack. She therefore places Americans in danger of further attack by Islamic radicals, for she absolutely refuses to consider that more armed Americans would best forestall such attacks.  And, there you have it. Clinton says, not only that guns serve no purpose as tenable means of self-defense, but that they present their own “problem.” And, as for Islamist radicalization, her answer to lone-wolf acts of terrorism is that Americans should simply rely on the Muslim community, who harbor them, to turn them in to the authorities.What can Americans expect from a Clinton Presidency? Just this: one, further erosion of the Fourth Amendment right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; two, erosion of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, out of fear of retribution from Islamic extremists and to spread the gospel of “political correctness;” and, three, destruction of the Second Amendment because ownership and possession of firearms in this Country is to be perceived not as a fundamental right but simply as a problem.We have a question for each of the candidates from either party: “If you were given carte blanc, to rewrite any one or more Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, would you desire to do so? And, if so, how would each of the Amendments, that happen to remain, if any, read? We would especially like to see Clinton’s honest response to that[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CLINTON CLAMORS, ALL GUNS MUST GO!

The current leading Democratic Party contender for the U.S. Presidency in 2016, Hillary Clinton, who equivocates on most issues, has no qualms about letting the American public know precisely where she stands on the matter of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country. On that issue she speaks with self-assurance, even arrogance, expecting the public to accept her false, illogical pronouncements about guns and gun violence as self-evident truths, requiring neither legal analysis or logical validity, nor accurate statistical evidentiary support.Case in point: during a town hall meeting, held on a College Campus in Keene, New Hampshire, in October of this year, Clinton responded to a question posed by an elderly man from the audience who, apparently referring to the 1996 Australian Government gun confiscation program of which he was aware, asked, beseechingly, whether we could do that here and if not why not. Clinton clearly relished the question. In response she remarked that Canada, the UK, and Australia have all implemented national “gun buyback” programs. Remarking further on Australia’s 1996 massive gun buyback program, Clinton asserted, in her typical preachy, irritating way, that the Australian Government offered to purchase hundreds of thousands of “automatic weapons” at “a good price” and that the Government then “clamped down [on gun purchases] going forward.”The Government’s “gun buyback” program to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the Australian populace was hardly voluntary. It was a carefully orchestrated compulsory, gun confiscation scheme, concocted by the Government, ostensibly in response to a lunatic’s April 28, 1996 shooting of 35 tourists in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Yet, Clinton deviously intimates that this clearly coercive 1996 Government “gun buyback” program was, in some sense, truly voluntary, since, according to Clinton, the Government offered to give to Australian gun owners a “good price” for their weapons. But, it stretches credulity to believe that hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens would voluntarily surrender to their Government for wasteful destruction, well over 600,000 perfectly functional firearms, even if one accepts at face value Clinton’s disingenuous remark that the Australian populace was actually getting a “good price” for them.Of note, Clinton didn’t bother to elaborate on what specific “automatic” weapons were surrendered to the Government authorities; nor did she bother to elaborate on the specific “good price” each Australian happened to receive for his or her weapon or weapons. Indeed, how would Clinton know the price any Australian received for a particular weapon? And, if the price were unknown, then it would be patently ridiculous to assert that Australians received a “good price” for those weapons.Indeed, Australians, who were compelled to surrender their weapons, may not feel that the Australian Government gave them a “good price” for their weapons. More to the point, one might stop to consider that, to the typical Australian gun owner, who thought it important enough to purchase and possess a firearm in the first place, no price is a good price for a weapon that had to be forfeited to the Government. For, once forfeited, Australians knew that they would never again be able, lawfully, to obtain suitable replacement firearms.Of course, no one at the New Hampshire Town Hall meeting bothered to weigh-in on these matters. And Clinton, for her part, did not trouble herself to offer argument in support of her statements, relying only on bald assertions, lest she defeat the poignancy of her rhetoric. And, this is the most aggravating thing about Clinton, even if one is drawn to her at all. She treats her adult, target audience as if she were speaking to grade school children. In her remarks to the public she routinely tends toward gross exaggeration, conflation, pontification, embellishment, evasion, falsehoods, over-generalizations, over-simplifications and outright lies. If one tries to pin her down, she refuses to respond, flamboyantly throwing her hands up in disgust.Clinton’s goal is securing the Oval Office, whatever the cost. Doing so would be the culmination of her quest for self-aggrandizement. In pursuit of that goal she forever engages in shameless self-promotion. Everything she says is carefully orchestrated for emotional effect, not for intellectual clarity. A Town Hall meeting is not, apparently, the place where the American public is expected to pose hard, well composed questions to this Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States; nor should the public expect detailed, cogent, intelligent answers. Clinton doesn’t relish a lively, frank, intelligent debate before the public – ever!Continuing to address the matter of “gun buyback” programs, at the Town Hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton said that communities in this Country have implemented such programs. She added that she would like to see a gun buyback program instituted on a national level, asserting, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. . . . I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your [the audience member’s point] is worth looking at.” And, in those candid declarations rest a critical slip-up to Clinton’s otherwise carefully framed, calibrated remarks concerning her policy position on gun ownership and possession in the U.S. For, as an attorney, Clinton must know that a coercive “gun buyback” program, on a national level, is patently illegal. Congress would never oblige. And, even if she, as U.S. President, would dare, through an illegal executive order, to implement such a vast gun forfeiture scheme, she must know that the result could invite insurrection. Perhaps that is why Clinton added, somewhat obliquely and lamely – although the damage had already been done – that she didn’t know how such a massive undertaking could be instituted here in the U.S., for the mechanism of a gun buyback is surely simple enough. Just ask the Australian Government. But, in the U.S., it is the public’s response to such a program that would be particularly problematic to Clinton and to other antigun proponents, both in this Country and abroad, who wish to dispossess Americans of their firearms. Clinton is evidently suggesting that she doesn’t know how she could get the majority of law-abiding American gun-owners to acquiesce to a quiet coup d’état by the Federal Government; for a massive gun confiscation scheme is exactly that: a takeover of the Federal Government from the People.The mainstream news media – apparently, and rightfully, concerned that members of the public who do not share Clinton’s views on gun ownership and possession – namely, the vast majority of us – might object to the idea of a massive gun forfeiture scheme carried out on the national stage – created a news blackout of her remarks, lest the American public find a Hillary Clinton Presidency too repugnant to even contemplate. The mainstream news media obviously realized -- even if Clinton, herself, did not immediately realize the serious ramifications of her blunder -- that a federal government seizure of millions of firearms from the hands of the American public means nothing less than the seizure of government from the People! Such an undertaking is unforgivable. It is legally and ethically indefensible even if seemingly tenable to an irrational antigun crowd, unable to truly appreciate what it would presage for Americans’ rights and liberties, and even if desirable to a predacious, calculating and scheming cabal of international socialists who would like very much to see the United States Constitution discarded and a Free Republic dismantled.Under our Constitution a national, coercive gun confiscation program is patently illegal, and rightly so. Such coercive confiscation programs that have taken place in Australia and in other commonwealth nations are only possible given those Countries' history. If one can appreciate the critical differences between Australia and the U.S., one can truly appreciate how outrageous – even insulting to the American public – Hillary Clinton’s emulation of the Australian Government’s coercive 1996 gun buyback program truly is.So, let us for a moment consider Australia’s history and compare it to our own. For, one must consider the context in which a massive gun confiscation program might occur that would make it feasible and legal in one Western Country, but not in another. It is legally defensible and feasible in Australia. It is not legally defensible here in the U.S., even if it were feasible, and it isn’t. Australia’s history as a Nation is wholly unlike that of our own. And the Constitutions of Australia and the U.S. are notably quite different.Before the American Revolutionary War, the United States was not a sovereign Nation. The “United States,” as such, did not exist. The Country was simply a loose collection of colonies – thirteen of them – dependent upon Great Britain. And it was Great Britain that exerted its sovereignty over these thirteen colonies. It took a war against Great Britain to completely sever that dependency. Unlike the United States, Australia, like Canada, never fought a war of independence from Great Britain. As an ex-commonwealth Nation, Australia, unlike the U.S., is still, in a real sense, a subject State of Great Britain. In fact Australia is described as an “autonomous” Constitutional Monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning Monarch of Great Britain, is also Queen of Australia. She is not Queen of the United States. Moreover, Great Britain has a deeply entrenched class structure – consisting of the royalty and nobility at one end, and the commonalty on the other. A rigid class structure that is a mainstay of Great Britain’s history sees expression in Australia’s Constitution. The royalty and nobility do not trust the commonalty – the “ordinary people” – to keep and bear arms. This mindset exists in the Government of Australia. It is a carry-over of a time when Australia was a commonwealth of Great Britain.Consider, too, the framework of Australia’s Government in comparison to our own. Our Legislative Branch consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The Legislative Branch of Australia’s Government – the Parliament – consists of, one, the House of Representatives, two, the Senate, and, three, and most extraordinarily, the Queen, who is represented in Australia by a Governor-General.Certain members of Australia’s Parliament – its ministers – also function as members of the Executive. Thus, the British Queen not only has influence over Australia’s national government, she has both a law-making function in Australia and an executive function, the latter of which sees that her laws are carried out. In the U.S., which our founders created as a Free Republic, the Queen of England has no place in the Legislature Branch or in the Executive Branch of our Government. Just imagine if she did!So it is that Australia’s Constitution is framed as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, not in its People, who are treated more like subjects of “the Crown,” and less like citizens in their own right. Our Constitution, unlike that of Australia, is framed as one of rights and liberties preexistent in the People. And “We the People” are not subjects of the State, much less of a monarchy. The powers of our federal government are expressly limited and such powers that the federal government does have exist only by grace of the People, in whose hands true and ultimate power alone rests. But, since Australia’s Constitution is framed, in the first instance, as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, rather than as rights and liberties preexistent in the People, such rights and liberties that Australians might have are not preeminent. In fact, Australia’s Constitution does not speak of rights and liberties of the People at all. Try as you may you will find Australia’s Constitution devoid of a Bill of Rights, which means that, in Australia, there are no rights preexistent in the People and, therefore, no rights existent in the People, independently of a Government maxim that extends particular rights and liberties to the People. Properly speaking, Australians are not “citizens” at all. They are subjects of "the Crown." Thus, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a gun confiscation program, on an order of magnitude that took place in Australia in 1996 – and others that have taken place in that Country in the past and more that may take place in the future – are an anathema here. Clinton’s off-the-cuff remark, if effectuated, would be tantamount to an illegal usurpation of power by the federal government from the American People.What, specifically, precludes a national gun confiscation program from occurring in this Country that took place in Australia is established in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution: “We the People.” The primacy of “We the People” over the federal government is particularly efficacious precisely because of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Secondarily, the primacy of “We the People” is protected through a system of checks and balances within the federal government itself, as established in the Articles. But, it is the very existence of the Second Amendment, as a codification of a natural and inalienable right of the American People to keep and bear arms – "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" – that precludes confiscation of guns from the hands of the People.The assertion of that right, etched in stone, serves two purposes. It serves, one, as an emphatic reminder to those who serve the People – the Congress, the Executive and its bureaucrats, and the Judiciary – that together comprise the federal government – that the sovereignty of this Nation rests in, with, and upon “We the People.” The American People will suffer no rule under any other nation or under any trans-national or international ruling body; nor will they be subordinate to the federal government. And, the assertion of that right in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution serves, two, as a constant reminder to those elected to serve the American People and to those appointed or hired as functionaries to serve the American People that ultimate power rests in, with, and upon the People and that those limited powers the People have granted to the federal government are for no purpose other than to serve the People. The American People reserve to and for themselves alone, the absolute power to revoke any and all federal government powers if or when that government ever subverts the Will of the American People.In light of these facts it is exceedingly odd, even perverse, that the leading Democratic Party candidate for President in 2016, Hillary Clinton – who graduated from an elite law school in the United States – would dare emulate Australia’s gun buyback, confiscation program and that she would assert how much she would like to see a national gun “buyback” program played out in this Country since such an undertaking is patently illegal under our Constitution. In the assertion Clinton dares to express her blatant contempt for the American People.But there is more. Apart from the legal constraints, precluding a massive, coercive national gun confiscation program, there is another matter to consider. It is one that is rarely if ever discussed. It is the ethical theory upon which massive, coercive gun confiscation programs are grounded. The Australian Government argues, at least tacitly, that gun confiscation programs maximize “the good” for society, for “the Collective.” But, “the good” referred to here has nothing to do with crime reduction. It has everything to do with maximizing control over the citizenry, over the commonalty. This ethical theory is called utilitarianism. It is based on the notion that “the good” equals what is best for society, that is to say, what has “maximum utility” for society as a whole. But who decides what “the good” for society is? In Australia, it is the Government that decides. Moreover, whatever “the good” for society – for “the Collective” – is or is presumed to be, will, most likely, not be good for the individual in that society. And, therein lies the root problem with utilitarianism. The drafters of our Constitution did not subscribe to utilitarianism. Our Constitution, framed on the idea of limited government and on a Bill of Rights, incorporating the right of the People to keep and bear arms – a right that shall not be infringed – clearly expresses the sanctity and autonomy of the individual over the collective “good” of society. Ethics in this Country, as manifested in our Bill of Rights, is grounded on what is “morally right,” not on what maximizes utility (“the good”) for the collective. Ethical theories that are based on the notion of what is morally right are known as deontological theories, in philosophy. The two ethical theories, utilitarianism and deontology, are mutually exclusive; for, what is morally right and in the best interests of the individual in society is antithetical to what may happen to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, for “the Collective.” No better example of the conflict of the two ethical theories exists than that illustrated by massive, coercive gun confiscation programs, such as those created and implemented by Australia’s Government, on the national stage.Taking away the guns of the citizenry will enhance a government’s control over its citizenry. Enhancing government control, as perceived by the antigun crowd and by international socialists, equates with maximizing “the good,” maximizing “utility” for society, under the utilitarian ethical model. But, taking away guns from the law-abiding citizen does not enhance safety for that citizen, as an individual, in his or her own right. Rather, the individual is less safe as the individual is essentially defenseless against an armed psychopathic criminal or a lunatic. Moreover, the individual is harmed by that individual’s own government since an unarmed citizenry cannot adequately defend itself against the suppression of the citizenry’s rights and liberties. So, gun coercive confiscations programs are unethical under a deontological theory of ethics, grounded on what is “morally right,” even if such programs may, to some, appear to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, that is to say, for “the Collective.” And, in light of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and given the primacy of “We the People” as set forth in the Preamble to our Constitution, such coercive gun confiscation programs – whether or not cloaked as seemingly benign gun buyback programs – are facially illegal.Hillary Clinton, as well as President Barack Obama, clearly holds to utilitarianism – an ethical theory that is repugnant to the sensibilities of our founders as reflected in the Constitution the Founders drafted for future generations of Americans. On both legal and ethical grounds the position of President Obama and Hillary Clinton on gun ownership and gun possession in this Country is unsound. It is little wonder, then, that, although voicing constant rancorous, vociferous objection to gun ownership and gun possession in this Country, they offer no sound argument in support of their position – only empty emotional rhetoric and platitudes – because sound argument in support of their dubious position on gun ownership and gun possession in America simply does not exist.The existence of our Bill of Rights is a testament to the fact that our founders did not hold to utilitarianism. Our Constitution is predicated on a moral code, not a utilitarian one. The criterion of moral conduct is based on what is right; not one that is based on a Quixotic quest to maximize utility for society, for the Collective. The Second Amendment is an assertion of the importance of individual responsibility; and morality is predicated on the right of the individual to take responsibility for his or her actions. Thus, the founders of our Republic believed all the more in emphasizing, exemplifying, and extolling the sanctity of and the moral worth of the individual, and significantly less on maximizing utility for an amorphous society – for “the Collective,” which effectively denigrates the individual. Gun confiscation/forfeiture programs illustrate distrust of government in its own citizens. The citizen is told that, for his or her own good, the citizen must be dispossessed of firearms. The philosophy of President Obama and Hillary Clinton exemplify the predominance of government might over individual rights and liberty; government control over the citizen, rather than citizen control over government; inculcating obedience to authority and subservience to the State, rather than enhancing freedom of expression, individuality, and personal autonomy.Americans, of late, suffer endless exhortations that they ought sacrifice their rights and liberties for the Societal Collective “good.” Strident remarks against gun ownership and gun possession should serve, especially, as a warning to Americans that if they do not take steps to preserve their Constitution, they will lose it. A Free Republic cannot long endure under a Constitution whose precepts are ignored and denigrated. And, a free People cannot long remain free if the rights and liberties of the individual are systematically trampled upon. It has become abundantly clear that neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton really care.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DONALD TRUMP: A DISCUSSION ON THE CANDIDATE'S STAYING POWER

What Character Traits Are Most Critical In Assessing A Person's Fitness For High Public Office?

Apart from a recent surge by Ben Carson in the latest Iowa poll, Donald Trump has been, from the inception, the Republican front runner – the man to beat – and he continues to hold a strong lead over most of the other Republican candidates, who seek the Office of U.S. President. This hard, incontrovertible fact comes as a surprise to Washington’s centrist Republican politicians and to the shadowy, ruthless power brokers who control them – those who intend to maintain an iron grip on and stranglehold over our Government. But surprise among those centrists and power brokers has now transformed into something more: concern, dismay, even shock over the staying power of Donald Trump.These international socialist forces, neoliberal Globalists, and other sinister, shadowy, secretive groups, both within the U.S. and outside it, who seek, ultimately, to destroy our Free Republic, our Nation State, and our “Bill of Rights,” cannot understand why Donald Trump continues to be such a formidable Republican candidate – the one to beat. The super PACs have infused the Bush candidacy with a war chest of $100 million. Yet, Jeb Bush, the darling of the “power elite” cannot – unlike that other darling of the “power elite,” Hillary Clinton – gain even a modicum of traction among the rank and file Republican voters. Clinton, for her part, with strong help from a subservient news media, can, apparently, pull the wool over the eyes of those members of the public who look to Big Government to protect them and who buy into Clinton’s nonsensical and vacuous sound bites and slogans. Most Americans, though, are not taken in by the insidious, incessant drone of misinformation, disinformation, and non-information that fills the airwaves and that is spread through other mainstream media controlled news sources. This of course upsets the Bush clan.In a front-page article published in the October 25, 2015 Sunday edition of The New York Times, in an article titled, "Bush at 91: Irritated and Invigorated by '16' Race," "George Bush (Senior) “is straining to understand an election season that has, for his son (Jeb) and the Republican Party, lurched sharply and stunningly off script and he is often bewildered by what he sees.” In other words, the centrist forces, in both political Parties, that control politics in America – of which the Bush clan is certainly a part -- cannot understand that, with all the money at their disposal and with clear control of the mainstream media, the average American citizen dares to question the collective wisdom of the so-called “elites” who seek, forever, to dictate how we, the “Hoi Polloi,” should think. That we, conservative Republicans within the “Hoi Polloi,” would dare to go “off script” is not only incomprehensible to Bush and his kind; it is heresy. But, the public has had enough of the Clinton and Bush puppets of the international socialists and neoliberal Globalists who are wresting control from the American people and who are, now attempting – through “phase two” – to destroy the very reality of our unique Constitution and, thus, of our Nation State that is molded from it.But what, in all of this, are we to make of Donald Trump? He is, of course, extremely wealthy, extremely powerful, and, clearly enough, extremely ambitious. But, what does the public really know about him? Can the public really trust him? Is he not a “power broker,” of a sort, himself? And, if so, what is different about him? What is his agenda? Is he a proponent of the status-quo, too, or does he truly intend to “shake things up.” As President, would Donald Trump defend our Republic and the foundation of it, our “Bill of Rights?” Or would he work to destroy our Free Republic and trample our “Bill of Rights” just as President Barack Obama is doing – and as Jeb Bush or, worse, Hillary Clinton, would undoubtedly continue to do were either one of them to gain the Office of President? Jeb Bush is difficult to read and this may very well be by design. But, most Americans can see through the pretense projected by Hillary Clinton. Her incessant dishonesty, deceitfulness, condescending attitude toward the American public, her lack of integrity, her mendacity – all of it smacks one in the face. But, then, is Donald Trump wearing a mask, too – albeit one that cannot so easily be discerned? How can we get a handle on Donald Trump’s real motivations? Is he as “authentic” as he seems? Would he truly work toward implementing the policies he lays out, as many Republican voters would like to see?Fortunately, one expert in the field of political propaganda provides the key to unlocking the truth about the candidate, Donald Trump. And he provides the public with a novel, and keen perspective on Trump. Dr. Brian Anse Patrick is a professor of communication at the University of Toledo, in Toledo, Ohio. He teaches undergraduate and graduate level courses in research methods, group communication and propaganda. Dr. Patrick holds a Ph.D. in Communication Research from the University of Michigan. He is a fervent supporter of America’s “Bill of Rights” and, a fervent supporter, in particular, of America’s Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Dr. Patrick is a nationally recognized expert on American Gun Culture, and is a frequent speaker at events and symposia. He is also a prolific writer. Dr. Patrick has published several books, many dealing directly with the manner in which antigun forces utilize propaganda to undermine Americans’ gun rights.In a recent article, appearing on Dr. Patrick’s website, titled, “Aristotle on Trump: The Phenomenon of ‘The Donald,’” Dr. Patrick points out that individuals who are extremely wealthy and powerful, such as Donald Trump, represent a specific “character type” that was known to and dissected by one of the greatest of the ancient Greek philosophers, Aristotle, over a thousand years ago. Dr. Patrick adds the interesting point that Aristotle would know Donald Trump very well. For, Aristotle has seen that “type” in the Greece of his day. Donald Trump, as Dr. Patrick explains, as dissected by Aristotle, exudes the venial traits of any other extremely wealthy and powerful individual: arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence. Such people existed during the time of Aristotle, and such people certainly exist today in our own society.It is clear enough that the mainstream media is doing its best to emphasize those venial characteristics of Trump even as that media downplays the existence of those very same traits in other candidates, including – and especially – Hillary Clinton and, to a lesser extent – at least as observed – in Jeb Bush. The mainstream media is casting Donald Trump as a villain and suggesting that he, rather than Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, cannot be trusted. But, what it is that the public should be zeroing in on, when rating and deciphering the nature of a candidate for high Public Office, as Dr. Patrick cogently points out – extrapolating from the works of Aristotle – is the inner moral “ethos.” The measure of a person is that person’s “ethos.”The word, ‘ethos’ refers to the moral fiber – the character of a person. Dr. Patrick points out, as Aristotle had reasoned, that a person can display the venial traits of arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence and still possess a strong moral fiber. So, is Donald Trump a good man? Is he virtuous? How can the American public, know? Well, in today’s political climate, the quality of being virtuous is tenuous at best, and, if it exists at all in a person, especially a politician, it is one merely of degree. But, the measure of one’s virtue is something that the public – especially the American public – should be most concerned about. The American public should attempt to discern the character of each candidate who seeks high Public Office. And this transcends the relative importance of so-called, “experience” – assuming you can rationally accept the claims of the mainstream media that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have “experience” – of a beneficial kind, if at all. If a person lacks a strong moral “ethos,” then that person lacks, in the first instance, the most basic trait, a necessary quality for holding high Public Office. For, the existence of a strong moral “ethos” is a condition precedent to holding high Public Office. Regardless of whatever other qualifications a person might have – depth and breadth of experience, for example – counts for naught if that person lacks a strong moral compass.In that regard, even the most jejune among us knows that Hillary Clinton is completely unvirtuous, and altogether immoral. She completely lacks any semblance of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and genuine concern for the safeguarding of America’s institutions, its culture, its history, and its Constitution. And it is those failings – her lack of a strong moral “ethos” – rather than her arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence, venial though those character flaws be – that make her unfit to hold any Public Office, let alone the highest Office of the Land. It is Clinton’s lack of a guiding moral “ethos” that should be of most concern to American voters. Now, several of the Republican candidates are adept at holding their own arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence in check. Jeb Bush and the other Republican candidates are certainly -- to some extent at least, consistent with Aristotle's understanding of politicians -- arrogant, insolent, and self-indulgent -- even if as they tend to mask those traits when "operating" in front of the masses. But, apropos of the major character flaws in those candidates -- flaws that count the most – dishonesty, untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of any genuine concern for the safeguarding of America’s unique institutions and for the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution – in a word, the lack of “ethos” – it is this lack of a guiding “ethos” – the lack of a moral compass – that should be of paramount concern to Republicans and, for that matter, of paramount concern to all Americans when assessing the character of a candidate who would deign to lead this Country.Donald Trump does speak his mind. He is not the most tactful of speakers. And that is an understatement, to be sure. But, he can be forgiven that, even as the mainstream media tends to emphasize his apparent insouciance, that is to say, his apparent lack of regard for how he happens to project himself to his audience, the American people. However, there is one thing Trump is not. He is not a liar – although all too many politicians, unfortunately, are.  And, that ability of politicians to lie – indeed, that very desire to lie – unashamedly, convincingly – that capacity for lying constantly, incessantly, without remorse – is a thing absolutely unforgivable. No American should forgive anyone – no American should ever forgive anyone – who claims to serve in our name, who happens to be an inveterate liar and hypocrite. As Saint Thomas Aquinas made amply clear: “As a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest The Truth.” If a person lies to another person, the liar manifests his clear lack of respect for that other person – his contempt for that person. Nothing is clearer than the fact that Hillary Clinton has naked contempt for the American people – a contempt that is palpable, insufferable, hurtful in the extreme, and therefore altogether unacceptable in one who aims to secure the highest Office of the Land.Clinton is a hypocrite. Trump is not. Trump inculcates a moral compass – a moral “ethos.” Clinton most certainly does not. How do we know this? We know this less by what Trump says and more by what the mainstream media, at the behest of the centrists -- of both political Parties -- who are fighting essentially for the status quo -- say about him. Clearly, the Party centrists -- whether Republican or Democrat -- and their vehicle for dissemination of information, the mainstream media, both detest Trump. The Republican centrists say he is ruining the Republican Party – “their” Party. And the Democrats simply think he is "out of touch" with the majority of Americans. Clinton pokes fun at Trump. But, the real clown -- a dangerous one at that -- is Clinton, herself. If Clinton suggests that Trump is foolish, then she is making that claim of the American people, whom she clearly denigrates through every outrageous, disingenuous, and vacuous statement she makes. Yet, both Clinton and Bush claim to speak for the American people. And the mainstream media perpetrates and perpetuates the illusion. But, to maintain the illusion that these candidates for high Political Office -- these Party centrists -- speak for the American public, it is important that the polls reflect the illusion. But, the polls do not! So, the centrists may very well manipulate the poll results or do away with them altogether. They are intent, at all costs, to push a Bush or a Clinton in the “White House.” But, what of Trump? Well, he is a brawler. There's no doubt about that. And that is a good thing. That is a necessary thing today. He is waking the American people up. Carson realizes this and is adopting Trump's own tactics to sound more like Trump – to be more like him. Carson realizes that, to gain the Public's trust, he must appear authentic -- but more, he must be authentic. So, whether you agree with Trump’s stated policy positions or not – whether you are troubled by his brusqueness, his arrogance, his insolence, his self-indulgence, his self-aggrandizement – the venial traits that Aristotle noted as traits peculiar to the fabulously wealthy and powerful – you should look past all that; for those character traits are not critical character flaws. Indeed, virtually all politicians exhibit them. But, lack of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and insensitivity to our unique heritage and to our Constitution – these are grave character flaws. Any individual who exhibits them is unworthy of holding high Public Office or, for that matter, of holding any Public Office. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump does not lie to the American people. Clinton does and has. Trump doesn’t equivocate. Clinton does and has. Trump doesn’t obfuscate. Clinton does and has. Trump doesn’t meander. Clinton does and has. And, it is Donald Trump’s honesty, his heartfelt expression of concern for the safeguarding of our culture, our heritage, our history, our “Bill of Rights,” that the public is most drawn to. The so-called “elite” don’t understand this. And many in the mainstream media don’t understand this either. All too many members of Congress, and the Globalists, and the socialist internationalists, and the sitting President, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton – all these individuals who lack high ideals – who lack any moral principal, who lack a guiding moral “ethos,” a moral compass – not surprisingly – cannot grasp this – are, in fact, altogether incapable of fathoming this.So, the next time you hear a candidate talk – you should listen – really listen – to what that person actually says -- listen to the content. Do not get side-tracked by incidentals. Do not get side-tracked by the venial traits. And, do not become mesmerized by the magic show – the smoke and mirrors extravaganza that the mainstream media puts on for you, to distract you from what is really important. You don’t need, nor should you rely on, any talk show host, or news commentator, or advert, to tell you how to think, or what to think, or how to vote. You can do all that very well, and much better, for yourself.To learn more about how the media circus uses propaganda to attack our sacred Second Amendment, we encourage our readers to take a look at  and peruse perceptive articles on Dr. Brian Anse Patrick’s website: http://riseofantimedia.blogspot.com.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

Subverting the Second Amendment: The Subtle Road to Injustice

Antigun proponents and zealots are quick to qualify their remarks about guns so as not to openly disparage American citizens who cherish their Bill of Rights – all ten of them. “Yes,” the antigun proponents and zealots chant over and over again: “we need ‘commonsense’ gun laws, and of course we respect the Second Amendment.” The obligatory parenthetical remark, “of course we respect the Second Amendment,” hangs at the end of the phrase, “commonsense gun laws,” like a puppy dog’s tail. The gun grabbers “wag it” in our faces as if to suggest that American citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should be “sensible about guns” – as if we aren’t and, so, must be made to be. Antigun proponents and zealots always have the Second Amendment in the cross-hairs, ready to wound it, eventually to kill it, even as they proclaim no such intention to do so.The fact of the matter is that the antigun movement seeks to end civilian ownership of firearms. The movement’s entire reason for being is focused on that end. Second Amendment adherents know or should know that more “commonsense gun laws” mean, ultimately, nothing more than “total gun confiscation,” except for those individuals who happen to fall into some “small, select, special, trusted, elite class.” The goal of all antigun proponents and zealots is omnipresent; it never changes even as it remains tacit, unspoken. The American public should be under no illusion about that. The antigun mantra – “commonsense gun laws,” – is ultimately meaningless, senseless, and even nonsensical. It echoes hollowly in the void.The gun grabbers use that meaningless, senseless, nonsensical slogan, “commonsense gun laws,” every chance they get. Just recently, as reported by The Associated Press through The New York Times newspaper, President Barack Obama – a staunch advocate for dispossessing Americans of their firearms – also used that familiar, wearisome, tiresome refrain when he spoke to the BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation). Obama apparently does not understand, or simply chooses not to understand or, perhaps, is utterly incapable of understanding the import of the Second Amendment to Americans, which the founders of the Republic bequeathed to Americans, to us – to cherish, to treasure, to hold most dear. The issue of gun control, President Obama says, has left him “the most stymied” . . . [and, he] “tells the BBC he is ‘frustrated’ that the U.S. does not have ‘commonsense gun safety laws,’ even in the face of repeated mass killings.”The BBC is, as most people know, a major British news outlet. Great Britain does not have anything comparable to our Second Amendment. Indeed, Great Britain doesn’t even have one specific document that might be considered a written Constitution, let alone anything remotely like America’s “Bill of Rights.” In a land whose social structure is grounded on class distinctions, well-honed and solidified after hundreds of years of existence, the British royalty and nobility would not trust, and never have trusted the British commonalty, with possession of firearms. Apparently, the British commonalty doesn’t see anything wrong with that. True Americans, however, do. So, Obama preaches to the choir over there. And that choir would like to sing Obama’s praises over here. “What is the problem with Americans, the British ask?” “Why must Americans own and possess firearms at all?” And, if they must possess firearms, what do they have against “commonsense gun safety laws.” The British might reflect on American history before suggesting answers to those questions. And, President Obama, for his part, would have done better to reflect on the import of and impact of his ‘commonsense gun safety laws’ message on Americans before he conveyed that message, strangely as he did, to the British.Without firearms, America would still be under British rule, subservient to and paying homage, today, to the Queen of England; pledging allegiance to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, under the Union Jack, rather than to an independent Democratic Republic under the Stars and Stripes – having nothing to do with the United Kingdom.Clearly, Americans do not need another set of so-called “commonsense” gun laws. And the inclusion, now, of the word, ‘safety,’ into the phrase, doesn’t alter that fact. Thousands of federal and State gun “safety” laws already exist. Why have another slew of them? What does it even mean to think we need more? Indeed, what must it mean to even suggest the need for more restrictive, oppressive, so-called “commonsense” gun “safety” laws but that the Obama Administration and like-minded individuals both inside and outside Government – and like-minded individuals and groups both inside and outside this Country – seek to divest average, law-abiding Americans of their natural right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed to them under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?Lest there be any mistake about the intention of the antigun groups in this Country and those abroad, an article in a recent Sunday Review Section of The New York Times, makes plain the agenda of these groups. Mike McIntire, a reporter for The New York Times, asks, “What Makes a Shooter Do It?” That question – the title of McIntire’s op-ed – is rhetorical. McIntire answers his own question, when, toward the end of his article, he says: “What makes someone seek solace in a spasm of bloodshed is perhaps unknowable.” Because no one knows for certain – because no one can ever really know for certain – who might resort to violence, McIntire is making a not so subtle suggestion that the better approach is to get rid of the guns now, from as many Americans as possible – namely, and particularly, from law-abiding Americans – so that any temptation to commit violence with guns in the future – the mere possibility that a law-abiding American might, even if improbably, commit violence with guns in the future – is substantially lessened, if not altogether removed.What McIntire and those like him are opting for, then, is a “Minority Report” type of society in America.In the film, “Minority Report,” starring Tom Cruise, a police force called “PreCrime” arrests citizens before they commit their crimes of murder. “PreCrime” uses three “Precogs,” quasi-human beings whose dreams predict murders to come, along with the individuals who ostensibly commit them. “PreCrime” then locates, arrests, charges, and sentences those people for crimes of murder they never committed – and, at the time of their arrest, had no inkling they would ever form an intention to commit them – but, apparently, according to the “Precogs,” would have committed murder if they weren’t prevented from doing so in the first place. The people, so apprehended by PreCrime police, are duly and brutally punished, and in a novel and most bizarre fashion, even though they never actually committed crimes of murder.Notwithstanding the problematical philosophical and legal issues of arresting, charging, convicting, and sentencing an individual for a crime before a person develops the very intention to commit the crime, the true import of the film has less to do with drawing attention to the legal and philosophical implications and ramifications of damning a person for commission of a crime before the fact, which is simply a plot device, and more to do with the oppressive control exerted by the Security State over the individual, presumably for the sake of preemption and prevention of violence.Yet, as bad as a “Minority Report” society is, what McIntire and other antigun zealots envision for Americans is just as bad if not worse than a “Minority Report.” Consider: A call for an eventual, total civilian gun ban, which, for gun proponents and zealots is on the horizon, is based on the notion that a person does not ever have to commit an actual crime with a gun to be, in a sense, guilty of having committed a crime with a gun. That is to say, the mere possibility that a sane, rational, responsible, honest, law-abiding American citizen may – at some indefinable point in the future – commit a crime with a gun becomes the justification – the Cause Cèlébre of the antigun proponent and zealot – for denying a person access to a gun in the present. Antigun proponents and zealots seek to remove the logical possibility of a crime ever being committed with a gun. They seek to accomplish that feat by banning, outright, the mechanism for that violence from the vast majority of honest, sane, rational, law-abiding American citizens – millions of average American citizens – who have never acted out a violent crime with a gun and who never would do so.The rationale implicit in the antigun proponents’ and zealots’ call for ever more restrictive gun laws is that every American – including and notably, the average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen – is essentially, mystifyingly, bafflingly, ultimately, a cipher. Since no one can know for certain “who will go off the deep-end” at some indefinable point in the future – so their argument goes – it behooves the Government to suspect everyone of eventually resorting to violence. That, apparently, is the “safer” practice: the Government protecting people from people, themselves, and the Government protecting itself from the people.So, if one can harbor the intention to commit a crime, then one can feasibly act on that intention: preemption and prevention of even the possibility – however remote the possibility – of gun violence demand seizure of all weapons from virtually everyone. This is what the antigun proponents and zealots would decree; what they would ordain. And, this is the misguided philosophy of ethical consequential utilitarianism. The American citizenry would see ever more restrictions and controls placed on its movements, upon its actions. Surveillance becomes ubiquitous. The Government begins the process of dispossessing the American commonalty of its guns. The Government, through the mainstream media, controls the citizen’s thought processes. The mainstream media broadcasts, the same messages over and over again, in a hypnotic tone: “Guns are bad for you!” “You will hurt yourself with a gun!” If you see a gun report that immediately to the police!” If you see a family member or neighbor acting oddly, report that person’s actions immediately to the police!” “Stay tuned as we happily provide you with more commonsense safety laws.” This is a portrait of the “Minority Report” society that the antigun proponents and zealots seek to bring to fruition. This is the kind of society that the antigun proponents and zealots are working day and night on to manifest into Reality. If they succeed, the Bill of Rights, itself, becomes meaningless. It begins to crumble. One Amendment after another is formally repealed. The first Amendment to go is actually the Second, followed by the First. Everything the antigun movement seeks to accomplish in America is illustrative of totalitarianism. What they seek to do is the hallmark of the Security State, and it all boils down to suspicion of and paranoid preoccupation with an entire class of citizenry, virtually the entire citizen population, the commonalty of America. The apparent single-minded quest to quell gun violence hides, then, an insidious agenda: the alteration of our society – converting a free, Democratic Republic into a component of a unified international Socialist World Order. And, it all begins through subtle steps to dispossess the average, rational, sane, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen of that citizen’s firearms.But such massive undertaking cannot get traction – nor should it ever get traction in a Democratic Republic such as the United States. And it won’t gain traction, so long as this Country remains a Democratic Republic – a Democratic Republic in fact, not merely in name.At present millions of American citizens own firearms. They are sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding members of society. The number of people who actually resort to violence with guns – who are not, otherwise, from the get-go, either hardened, career criminals on the one hand, or psychopathic or psychotic killers, on the other – is virtually negligible. Yet, the antigun zealots, and the antigun Globalists, and the International Socialist elites – who see no saving grace for Americans’ Second Amendment in a future Socialist World Government – seek to impose ever more restrictive gun laws on millions of sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy law-abiding American citizens. And, if the antigun proponents and zealots, and like-minded groups and individuals such as antigun Globalists and International Socialist elites succeed, the Bill of Rights would be at its end.The Second Amendment is particularly problematic and vexing to antigun proponents and zealots, to antigun Globalists, and to International Socialist elites – to such people and groups both inside this Country and outside it. As they see it, the average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen must be controlled – just as much as the career criminal or the raving lunatic must be controlled if, for no reason, than that there exists millions of them. And, who knows when any one or more of those millions “will turn.”And, so, it is seen as necessary to remove the gun from that average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen American citizen before the fact so that the mere possibility of “acting out” a delusional violent fantasy with a gun – however remote that might be – will be impossible. And, as nothing remotely like America’s Second Amendment exists anywhere in the World today – nothing remotely like it exists that cedes such power to the average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen – that power must be constrained. The Second Amendment must be dismantled. Further, all memory of the Second Amendment must eventually be erased. That Amendment must be consigned to the dustbin of history. And the history behind it must be rewritten.Make no mistake. The dream of the antigun zealots in this Country and their many counterparts elsewhere in this Country and in the world at large would be a nightmare for Americans. If there is anything the law-abiding American citizen ought, rationally, to fear more than hardened criminals getting their hands on guns and harming someone or, if there is anything the law-abiding American citizen ought to fear more than a few paranoid lunatics getting their hands on guns and harming anyone, it is the presence of a powerful, paranoid Government operating without Constitutional restraint, clamping down on an individual’s every thought, action, and deed, imposing its will on everyone.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

NRA FREEDOM: JOIN IT!

The Bill Of Rights: It's Your Birthright! The NRA Preserves It, The Antigun Crowd Would Strip You Of It. What Will You Do With It?

If you were to ask the average American what the NRA is, you would likely receive, in reply, any one or more of several short descriptive phrases, depending on the person’s political bent. Among them might include: defender of the Second Amendment; gun lobby; gun “nuts;” protectors of America’s liberties; shills for the gun manufacturers; cowboys; True American Patriots; Republican benefactors.As with any long-standing, financially powerful entity – whether a company, government agency, political organization, religious or educational institution, to name a few – the NRA has its fair share of supporters and detractors. And, as with any large, successful enterprise, myth and misunderstandings exist concerning it. It is our belief that many of the critics of NRA quite literally don’t know what they are talking about; for, when questioned, they appear generally to know nothing about the organization, its methods, or its goals.What, then, is the truth about the NRA. And what is myth? Let’s take a look.

NRA AS ORGANIZATION

Among the true statements, we can start with these: The National Rifle Association of America – NRA as it is typically known – is a citizen’s organization, a not-for-profit voluntary association that has been around for quite a while. It had its start in 1871, well over one hundred years ago. The NRA was created by two Union officers, Gen. George Wingate and Col. William C. Church. The officers formed the NRA to improve the marksmanship of American troops and to create a renewable pool of expert marksmen for the training of future citizen-troopers – certainly a worthy endeavor – that had been of observably low quality during the Civil War. Through the intervening years the NRA’s original purpose and goal – to improve marksmanship of union soldiers – expanded, well beyond the intent of its framers, to embrace a host of worthy activities and functions, including: training and promoting shooting sports among the youth of America; certifying range and safety officers for police and military training; creating programs for the training of law enforcement and hunters; and instituting programs for the training of civilians in the safe and proper use of firearms. Literally millions of citizens have received training in these programs – all this, apart from the NRA’s creation of specific programs for the training and certification of the police and military. Moreover, the NRA remains a huge educational institution, delivering “Eddie Eagle” safety training to millions of school age children.

NRA AS DEFENDER OF CITIZENS’ RIGHTS

NRA also defends citizens’ rights. NRA, like the NAACP and similar voluntary citizens associations, provides legal defense funds’ services in crucial cases, to correct injustice, and to battle overreaches of the law and overreaches by regulatory agencies. NRA has, in the past, teamed up with the NAACP and ACLU to fight discriminatory regulations that barred legally qualified and upstanding citizens from owning guns – regulations that barred gun ownership and possession by those legally qualified citizens who lived in public housing. NRA also conducts annual seminars for practicing attorneys to keep them up to date on firearms laws and to provide litigation techniques for those attorneys who litigate.

MYTHS ABOUT NRA

Myths abound about NRA as an organization, and they are especially prominent among academic and so-called “elite” journalists – journalists who are connected with large newspapers and with other major news outlets.One salient myth revolves around the idea that NRA is THE “Gun Lobby.” This suggests NRA is a sinister, secretive organization that operates merely as an arm for gun manufacturers. In truth, there is nothing sinister or secretive about it. NRA is, rather, a voluntary citizens’ group focused on firearms rights. It is one of many citizens groups focused on firearms rights. How does it differ from other such groups? NRA is merely the oldest and largest among voluntary citizens’ groups focused on firearms rights. It has currently more than five million members who pay dues to belong to NRA. In contrast, academic experts estimate that all of the American antigun groups combined have no more than about 150,000 members total.Consider, too, NAACP, at its height – during the civil rights era of the 1960s – had no more than one million members. Today NAACP has substantially fewer members. This places things in perspective.But, is NRA shrinking, retreating or otherwise suffering defeat? This is another myth perpetrated by mainstream media. In fact, during a period of time, from about 1968-1970, as American “elites” attempted to impose top-down severe, European-style gun control laws upon the American public, NRA has grown from about one million members to its present status: five million dues paying members. This present growth in membership in NRA is occurring at a time when, curiously, membership in voluntary associations – and volunteerism, generally – has declined. Thus, the growth of NRA is indicative of an unprecedented mass mobilization of well-informed citizens. Yet, “elite” newspapers and other “elite” media sources cheer-lead NRA defeat. How can the disparity between fact and false reporting of fact be reconciled? Well, quantitative scientific content analysis of “elite” newspaper coverage of NRA shows that “elite” media is entirely unaware of this growth. Do these reporters live in a different world from that of the rest of us? They certainly seem to be more interested in reporting what they wish to be true than in reporting what is in fact true.Interestingly, the more negative coverage NRA has received the more its membership has grown, as confirmed by a dissertation study of a University Professor: “NRA and the Media,” Arktos, 2013, Brian Anse Patrick.“Elite” media have been and continue to be out of touch with reality when it comes to NRA and American Gun Culture generally. The “elite” media attempts, wrongly, to project a picture of the world it prefers to see rather than to describe the world as it is. This is inconsistent with the ethics of journalism and suggests that “elite” media is utilizing propaganda to mold public opinion in a particular direction. In so doing, “elite” media disparages the very concept of “Freedom of the Press,” as embraced by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “Freedom of the Press” becomes, instead, a tool of control for those who seek to destroy our sacred Bill of Rights.A corollary to a major myth that NRA is merely an arm of gun manufacturers (the firearms industry) is that the NRA receives all of its funding from the firearms industry and, too, that NRA is run by the firearms industry. This myth is fostered and reinforced by – rather than dispelled by – the “elite” media.

NRA OPERATES TRANSPARENTLY

First, compared with the governance procedures established by other groups, NRA operates much more openly than other organizations and certainly more openly than the antigun groups that so vehemently attack it. And NRA utilizes a democratic process as opposed to an autocratic one. NRA’s numerous life members directly elect its 76-member board of directors. The Board then appoints its executives and functionaries. Contrariwise, antigun groups and some large member organizations, like the AARP, are actually run by small, relatively autocratic cabals.Antigun groups – forever railing against the NRA and insinuating that gun violence in this Country is due to the machinations of the NRA – as if the NRA is or rationally could be responsible for crime and for the criminals and lunatics that cause it – are duplicitous and hypocritical in the extreme. Where antigun groups irrationally call for more and more restrictive gun legislation, NRA calmly reiterates that we ought first to enforce the hundreds of laws we already have on the books. Where antigun groups rail that NRA outspends them, they fail to appreciate that the money NRA has in its coffers comes from the pockets of millions of hard working Americans – not from secretive PACS or from the checkbooks of a few billionaires who, with the stroke of a pen, handily write checks for millions of dollars to keep these antigun groups afloat – gloating over the tens of millions of dollars they can spend, have spent, have available to spend and will continue to spend to push through ever more restrictive gun laws until, by sheer weight of numbers, the Second Amendment topples of its own accord and takes with it the other nine Amendments as well.Where the NRA has the strength of its conviction – in the form of millions of active members who have a vested interest in preserving their sacred Rights under the Bill of Rights – the antigun groups have empty slogans, slick commercials, and highly paid image makers and media consultants, pressed into the service of billionaire plutocrats whose real goal is control over the American public – not curbing gun violence. And, where the NRA upholds the sanctity of the individual, the antigun groups argue the individual’s needs must ever be subservient to the greater good of the collective will.So, as the NRA derives its funds directly from membership dues and contributions, the complaints of antigun group executive officers’ complaints – as echoed by the “elite” media – of how unfair it is that NRA outspends the antigun groups – rings hollow. After all, NRA members outnumber members of these antigun groups on an order of more than 25 to 1. NRA has a true mass membership. Yet, all the while the public is fed the myth, through the “elite” media, that NRA’s membership is dwindling. And, this notion of a dwindling NRA membership is merely one more incoherent remark.Second, while the membership pool of NRA is deep and extensive, the antigun group, “One Million Moms for Gun Control,” is essentially spectral – merely a website and media simulation, and those who run it are well hidden from public view.

NRA ISN’T A GUN LOBBY

But, is there any truth at all to the notion as incessantly bandied about by the antigun crowd and the “elite” media that NRA is a “Gun Lobby?” No. That’s a common misconception; nothing more than a fabrication of antigun groups, trumpeted by the “elite” media.How is the term ‘Gun Lobby’ as applied to NRA a misconception? Let’s see. We must take a look at the meaning of words. Well, what is a ‘lobbyist?’ The term ‘lobbyist’ refers to someone hired by a business or a cause to persuade legislators to support that business or cause.” Extrapolating from that definition, the term ‘lobby,’ is, then, a collection of lobbyists. The words, ‘lobby’ and ‘lobbyist,’ are words of disparagement. When used in that way – to disparage a person or group – the terminology does not define a group but dehumanizes a target population and makes the group seem less deserving and sympathetic. So, instead of referring to NRA members as a “citizens association,” which is really what it is, the NRA becomes, instead, a non-human, cold, entity – a “lobby,” – which conveys a host of negative connotations, all used to disparage it.Calling NRA a “Gun Lobby” – or “THE Gun Lobby” – is to disparage the NRA. This is a typical propaganda technique. The NRA is decidedly not a “lobby,” according to the conventional definition of the word.Yes, the NRA does engage in lobbying activities. But, then, so do other organizations, like the NAACP, AARP and, for that matter, the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” (formerly, “Handgun Control, Inc.”) and many other groups. But, NRA is not a lobby.Now, there are gun lobbies, but the NRA isn’t one of them, if, as the antigun groups erroneously maintain, the NRA is a lobbying group for the firearms industry.But firearms manufacturers do organize as trade associations and those associations may operate in part as true “gun lobbies.” But those trade associations and their lobbying arms are not NRA. If one insists on referring to NRA as a lobby at all, then it would be fairer and decidedly more accurate to describe NRA as “the American citizen’s Bill of Rights lobby;” for, politically, NRA represents millions of American citizens in support of citizens’ Bill of Rights – and NRA does this often better than the Legislators who are elected to represent Americans. Even so, as we have shown, NRA does much more than lobby, even as such lobbying activities are for American citizens and even as such lobbying efforts are the most worthy of any lobbying an American organization might engage in – the preservation of our liberties, as embodied in the Bill of Rights.

NRA EXERCISES ITS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Now, here’s a secret the editors and bureau chiefs at mainstream news publishers like New York Times and similar news organizations have yet to learn: the main reason NRA is so powerful is because of NRA’s principled application of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the defense of the Second. NRA advances the case for the individual right, natural law meaning of the Second Amendment by the effective application of the social action schematic established by the First Amendment. Mainstream journalists who attack NRA – who see themselves as enshrined and elevated in the social hierarchy above those who write for weblogs – often using disparaging phrases like, “gossip mongers” and “tellers of tales” when referring to weblog writers – clearly see themselves as distinctly superior to other news writers, believing, apparently, that the word, ‘Press,’ as it appears in the First Amendment, only applies to them. These mainstream news journalists don’t seem to note the irony in their remarks. For, it’s the weblogs that, all too often, provide real news; and it’s the mainstream media that fills the print medium and the airwaves with false news – mere propaganda – false news that aims to mold public thought and opinion rather than create a neutral platform upon which the American citizen might exercise his own critical faculties to discern the truth.And what are the First Amendment guarantees for Americans? The First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to voluntarily associate, free of any system of beliefs established by government. The First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to discuss, promote and publish their ideas. The First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to peacefully petition government officials and representatives for needed change.The Founders of our Republic did not intend for “the Press” to function as a propaganda implement – an institution to be operated by a privileged few in order to control everyone else. But, this is what the “Press” qua “mainstream media” has become – a mechanism of control. This mechanism of control comprises a slew of mass media professionals, employed by plutocrats, who give these “professional journalists” one salient task: brainwash the American citizenry. And these “professional journalists” do so with impunity, in accordance with their masters’ dictates. That is most unfortunate. However, what is fortunate is that a person need not have a license to practice the craft of journalism. In that respect journalism is unlike the professions of law or medicine. And that truly is fortunate.Today, the twin freedoms: freedom of the Press + freedom of speech give the People a voice – a voice that provides the People with a counterweight to the lies perpetrated by those that think “Freedom of the Press” applies only to an institution – an institution they control, an institution under the sway of a privileged few – a privileged few that seeks, through their control of the “Press,” the means to amass ever more power and authority for themselves at the expense of the American citizenry. And, with that power, these privileged few seek to control the lives of the many.

NRA SAFEGUARDS OUR REPUBLIC

The role for voluntary associations such as NRA in a healthy democratic social order is not only important, it is vital to the safeguarding of the Republic as envisioned by the Founders and as etched in stone in that Republic’s Bill of Rights. NRA is above all an informational node. It publishes magazines, hosts websites, and webcasts news services that have millions of subscribers. It provides information to lawmakers and policymakers. It dispenses educational information to students, citizens and firearm safety trainers. It targets information and makes it available where it will do the most good. It promotes meetings and democratic discussion, both in its national seminars, but also in it alliances and affiliations with numerous local and State associations. Without this sort of small and local group structure that allows immediate and small group discussion between equals – there is no effective democracy and our Republic falls.The historical roots of American Gun Culture and NRA go together seamlessly. They work well because they infuse the very power of democratic ideas, information, reasoned discussion and participation. The American citizenry is empowered to join in as true participants, not merely as passive observers of distant events, staged by “their betters” – the plutocrats in Washington. This makes for a true democratic society. For, it is the American citizenry that sets the agenda – an agenda that serves the American citizenry’s interests.This paradigm is not only to be preferred, it is essential to the existence of a Republic. For, if it is the plutocrats in Washington who set the agenda – then, the agenda envisioned will serve the interests of a few, and those interests are antithetical to right embodied in the Second Amendment and those interests are antithetical to the Bill of Rights in its entirety. Those interests are inconsistent with the principles of a democratic Republic.When it comes to “Informational Democracy,” NRA not only better serves the citizenry – as it is the American citizenry that has an essential role in the functioning of the NRA – the NRA’s interests coincide with and embrace the very preservation of and strengthening of the Second Amendment upon which the other Nine Amendments remain secure. Knowledge is Power. The NRA provides the public with the truth concerning the American citizen’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. So, it stands to reason that the forces that seek to crush the U.S. Constitution would seek to undermine the ability of NRA to proffer truth to the American public as well.

WHY IS NRA THE FOCUS OF ATTACK?

NRA is a threat to the plutocrats because NRA exposes the plutocrats’ lies.  At present the plutocrats who seek to control the American citizenry cannot directly attack the NRA’s defense of the Second Amendment; for, to do so, amounts to an attack against a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.What do they do? They attack the NRA obliquely through caustic remarks such as: the NRA only wants to sell guns; the NRA is against sensible gun control laws; the NRA lobbies on behalf of gun manufacturers and not on behalf of Americans; and the NRA isn’t serious about reducing gun violence in America. Implicit in all these remarks, is the notion that the NRA’s primary purpose and function – its modern day raison d’etre, is political influence and legislative action. If so, why is that?Now, it’s certainly true the NRA operates in the political arena, albeit that isn’t its only reason for its existence in the 21st Century. But the NRA’s political operation isn’t something its members or officers had originally sought to do or wished to do. Rather, the NRA was reluctantly compelled to enter the political arena by groups that are themselves politically motivated and, in fact, have no reason to exist other than to defeat the Second Amendment and by extension – to defeat the greatest protector of the Second Amendment – the NRA.

THE MYRIAD THREADS OF NRA COME TOGETHER

If there is a central theme running through the myriad marksmanship and training programs offered and sponsored by the NRA, that theme is reflected in this assertion, as presented prominently on the NRA website: “The National Rifle Association is America’s longest-standing civil rights organization. We’re proud defenders of history’s patriots and diligent protectors of the Second Amendment.”

WHENCE THE ANTIGUN GROUPS?

Curiously, the antigun lobbies and PACS, unlike the NRA, which is well over one century old, are of recent vintage. One of the oldest, “The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” is only 40 years old, as it proudly trumpets its 40th Anniversary on its website. Another, “The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence” is scarcely 14 years old. “The Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence” is but one and one-half years old. And, “the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence” that started in 1973, is scarcely over 40 years old. Perhaps the most well-known  antigun group is “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence.” It started in 1974 as the “National Committee to Control Handguns.”One begins to see a curious theme here. Most of these antigun groups had their start in the 1970s. Was this just coincidence,or was there another hand at work here, mapping out strategies to undermine and destroy the Second Amendment?While these antigun groups all claim that the greater threat to civility in this Country is the “Gun Lobby,” code for the NRA – as that is how these groups prefer to call the NRA, as we’ve seen – one can see as well that it’s the antigun groups themselves that are truly nothing more than lobbying arms and politically motivated action committees for the plutocrats.These groups, as fronts for cabals of powerful forces both within the Country and outside it, realize that, in order to undercut the Second Amendment, it is necessary to defeat the NRA. So, the NRA, on behalf of millions of Americans, who wish nothing more than to secure their rights under the Bill of Rights – including the Second Amendment – was compelled, reluctantly, to enter the political arena – to become a political force – a considerable political force – to be reckoned with in its own right.

MYTH AND TRUTH PLAY OUT

On balance, we see truth and myth both played out. The NRA’s goals are straightforward and virtuous: to preserve and protect the integrity of the Second Amendment. Contrariwise, the myriad antigun groups, springing up virtually at the same time – during the 1970s – have had and, today, continue to have, one goal: the destruction of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is their salient aim. That is their reason for being. And, in that singular disingenuous pursuit, they have operated  and continue to operate as top-down propaganda campaigns, financed by plutocrats and ideologues.The one force that can and has stopped them is the NRA. These groups know it, and American citizens know it.It is obvious that the stated purpose of these political groups – to prevent gun violence – is nothing more than a blind. We already have hundreds of so-called “commonsense” gun laws: laws banning felons from possessing guns and laws banning the violent and the mentally ill from possessing guns. We also have background checks. But, the plutocrats, through their antigun front groups, constantly insist on more.Obviously, it isn’t violent crimes with guns that motivate these plutocrats even if the dupes who do their bidding buy into the lies propagated. Many of the anti-gun groups seem to believe in absolute centralized governmental power, which maintains that all rights spring from and are distributed by government. This idea is an anathema to the founders of the Republic and inconsistent with the principles of Liberty as set down in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights.The plutocrats obviously have no use for the idea of natural inalienable rights. They wish to dictate behavior for all Americans. And in that process, they want to destroy their Rights and Liberties.

WHAT, THEN, MUST WE DO TO CURB THE EROSION OF OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES?

Most Americans understand the nature of the danger lurking in the shadows, the nature of the danger hidden in the seemingly benign call for purported “commonsense gun laws” – laws that in their mode of expression and in their very essence – do nothing but erode the citizen’s basic freedoms, independence,  and personal autonomy; erode the sanctity and inalienable right of each individual American to be individual.Americans must fight these false flag groups at every turn. There is power in information and in knowledge, and in a true civil society. The NRA is our best ally in that effort. The NRA is your best ally in that effort.Whether you have a gun in your possession or not is unimportant. And, it’s unimportant whether you care ever to purchase a gun. What is important – what is critical to the existence of our Democratic Republic – is the Bill of Rights.The Bill of Rights must be preserved – indeed strengthened – at every turn. The Bill of Rights consists of Ten Amendments. The NRA’s efforts preserve and protect all of them – not just the Second Amendment. And, your membership dollars is an investment in the preservation of the Bill of Rights – all ten of them.So, the next time you feel that one week’s worth of café lattes at Starbucks is more important to your personal well-being than the cost of an annual membership in the NRA, recall that thought as you wake up one morning and read in the newspaper that the Bill of Rights has been preempted by Federal Statute, International Pacts and Treaties, and Presidential Executive Orders and Signing Statements. Those café lattes will probably taste a tad bitter.Keep in mind, by giving NRA a few dollars you’re not doing NRA a favor. NRA is doing you a favor! America’s Bill of Rights is uniquely American. It’s your birthright. Don’t let anyone take your Birthright from you! Support the NRA! Join now![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Brian Anse Patrick, Ph.D., Professor, University of Toledo All Rights Reserved.