LITTLE WHITE LIES, BIG DAMNABLE LIES, AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON “TRUTHS”

“I am a liar, and that’s the truth” said the inhabitant of Crete. Was the Cretan’s assertion a lie or was he telling the truth? ~Epimenides’ Paradox~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~After almost eight months of avoiding a formal Press Conference, Hillary Clinton's handlers decided to loosen Clinton's leash a bit. She spouts this drivel in response to a specific question concerning her position that the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, said Clinton's responses to F.B.I. questions, posed to her during her interview, were truthful:"I was pointing out in both of those instances, that Director Comey had said that my answers in my FBI interview were truthful. That really is the bottom line here," she said. "What I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. I may have short-circuited and for that I will try to clarify." Hillary Rodham’s statement in response to a journalist a gathering of black and Hispanic journalists in Washington, D.C., Clinton, on August 6, as reported by CNN.There’s no “bottom line” here—just a bottomless pit, a black hole: a deep, dark abyss constructed on lie upon lie, upon lie, upon lie. Hillary Clinton asserts Director Comey said her answers “were truthful.” That declaration is itself a lie, for that declaration contradicts Director Comey’s testimony before the Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held on July 7, 2016, in Washington, D.C. The Hearing took place two days after the FBI Director delivered an unprecedented statement to the American people, laying out, in clear, cogent, damning detail the nature of and extent of Clinton’s crimes.Congressman Trey Gowdy, Republican, South Carolina, pointedly asked Director Comey whether Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI during the FBI’s interview of Clinton. He said she did.  A portion of that exchange is here:“GOWDY: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received classified information over her private e-mail. Was that true? COMEY: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent — GOWDY: So it was not true? COMEY: That’s what I said. GOWDY: OK. Well, I’m looking for a little shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was not marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received, was that true? COMEY: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents. GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said ‘I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material.’ Was that true? COMEY: There was classified material e-mail. GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true? COMEY: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of State. GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said all work-related e-mails were returned to the State Department. Was that true? COMEY: No. We found work-related e-mails, thousands that were not returned.”The entire eight and one-half hour hearing is available to the public.News groups make much of Hillary Clinton’s use of the expression, “short-circuited,” in her response to a journalist at the August 6, 2016 gathering of black and Hispanic journalists. The news groups were right to do so, for the expression means nothing. Clinton’s handlers came up with it as a useful and deceitful dodge.At the news conference, Hillary Clinton says “she will try to clarify.” Yet she clarified nothing. She never does. She never will. She leaves her listeners ever more puzzled, confused. She lies and obfuscates and keeps diligently to her script, meticulously prepared for her by her speech writers. She tries to sound contrite. She can’t because contrition isn’t in her character.Americans should place more stock in another term Clinton employed at the August 6, 2016 gathering of black and Hispanic journalists. It is a neutral, matter-of-fact word, but one requiring a close look. For it says much of the insidious design to protect Clinton from exposure to legal action. The term is ‘interview.’Now, Clinton did truthfully refer to her meeting with FBI agents as an ‘interview.’ The FBI conducted an interview of Clinton, not a deposition. What’s the difference? The term, ‘deposition,’ is a legal term of art. The term, ‘interview,’ though, has many shades of meaning, colloquial as well as legal.Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, defines ‘deposition’ as ‘a witness’s out-of-court testimony that is reduced to writing (usually by a court reporter) for later use in court or for discovery purposes.’ Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, defines ‘testimony,’ as ‘Evidence that a competent witness under oath or affirmation gives at trial or in an affidavit or deposition.’ The word, ‘interview,’ is not defined in Black’s Law Dictionary except in reference to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office form which has no application here. But the distinction between an interview and a deposition has particular import apropos of the Clinton matter.The FBI didn’t record Clinton’s responses to the FBI agents’ questions, and Clinton didn’t formally swear, under oath, that her responses were truthful.  This means the FBI didn’t formally depose Hillary Clinton. So her assertions cannot be used at trial.Why didn’t the FBI formally depose Clinton? Certainly, the enormity of the allegations against her would seem to demand that. Why did Hillary Clinton create a personal email server system? Didn’t she appreciate the risks in doing so? Couldn’t she appreciate the risks? What does her creation of a personal email system, leading to the mishandling of secret Government information say about her judgment as a high level Government official? Again, we ask: why didn’t FBI agents formally depose or, at least, electronically record Hillary Clinton’s responses to their questions?Curiously, there is precedent for refraining from recording an interview. Both State and federal law enforcement officers had traditionally opposed recording of interviews of criminal suspects. Of course, if interviews aren’t recorded, in some manner, and if the interviewee's declarations are not under oath or affirmation, they have little if any evidentiary use in Court proceedings. But, perhaps, then, that’s the point of dispensing with the recording of interviews. Perhaps, then, that’s the point of dispensing with formal depositions. Let’s look at the history behind this approach to dispense with formal depositions in these matters.Prior to 2003, only two States required their law enforcement officers to electronically record interviews and, until recently, federal Departments, including the Department of Justice resisted recording interviews. However, “[s]ince 2003, the number of states requiring law enforcement officers to electronically record some or all interviews conducted with suspects in their custody has grown from two to at least twenty-two. Until recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has resisted this trend; under its previous policy, the DOJ's three chief investigative agencies -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) -- rarely recorded custodial interviews. However, on May 22, 2014, the DOJ announced a substantial change in its policy, creating a presumption that FBI, DEA, ATF, and United States Marshals Service (USMS) agents will electronically record custodial interviews.” Recent Administrative Policy: Criminal Procedure -- Custodial Interviews -- Department Of Justice Institutes Presumption That Agents Will Electronically Record Custodial Interviews, Dep't Of Justice, New Department Policy Concerning Electronic Recording Of Statements (2014)., 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1552 (March 10, 2015).The Department of Justice’s new policy, adopted in 2014, concerning recording custodial interviews changed. At the time of adoption of the new policy, Eric Holder was the Attorney General, appointed by President Barack Obama.Actually, the new policy was a welcome change. For, [t]he DOJ's new policy, which went into effect on July 11, 2014, flips its previous presumption against recording to one in favor of it. Agents no longer need to obtain supervisory approval to record interviews: FBI, DEA, ATF, and USMS agents are now expected to electronically record statements of individuals suspected of any federal crime in their custody when in a 'place of detention with suitable recording equipment.'" Id. Why did the DOJ change its stance concerning recording custodial interviews?“Before the recent shift, the DOJ's position was that custodial interviews generally should not be recorded. The major federal law enforcement agencies strongly resisted recording interrogations, citing fears that recording would interfere with rapport building, lay juries and judges would misinterpret acceptable interviewing techniques as improper, and the implementation would be logistically difficult. These concerns led agencies to erect barriers to electronic recording and to rely instead on note-taking and agent memory. For example, the FBI's standard procedure was for an agent to take notes during the interview and later compile a summary known as a Form 302. The Agency had an exception to this practice that allowed recording if the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) ‘deem[ed] it advisable.’ In all but the three largest FBI field offices, there is one SAC who runs the entire office. Therefore, although the FBI claimed that its policy allowed ‘flexibility’ in deciding when to record interviews, internal DOJ analysis suggests that the policy actually inhibited agents' ability to exercise discretion regarding whether or not to record their own interviews, and created a ‘heavy presumption’ against recording. Recent developments, however, expose the shortcomings of the DOJ's previous policy. After decades of experience on the state level with recording policies, many of the FBI's concerns about recording interviews have been proven false. . . . And even where the concerns may prove well-founded, exceptions to recording requirements can easily address the problem; for instance, an exception could be granted for technological difficulties.” Id.Note: the policy for recording of interviews refers to those individuals in custody. But, the FBI never held Clinton in federal custody. So the DOJ’s new policy, favoring recording interviews, doesn’t directly apply here. Still, one might ask why—given the severity of Clinton’s conduct and the damage she inflicted on the security of this Nation and its people—the FBI didn’t take Clinton into custody?Regardless, nothing suggests the FBI SAC Officer couldn’t electronically record Clinton’s responses even if the FBI had not detained her. Still,“. . . the agent and prosecutor may decide not to record an interview conducted for the purpose of gathering information related to public safety or national security.” Id. It’s the SAC Officer’s call. But, given the seriousness of Clinton’s mishandling of the nation’s secrets—a felony—one would think sufficient reason existed for electronic recording of Clinton’s responses; and one can, therefore, certainly make the rational counter argument that it is precisely because Clinton’s transgressions rose to the level of national security concerns that the FBI SAC Officer should have recorded Clinton’s responses to the FBI agents’ questioning for eventual use as evidence in a court proceeding against Clinton if the DOJ ultimately brought charges against her. Certainly, Congress would wish to review the transcript. Indeed, at the August 6, 2015 hearing, Congress pointed out its desire to obtain the SAC Officer’s Form 302 summary of the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton. Whether the FBI ultimately does so, that is an open question. Indeed, that is a transcendental question relating to Government’s attempt to hide nefarious, probably illegal actions from the American people.But, formal electronic transcript or no, one incontrovertible fact remains, Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is a federal crime—a serious federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.18 U.S.C. § 1001, sets forth:“Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism . . . imprisoned not more than 8 years . . . or both.”Of note, a person need not have perjured him or herself—that is to say, a person need not have testified falsely, under oath—to have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001. When a person lies to a federal official—whether under oath or not—that person has violated federal law. Director Comey has acknowledged as much.Hillary Clinton cannot claim an excuse to lie or a license to lie to the FBI simply because she did not formally swear to tell the truth. And, her claim to have told the truth, when facts prove otherwise, do not elevate her lies to truth simply because they were uttered out of the mouth of one, in her view at least, of esteemed status, beyond the rule of law that applies to us lesser mortal citizens of the United States.Courts of law, in time past, have taken a very dim view of liars, whether their lies were produced under oath or not. The courts have denied citizenship to individuals who lied to naturalization officials. See, Petition of Ledo, 67 F. Supp. 917 (D.C. RI 1946). The Court denied citizenship to a liar, noting that, under the naturalization Statute, only a person of good moral character, who accepts the principles of our Constitution and is not predisposed to harm our Country is welcome to become a citizen. The Court held that a liar is not a person of good moral character. That is ground to deny a person his or he petition for citizenship.8 U.S.C.A. § 707(a) provides: 'No person, except as hereinafter provided in this chapter, shall be naturalized unless such petitioner, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing petition for naturalization has resided continuously within the United States for at least five years and within the State in which the petitioner resided at the time of filing the petition for at least six months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the petition up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.'8 U.S.C.A. § 707(a) is now covered by 8 USCS § 1427(a) through (c). Of note, the language, especially, pertaining to moral character remains, in the present statute, exactly as written in the older Statute.See, In re Spenser, 22 F. Cas. 921, 5 Sawy 195 (1895). The Circuit Court of Oregon pointed out that perjury is not only malum prohibitum [an act that is a crime merely because prohibited by statute] but malum in se [an act that is inherently immoral, like arson or murder] that wherever it affected the administration of justice, by introducing falsehood and fraud therein, it was at common law deemed infamous, and the person committing it held incompetent as a witness and unworthy of credit.How far we have come. A court of law may forbid citizenship to a person who lies to a federal officer on the ground our Country does not deem such a person worthy of our Country’s grace, for that person is, both by law and by nature, an immoral person. Yet, this Country now raises the specter of nominating, to the highest Office in the Land, an incorrigible liar—a person who lied to FBI. She then unabashedly compounds the lies told to the FBI by telling the American people she never lied to the FBI.We have in Hillary Rodham Clinton a person capable of turning veritable lies into inviolate truths and, when pressed, will claim she simply made a “mistake.” Those “mistakes” translate into devastation and horror. Those “mistakes” have weakened this Country and its system of laws, led directly or indirectly to the deaths of thousands of Americans, allowed for the rise and strengthening of numerous radical Islamic groups, created political instability throughout the world, promoted civil unrest, but created hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clintons as they have placed, and will undoubtedly continue to place, our Country’s assets, its traditions, its values, its very Constitution and Sovereignty—all of it—on the auction block. Nothing is sacred or “off the table” for Bill and Hillary Clinton where their insatiable greed, lust for power, and capacity for unremorseful criminal misconduct are concerned. See the documentary, “Clinton Cash.”Under present and past naturalization Statutes and under U.S. Court law decisions—decisions going back to the 19^th Century—Hillary Rodham Clinton would have been denied citizenship given her penchant for lying to federal officials. Such a person is beyond redemption. No one ought to be surprised, then, at Hillary Clinton’s audacity, as a citizen of the United States, to claim the Office of U.S. Presidency for herself, as her God-given right—and as the God-given right of her offspring in years to come.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE UN-JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GIVES HILLARY A FREE PASS:

CONGRESS AND THE COURTS—THE LAST HOPE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE—CAN HOLD AND MUST HOLD HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ACCOUNTABLE FOR HER  CRIMINAL ACTS

“When these unlawful acts were committed, they were crimes only of the officers individually. The Government was innocent, in legal contemplation; for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf. When the Government, having full knowledge, sought, through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers’ crimes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928); Dissenting Opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis D. Brandeis To demand an accountable Executive Branch of Government Congress must appoint independent counsel. The U.S. Constitution gave Congress the means to deal with a renegade Executive Branch. Congress saw that counsel, outside of Government, unshackled from the Executive Branch unbeholden to the President, beyond Government influence, could bring an outlaw Executive Branch to answer for its misdeeds.Since the Department of Justice—a component of the Executive Branch—has failed the American people, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court bear the onus to investigate Hillary Clinton anew and to bring criminal charges against her. Through the appointment of independent counsel—a special prosecutor—Hillary Clinton would yet answer for her misconduct.Congress has, in the past acted to ensure that misdeeds of high level officers of the Executive Branch would not go unpunished. Congress must act now, before it is too late.

THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT AND THE ACT’S PRESENT STATUS

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824 (1978), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. §§ 591-599 (1994), had its origins in the Watergate scandal and in President Nixon’s attempt to cover up the investigation by manipulating the Justice Department.“After Watergate, there was widespread recognition of the conflict of interest involved when the Attorney General controls prosecutors of high officials tied politically to the Attorney General.  This recognition led to a series of proposals for statutory authority for special prosecutors. The key provisions of these proposals would vest the appointment of special prosecutors in the courts rather than in the Executive branch, and limit the Attorney General's removal power.” “The Constitutionality of Independent Officers As Checks On Abuses of Executive Power,” 63 B.U.L. Rev. 59, by Charles Tiefer, Assistant United States Senate Legal Counsel.The Department of Justice, a component of the Executive Branch, is taxed with the administration of Justice. But, reliance on the Department of Justice to root out corruption and prosecute serious crimes against high ranking public officials—including and particularly, the President, the Vice-President, and Cabinet level Officials remains problematic.The Attorney General is the Nation’s top prosecutor. The Director of the F.B.I. is the Nation’s top police officer. Both the Attorney General and the Director of the F.B.I. are political appointees. The President of the United States appoints both. They serve at his pleasure.Yes, the two top law enforcement officers of the Nation swear to enforce our Nation’s laws, but to whom do these two top law enforcement officers truly owe their loyalty, their fidelity, ultimately? Do they owe their loyalty, their fidelity to the President and to his Administration or do they owe their loyalty and fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and to the People of the United States? Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, committed multiple illegal acts in clear defiance of and disdain for federal law. One can only wonder at the reluctance of the Department of Justice to render justice. The failure of top Justice Department Officials to bring to justice--on behalf of the American People, and in accordance with their duty under the U.S. Constitution--a corrupt Cabinet Level Officer, opens up these top Justice Department Officials to possible charges of criminal wrongdoing as well. These Justice Department Officials--the F.B.I. Director, James Comey, and the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch--have shown, through their failure to enforce Federal Statute, enacted by Congress, their own contempt for the law. They have condoned criminal conduct. They are, therefore, conceivably, guilty of criminal conduct themselves.Moreover, as the two Departments—the Departments of State and Justice—are components of the Executive Branch of Government, presided over by the U.S. President, the President isn’t free of culpability in the Clinton scandal, either.The President must surely have known of Hillary Clinton's behavior. After all Hillary Clinton's use of  personal email servers to handle classified documents wasn't an atypical, "one off" event. She used private email servers to conduct official Government business, extensively--indeed, she used private email servers to conduct official Government business, exclusively--and she used private email servers to conduct official Government business over a lengthy period of time, namely, during her entire tenure as Secretary of State. Clinton's use of private email servers was her typical way of conducting Government business. If the President did not know of Hillary Clinton's illegal acts--which is difficult to believe-- he is, nonetheless and at the very least, liable for negligent hiring. After all, he appointed Hillary Clinton to her post, as head of the Department of State. So, he bears some responsibility for her actions.It is mind-boggling to consider that the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, won’t indict Hillary Clinton. Substantial damning evidence against Clinton—evidence clearly warranting Clinton's indictment on felony criminal charges cries out for Clinton's indictment. It is equally mind-boggling to consider that, in light of his unprecedented statement to the American people on July 5, 2016—notably, one day after our National Holiday, marking our Nation's independence from tyranny—the Director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, would decide not to recommend indictment of  Clinton, when his lengthy description of her crimes would strongly suggest he would do just that. He didn’t. Was he coerced? Americans may never know. We do know that Hillary Clinton should not escape justice. She must not escape justice.Congress must now act precisely because the Executive Branch of Government won't. High ranking Officials in the Executive Branch are themselves, apparently, too embroiled in Hillary Clinton's corruption to put their house in order and mete out justice.Only someone outside of Government, untainted by Government, and beyond the reach of and, therefore, beyond the influence of both the U.S. President and shadowy, powerful interests that are pulling the President's strings can mete out justice now.But what are the mechanics for meting out justice? Let’s take a look.

HOW DOES THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT WORK?

“Under the Act, when the Attorney General receives specific information that high officials covered by the statute—including White House staff, Cabinet members, certain Justice Department officers, and the President and Vice President—have engaged in violations of federal criminal law other than petty offenses, he is allowed ninety days to complete a preliminary investigation. If he either ‘finds that the matter warrants further investigation or prosecution,’ or does not find ‘that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation or prosecution is warranted,’ then he must apply to a special division of the courts, consisting of a three-judge panel assigned by the Chief Justice for a two-year period, to appoint an independent counsel. “The Constitutionality of Independent Officers As Checks On Abuses of Executive Power,” 63 B.U.L. Rev. 59, by Charles Tiefer, Assistant United States Senate Legal Counsel.“The independent counsel has a wide range of investigative powers, including conducting proceedings before grand juries, applying for judicial warrants, subpoenas, and immunity and other orders, and using the files, resources and personnel of the Justice Department. He must conform with an elaborate set of requirements for reporting to and advising Congress, including cooperating with congressional oversight committees, sending reports to Congress on his activities, and advising the House of Representatives of information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. Independent counsels also frame and sign indictments, initiate and conduct prosecutions, and handle all aspects of federal cases. The Attorney General can remove independent counsels only for ‘good cause.’” Id.We make several observations here. First, under The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the Department of Justice—which includes the F.B.I.—does the preliminary work in investigating crime in high Government Office. Second, the Justice Department’s role is limited to making one of two determinations: either further investigation of criminal conduct is warranted, or it isn’t. Third, the threshold for determining whether further investigation or prosecution is warranted is set very low. This means that, if reasonable ground exists for extending the investigation, the need to appoint a special prosecutor kicks in. Fourth, the Justice Department has no discretion in this. Political influence and cronyism is negated. Once the Justice Department determines reasonable ground exists for extending an investigation, the Justice Department must relinquish its control over the investigation and prosecution of the case. Fifth, the Justice Department relinquishes its control by applying to a special division of the Courts. A three member panel of the special division will appoint a special prosecutor.The special prosecutor then takes over investigation and prosecution from the Justice Department. Sixth, the Justice Department has 90 days to conduct a preliminary investigation. This precludes the Justice Department from sitting on a case. Seventh, in matters involving the investigation and prosecution of criminal misconduct of high level Executive Branch officials, the Ethics in Government Act hands over the administration of justice from the Executive Branch to the Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government.So, why hasn’t the Justice Department made application to the Courts allowing the Judicial Branch of Government to appoint a special prosecutor? Might it be simply that the Judicial Branch will not, for some obscure reason, appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State and to look into the secret business dealings of the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation since, apparently, the Justice Department is unable to act? Or is it the case that the Attorney General cannot appoint a special prosecutor, had she wanted to?The Department of Justice can't take action to have a special prosecutor appointed because the Ethics in Government Act is no longer in effect.Clearly, if the Ethics in Government Act were still in effect, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the White House would be at an end. The F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, determined—as is clear from his July 5, 2016 statement to the American people—that reasonable grounds for further criminal investigation of Clinton exists. Comey’s lame excuses--embarrassingly and, perhaps, deliberately lame excuses-- for recommending to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, that no criminal charges be filed against Clinton, would be irrelevant. The Justice Department would have been compelled to apply to the Special Division of the Courts. The Special Division would appoint a special prosecutor to handle the case. The special prosecutor would take over the investigation entirely, and Clinton’s bid for the Democratic Party nomination for U.S. President would be effectively over.

WHITHER THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978?

“The Ethics in Government Act of 1978” had a sunset provision. The Act would expire after five years, unless Congress renewed it. Congress did renew the Act in 1982, once again in 1987, and then again in 1994. The Act was scheduled for renewal a fourth time, in June 30, 1999. But, this time Congress allowed the Act to die.What changed between 1994 and 1999? Just this: The investigation, impeachment, and trial of William Jefferson Clinton. Congressional Democrats fought it. Clinton opposed it, Clinton’s Attorney General, appointed by Clinton, argued against it. The liberal American Bar Association attacked it. Even Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, appointed by the Court to investigate whether the President and Hillary Clinton had violated federal statutes in connection with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corporation, and Capital Management, assailed it.Starr said, the Act, “tries to cram a fourth branch of government into our three-branch system.” That is a singularly odd remark for the independent counsel--the special prosecutor--to make--in essence sabotaging his own appointment as independent counsel to investigate the President. In any event, Kenneth Starr's assertion was wrong. The appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes by high level Executive Branch Officials creates no Fourth Branch of Government, either literally or metaphorically.The special prosecutor, appointed by the Judicial Branch, answers to the Legislative Branch of Government. This joint action by the Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government hold the Executive Branch to its duty to faithfully execute the laws of the Nation. The Ethics in Government Act compels integrity.Without fanfare, just a few short months ago, Republicans in Congress attempted to resuscitate the Ethics in Government Act. Two House Republicans, Representative, Rick Allen, Republican from Georgia, and Michael Turner, Republican from Ohio introduced the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016,” on May 17, 2016. The “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016,” essentially reauthorizes the original Ethics in Government Act of 1978, codified in 28 USCS Section 599, that had expired in 1999.Where is that draft bill now? It languishes in Committee. It has virtually no chance of passage. No one in Congress talks about it. The mainstream media does not bring it up: “out of sight, out of mind.” But, why is that?Can it be that all too many individuals in Government prefer to live with corruption? Perhaps so. But, when corruption is the cost of doing business in Government and when corruption is raised to a virtue, the destruction of our Bill of Rights and loss of our Free Republic cannot be far behind. That cost is much too high.Curiously, the original Ethics in Government Act owed its demise to the Clintons. They would hardly wish to see it resurrected now, on the eve of 2016 Presidential election, when the two taste victory.We look further into the legal intricacies of Judicial and Congressional use of a special prosecutor and to the machinations of the Clintons in upcoming articles.Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are two of the most corrupt individuals ever to hold high Government Office. They repeatedly refer to their misconduct as simple, inadvertent “mistakes.” Hardly so. For the Clinton's had great responsibilities. They served at the highest or, otherwise, at a very high level of Government. One served as President of the United States. The other as a Cabinet Level Official. Their so-called mistakes have ripple effects, impacting the entire Country, having repercussions around the world. To call their duplicitous actions, "mistakes," apparently serves, in their minds at least, to create the illusion their criminal actions do not have and did not have major disastrous consequences for Americans in particular and for the stability of the world, generally. They obviously take their actions cavalierly. But, no greater "mistake" can the American people make than to give these two a pass for their past "mistakes." For, that mistake--the one the American People make--will land the two of them--Bill and Hillary Clinton--in the White House where they can engineer more "mistakes." But, this time, any mistakes the two of them--the two "Presidents" make--presiding over this Country as a dyarchy--will spell the end of our Constitution, the end of our free Republic, the end of a once proud and unique Sovereign Nation State.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: JUSTICE UNDONE

"Exaggeration of every kind is as essential to journalism as it is to dramatic art, for the object of journalism is to make events go as far as possible." Arthur Schopenhauer, German PhilosopherThe mainstream media continues to make flamboyant, exaggerated claims about Hillary Clinton, all the while smearing Donald Trump. The mainstream media insinuates opinion into news stories, and forsakes any pretense of balanced reporting. If Hillary Rodham Clinton--a person who lied to the F.B.I., and whose violation of federal law, involving the handling of classified data, is clear beyond rational disputation--should become the 45th President of the United States, the American People will have the major news organizations to thank for that. But, then, that's the aim of the major news organizations. As a juggernaut, most of the major news organizations are shamelessly casting one of the most corrupt politicians in American history--if not the most corrupt politician in American history--Hillary Rodham Clinton, as singularly worthy of occupying the highest Office in the Land.Despite rampant evidence of criminal misconduct, poor use of judgment, a well-spring of lies, a person who is the personification of ruthless ambition and lust for power, an individual who would likely shape U.S. foreign and domestic policy around the goals and desires of those wealthy, powerful individuals, multinational corporations, major banks, foreign business oligarchs, and foreign governments willing to pay cold, hard cash to the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation--this is the person the mainstream media claims is the person most fit to sit in the Oval Office. Such is the power of the Press to shape public opinion against the public's own best interests.Yet, for all the bombastic praise the mainstream media heaps on Hillary Clinton, the mainstream news media remains curiously silent on one critical fact. It is one you would think the mainstream media would find worth mentioning. It is critical fact that distinguishes Hillary Clinton from Donald Trump. It is a fact that needs mentioning. But, the mainstream media refuses to mention it. It is this: the Department of Justice spent millions of dollars and thousands of man hours investigating Hillary Clinton for violations of federal law—serious breaches of federal law—felonies. This would not have been necessary if Hillary Clinton, who served as Secretary of State, a Cabinet Level position in the Obama Administration—had complied with federal law as one would minimally expect of a high level Government official.The Department of Justice certainly didn’t investigate Donald Trump. It didn’t have to. It never had to. Donald Trump isn’t a criminal. The Department of Justice never suspected he was. The Department of Justice had never thought or insinuated that Trump had ever violated federal law. The Department of Justice never had reason to suspect Trump had violated federal law. Moreover, the mainstream media itself never suggested that Donald Trump had violated federal law. It would like to. It can’t. Any mainstream news source that said or intimated that Trump had violated federal law would face a lawsuit for libel. The mainstream media cannot make the same claim of Hillary Rodham Clinton. So it chooses to remain silent on the issue of Clinton's likely criminality, glossing over her likely criminality as if  it never happened.The mainstream media continues its scurrilous attacks against Trump. Not a day goes by that the mainstream media doesn't attack Trump, repeatedly, repeating ad nauseam the same tired, vacuous remarks and leveling ridiculous, dubious accusation upon accusation upon him.  All the while, the mainstream media ignores the serious criminal charges the Justice Department had leveled against Hillary Rodham Clinton—charges immeasurably more serious than anything the media can throw and does incessantly throw at Trump.News commentators complain Donald Trump showed “bad taste,” having brought up the Clinton email server scandal during his acceptance speech. Really? The mainstream media suggests that electing the U.S. President is akin to attending an elegant dinner party, where invitees are expected to adhere to proper rules of etiquette and decorum. Yet, most distasteful is the prospect of electing a criminal to serve as President of the United States.Donald Trump does not face, never faced, and never had to face charges of criminal misconduct—misconduct that jeopardizes the security of this Nation. Hillary Clinton has faced charges of serious misconduct while serving as a Cabinet Level Officer in the Obama Administration. Her misbehavior as Secretary of State is of an order of magnitude far outstripping anything that one might claim of Donald Trump. Indeed, The Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation continues to operate defiantly, most likely, illegally. The mainstream media remains oblivious to the seriousness of Hillary Clinton's obvious criminal conduct--contemptible conduct she will undoubtedly carry with her to the White House. Would President Hillary Clinton promulgate U.S. foreign and domestic policy benefitting foreign governments to the detriment of the U.S. because of money pouring into the Foundation? Has the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation influenced Obama’s foreign policies? Would Hillary Clinton conduct U.S. Government business on private servers? Is Hillary Clinton above the law?Why isn’t the mainstream media asking these questions and delving into these serious matters? What has become of investigative reporting in this Country? What can Congress do to demand accountability by the Executive Branch of Government? The Director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, should have recommended indictment of Hillary Clinton. A recommendation of indictment follows consistently and decisively from Comey’s recitation of Clinton’s crimes under the United States Code. But, Comey, mysteriously and oddly, did not indict her.The Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, should have indicted Hillary Clinton, even absent a recommendation of indictment. For, the Attorney General need not adhere to the Director’s recommendation. But, the Attorney General did not indict Clinton.Miscarriages of justice happen, true. When they do, that is regrettable, more so if avoidable. The Nation adjusts to miscarriages of justice, although reluctantly. But the American people cannot cavalierly dismiss or ignore some miscarriages of justice. We cannot do so because some criminal conduct of high ranking public officials, if not corrected, can fracture the fabric of a free Republic. These are serious miscarriages of justice. Serious miscarriages of justice cry out for redress. The Hillary Clinton email and Bill and Hillary Clinton foundation scandals are among those miscarriages of justice that this Nation ought not and cannot ignore. They are too large in scale, too many, too serious to shrug off.Were Clinton to slink off the campaign stage, before the Democratic Party convention, she must still answer for her misdeeds. For Clinton to accept her Party’s nomination is difficult to fathom, too absurd to imagine, singularly bizarre to ponder.You may like Hillary Clinton or loathe her. You may agree with her or not—inveterate liar as she is. In either case, a likely criminal cannot serve as United States President. The American People cannot allow this to happen. For, the sake of the Republic and the preservation of our Bill of Rights, this must not happen.The Nation’s Executive Branch will do nothing to stop Clinton’s nomination. This, we have learned. This we know. Indeed, the Executive Branch, under Barack Obama, has a vested interest in a Clinton Presidency. This, too, we know. The mainstream media has acknowledged this. Through a Hillary Clinton Presidency Obama's legacy will be ensured and enshrined and furthered.The Nation’s Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government can stop the ensuing travesty. The Nation’s Legislative and Judicial Branches can prevent a serious miscarriage of justice. But, if the Legislative and Judicial Branches act, they must act now, not after Hillary Clinton secures the White House.When the U.S. Department of Justice fails to perform its duties, where does that leave the Nation? Where does the Nation find redress? And, redress this Nation must find.What, exactly, can Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court do? If Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court do nothing and if Hillary Clinton wins the election, becoming United States President Hillary Clinton, Congress can immediately impeach Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors. The U.S. Constitution prescribes a means for removal of a U.S. President and other high ranking Government Officials. Article II, Section 4 sets forth: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article I, Section 3 says,“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”  Yet, the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton the moment she takes the oath of Office will not sit well with many. That will not sit well with Senate and House Democrats. That will not sit well with the mainstream media. That will not sit well with shadowy, sinister power brokers who lurk in the shadows. That will not sit well with a slice of the populace, including among others, illegal immigrants, members of the Muslim community, and those who look forward to a constant influx of welfare checks. The media would stir to a frenzy those members of the populace who seek special favors.The founders of our Republic apparently felt impeachment a tenable tool for dealing with criminals in Government. If that didn’t work they felt the public could keep them out in the next election. The founders obviously didn’t consider the prospect of voting a criminal into Office. They obviously didn't believe the public could be that naïve. They didn't seriously consider how a free Press would devolve into a tool of secretive power brokers who have their own agenda--one contrary to the well-being of the United States as an independent, sovereign Nation--an agenda antagonistic to the well-being of hard-working honest citizens.What can be done, assuming Clinton becomes the 45th U.S. President? Apart from instituting—or attempting to institute—impeachment proceedings against Hillary Clinton, the day she’s sworn in--an unlikely scenario--and, given that the Department of Justice refuses to do its duty, can Congress institute an ordinary criminal action against a sitting President, apart from conducting impeachment proceedings or concomitantly with the instituting of impeachment proceedings? This is possible but highly unlikely.Congress has another recourse to bring Hillary Clinton to justice--an option more workable than attempting to unseat a sitting President: appointment of independent counsel who can reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton's conduct as Secretary of State and who can bring criminal charges against Clinton before she becomes President of the United States. If Hillary Clinton becomes U.S. President that will be a disastrous outcome for this Country—but it is an outcome that is looking disturbingly and depressingly inevitable. Counsel, outside of Government, unshackled from Government, unbeholden to the President, incorruptible, must investigate Hillary Clinton anew, and outside counsel must do so at once!Unfortunately, the United States Constitution--although expressly providing for impeachment of high level Government officials, including and most notably the President of the United States--doesn’t expressly provide for appointment of attorneys outside Government to investigate and prosecute crime and corruption at the highest levels of Government.The Department of Justice, a component of the Executive Branch, is taxed with the administration of Justice. But, reliance on the Department of Justice to root out corruption and prosecute serious crimes against high ranking public officials—including and particularly, the President, the Vice-President, and Cabinet level Officials remains problematic.The Attorney General is the Nation’s top prosecutor. The Director of the F.B.I. is the Nation’s top police officer. Both the Attorney General and the Director of the F.B.I. are political appointees. The President of the United States appoints both. They serve at his pleasure. Yes, the two top law enforcement officers of the Nation swear to enforce our Nation’s laws, but to whom do these two top law enforcement officers truly owe their loyalty, their fidelity, ultimately? To the President and his Administration or to the U.S. Constitution and the People of the United States? One cannot but wonder.The Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, won’t indict Hillary Rodham Clinton, notwithstanding substantial damning evidence against her—evidence clearly warranting her indictment on serious criminal charges.  The Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, didn't recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton, notwithstanding and, curiously, in contradistinction to the damning evidence he cited against her in his unprecedented July 5, 2016 statement to the American People--evidence strongly suggesting the F.B.I. Director's strong desire to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton. He wouldn't do so. Was he coerced? Americans may never know. We do know that Hillary Clinton should not escape justice. She thinks she has. She thinks she is above the law. If Congress doesn't act, then Hillary Clinton may be right about that.It is clear that only someone outside of Government, untainted by Government, and beyond the reach of and, therefore, beyond the influence of both the U.S. President and shadowy, powerful interests can and must mete out justice now.At one time Congress had the answer. At one time in our Nation’s history, Congress had enacted a law and did use that law to demand accountability of the Chief Executive and his officials. But what are the mechanics for meting out justice? It’s complicated. In the next article the Arbalest Quarrel explains the mechanics of the Congressional Act that Congress once used to require integrity of Executive Branch Officials. It is a Congressional Act that can yet derail Hillary Clinton's aspirations to secure the Nation's highest Office--but only if Congress has the will and courage to reenact it.[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.

A LOOK AT ONE OF TRUMP’S CHOICES FOR U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: ALLISON EID

A LOOK AT ONE OF TRUMP’S CHOICES FOR U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: ALLISON EID

INTRODUCTION TO A CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE PEOPLE WHO MAY GAIN A SEAT ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

The mainstream media’s endless, nauseating, servile behavior toward Hillary Clinton won’t go away. That same media demonizes Donald Trump. Yet, the possibility of a criminal indictment against Clinton gets scant attention. The powers that crush the public into submission actively embrace a Clinton Presidency.If Hillary Clinton becomes our next President, the Second Amendment will face renewed assault and eventual, inevitable de facto repeal. That isn’t guess. That is fact.Clinton will be in position to  anoint the ninth U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Clinton's nominee will receive a hearing and vote. That, too, is not conjecture. That is fact. Senator Grassley's Judiciary Committee cannot feasibly forestall a confirmation vote indefinitely if Clinton secures the Oval Office.If Clinton's first nominee to sit on the high Court isn't confirmed, her second, or third choice likely will be. Once confirmed to a seat on the high Court, the liberal-wing of the Court will have secured its majority: five to four. Any case remotely affecting the Second Amendment that comes before the Court on appeal will almost certainly  be taken up. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms will come under renewed assault.The liberal-wing majority's decision will whittle away at the Heller and McDonald case holdings. The liberal-wing majority may overturn the holdings of those two seminal cases outright.Clinton hasn’t released a list of prospective U.S. Supreme Court candidates, but Trump has. We guess Clinton is content with Merrick Garland—a Court of Appeals Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit who has openly attacked the Second Amendment in two decisions. Clinton will do nothing to risk Garland’s candidacy. Judge Garland is Obama's darling. Clinton would hardly wish to anger Obama as the mainstream news sources have reported, on the day of the posting of this article, June 10, 2016, Obama's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.  Clinton knows that Garland exhibits the same enmity toward the Second Amendment as she does, and as Obama does. That is a necessary condition for nomination, notwithstanding that neither Obama nor Clinton would say so publically.We know Trump will support the Second Amendment. That isn't bombast. Trump has released a list of candidates. Let’s consider those candidates’ records. We begin with Allison Eid, a Colorado State Supreme Court Justice, who issued the opinion in Regents of the Univ. of Colo. vs. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC., 2012 CO 17; 271 P.3d 496; 2012 Colo. LEXIS 114; 2012 WL 691538.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Plaintiff, a student group seeking to carry concealed firearms on campus, sued the University of Colorado’s Board of Regents. The Plaintiff alleged the Board’s weapons policy violates the Colorado Concealed Carry Act (“CCA)  and Article 2, Section 13 of the State Constitution’s right to bear arms. The Board of Regent’s Weapons Control Policy prohibits carrying of firearms on campus except for certified law enforcement personnel. Failure to abide by the policy leads to expulsion.The Complaint alleges that three students sought to carry firearms “when traveling to, from, through, or on the campuses of the University of Colorado for self-defense.” One of the students contacted the Chief of Police at the University, in Denver. He sought permission to carry a concealed weapon on campus. Two other students contacted the Chancellor of the University in Colorado Springs. Each of the students asserted they held a valid concealed-carry permit under State Statute, the CCA. The officials denied the requests, citing the University policy.The, Defendant, Board of Regents moved to dismiss, arguing the students had failed to state a claim for relief. The lower District Court agreed. The Court argued that the CCA prohibits only “local governments” in Colorado “from adopting or enforcing laws contrary to the CCA.” The Court said “the Board is not a ‘local government’” and, so, had authority to ban firearms on campus. The lower Court also said, oddly, that “the right to bear arms is not a ‘fundamental right.’” The lower Court also said the right can instead be “highly restricted” by the state’s valid exercise of its police power.” The lower Court then dismissed the complaint, and the students appealed the adverse decision to the next level: the Colorado Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals focused on “the plain language” of the Statute, and on the State Legislature’s “desire for statewide uniform standards” to include—as the Statute says—“all areas of the State." The Court of Appeals concluded that “all areas of the State” means college campuses too. On the Constitutional issue, the Court of Appeals said the lower District Court applied the wrong standard of review. The Students’ allegations did state a claim for relief. The Court of Appeals thereupon reversed the decision of the lower Court.The Board of Regents appealed the adverse decision to the Colorado Supreme Court. The high State Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding for the Plaintiff Students.

THE STATE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING AND REASONING

Delivering the opinion of the high State Court, Justice Eid said: “We hold that the CCA’s comprehensive statewide purpose, broad language, and narrow exclusions show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus.” The Colorado State Supreme Court added, “Because we affirm on statutory grounds, we do not consider the Students’ constitutional claim.” Consideration of the constitutional claim is unnecessary here.The high State Court peered closely at the CCA. The Court reasoned that the Colorado General Assembly enacted the CCA because “the General Assembly found that jurisdictions were inconsistent in issuing concealed-carry permits and in identifying ‘areas of the state where it is lawful to carry concealed handguns.’” "The General Assembly found the criteria and procedures for lawfully carrying a concealed handgun ‘should be consistent throughout the state to ensure the consistent implementation of state law.'"The General Assembly pointed out, clearly, concisely, categorically that it was “‘necessary that the state occupy the field of regulation of the bearing of concealed handguns since the issuance of a concealed handgun permit is based on a person’s constitutional right of self-protection and there is a prevailing state interest in ensuring that no citizen is arbitrarily denied a concealed handgun permit and in ensuring that the laws controlling the use of the permit are consistent throughout the state.”The Board of Regents claimed, erroneously, “‘that the CCA does not divest it of its authority to adopt and enforce the Policy [because the Board] holds special, constitutional authority to enact policies governing the University of Colorado.”’The State Supreme Court clarified that local governments—and that includes the Board of Regents—“are expressly prohibited from ‘adopt[ing] or enforce[ing] an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision [of the CCA].’”In conclusion, the Colorado Supreme Court held “that the CCA divested the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus.”

CLOSING THOUGHTS ON THE POSITIVE IMPLICATIONS OF JUSTICE EID’S OPINION

Colorado State Justice Allison Eid respects the rule of law. She doesn't impose her will on the people of the State. She sees her job as interpreting the law of Colorado as it exists, not as she may happen to prefer--whatever her personal predilections may be. She recognizes that the State Legislature, the General Assembly, has preempted the field of firearms regulation. Colorado's General Assembly has done this, obviously, to ensure that the right to bear arms as embodied in the State Constitution, and, by logical entailment, the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as is a right exercised by Americans throughout the State--a right uniformly exercised, throughout the State--is not subject to curtailment by local authorities who happen to disagree with Americans' ownership and possession of firearms.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WHERE STATES PERMIT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO IMPOSE THEIR OWN WILL ON THE PEOPLE?

Several State Legislatures do allow jurisdictions within the State to adopt their own rules, codes, and ordinances regulating the carrying of handguns concealed. This is called "Home Rule." Relaxation of State preemption invariably weakens the Second Amendment because local jurisdictions, given the opportunity to flex their muscle through the device of "Home Rule," deny American citizens' right to keep and bear arms. Local jurisdictions do this under the guise of promoting law and order and preventing gun violence even though such rules, codes, and ordinances do nothing to curtail gun violence and do nothing to promote law and order. Actually, such rules, codes, and regulations ensure that criminal gun violence will increase, not decrease.Local rules, codes, and ordinances that curtail a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend his or her life and well-being serve to undercut the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment. This creates confusion because the public is bombarded with a myriad of conflicting requirements. This also results in the useless expenditure of police administrative resources better utilized in fighting crime. And this results in the needless expenditure of personal resources. A person, who seeks to exercise his or her natural right of self-defense, under the Second Amendment must spend inordinate amounts of time and money for the privilege of doing so as the sacred right is supplanted by government licensing schemes. Thus favoritism, corruption, bribery, and black market activity begin to germinate and flourish.

COMPARISON OF LEGAL METHODOLOGIES

Consider State Justice Eid’s methodology in deciding cases. Her methodology follows the methodology employed by Justice Thomas and by the late Justice Scalia. Justice Eid looks at “the plain text” of a Statute. She doesn’t read into a Statute what she likes and discard what she may happen not to like. She doesn’t second-guess the State Legislature.Compare State Justice Allison Eid’s methodology and jurisprudence to Judge Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Garland decides Second Amendment cases and those cases implicating the Second Amendment by insinuating his personal predilection against the Second Amendment into his decisions. Judge Garland isn’t content in looking at “the plain text” of a Statute if he doesn’t like its meaning. State Justice Eid, unlike Judge Garland, accepts a Statute as it exists. She sees her job as interpreting the law, not rewriting it.Which Jurist is likely to preserve the Bill of Rights for the benefit of all Americans as the founders of our Republic intended? Which Jurist is likely to shred the Bill of Rights because it is an “old document” and must be rewritten, consistent with the Constitutions of other nations, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer apparently would like very much to see? Whom would you like to see sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court: State Justice Allison Eid or U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland?If Donald Trump secures the Office of U.S. President, the Second Amendment will be preserved, even strengthened. We may rest assured of that. If Hillary Clinton secures the Office of U.S. President, she will do everything in her power--and outside her power--to weaken and eventually destroy the Second Amendment. That is her goal. That is the goal of those both inside and outside this Country who seek to eliminate America's Bill of Rights. She will argue it is the mandate of the American people to rewrite and redefine America's Bill of Rights. The American people must crush Hillary Clinton's naked ambition for absolute power.[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.

NRA: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’S VOICE

Antigun Groups Curry Favor with the President to Further Personal Agenda and to Attack the NRA

Nothing speaks more clearly and cogently of the duplicity and hypocrisy existent in Obama’s efforts to undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms than the personal attacks he levels against NRA. The singular aim of NRA is nothing less than defense of the inalienable, natural, and fundamental right to keep and bear arms – clearly and cogently articulated and codified in the Bill of Rights, as the second of ten critical, enumerated rights.We all know that the President and the various antigun interest groups habitually refer to NRA, disparagingly, as the “Gun Lobby.” They do this to suggest that NRA represents a small, select interest group, namely, gun manufacturers, whose singular objective is to make money from the sale of firearms. If true, NRA would be a “trade” group. Now, trade groups, on behalf of their members, do lobby Congress. And, there is nothing wrong with that. But, NRA is not a trade group.Although firearms’ manufacturers – which, by the way have their own trade groups – may benefit tangentially from the efforts of NRA to secure the sacred right of people to keep and bear arms, NRA does not represent gun manufacturers, and NRA is not an organization that comprises gun manufacturers. To the contrary, NRA is composed of American citizens – millions of Americans. Americans do not become members of NRA because they are interested in making money off NRA’s efforts. Americans become members of NRA because they know the United States will not long stand as a free republic if the right of each American to keep and bear firearms is curtailed. NRA is one organization that embodies and engenders the spirit of America as a free republic.The salient purpose of the NRA is to protect and preserve, for Americans the sanctity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It works on behalf of its members, certainly, but, in fact, it works on behalf of all Americans who cherish their Bill of Rights.NRA does lobby on behalf of its members, just as the antigun interest groups lobby on behalf of their members, although the antigun groups’ members amount to a miniscule fraction of Americans. Moreover, unlike the antigun groups that are essentially nothing more than a lobbying vehicle for those individuals and cabals both here and abroad who wish to erode the Bill of Rights and to destroy the Second Amendment, NRA is much more than a lobby group.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on the many services NRA provides for average Americans, law enforcement, and, traditionally, for the U.S. military. Readers are invited to read the Arbalest Quarrel's extensive article on the history of the NRA, posted on April 8, 2015.President Obama and Hillary Clinton and the antigun groups attack the lobbying efforts of NRA. But, there is nothing wrong in the act of lobbying, per se. Lobbying is an activity protected under the First Amendment. And, it would hardly do for the antigun forces in this Country to attack the NRA on the ground that NRA's lobbying efforts are wrongly directed to defending and preserving one of America’s inalienable, natural, and fundamental rights, especially in light of the lobbying efforts of the antigun groups that are directed to attaining the opposite end – the tearing down of a sacred right that the founders of a free republic gave to us. And it would hardly do for antigun groups to attack the NRA's defense of the Second Amendment when those same antigun forces openly declare, albeit disingenuously, that they do not wish to tear down the Second Amendment, when they seek to do just that. For, if they were serious in their assertions and declarations that they do in fact support the Second Amendment, then they would not be continuously, endlessly, and vociferously attacking NRA. That they do incessantly attack NRA, their hypocrisy and duplicity is glaringly obvious for all to see.At the behest of the President and at the behest of the antigun groups the mainstream media argues, emphatically, but falsely, that NRA represents and conducts lobbying activities on behalf of firearms' manufacturers, whose interests, the selling of firearms, play well to the ignorant among America’s populace who are conditioned, through the power of the mainstream media, to equate guns solely with violence – that is to say – with nothing good, even as that violence, as everyone knows, is produced, not by the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners but, rather by a notably few, the very worst who live among us – namely, career criminals, psychopathic gang members -- many of whom have entered and remain in the U.S. illegally -- assorted lunatics and, of late, radical and radicalized Islamic jihadists.But, it is one thing for antigun groups to attack the NRA, as an organization whose goal it is to preserve the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and to attack, too, those Americans who choose to exercise that right. It is quite another for the President to do so. Why is that? For this reason: when the President of the United States attacks NRA and, by extension, attacks millions of Americans who simply wish to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, the President is, himself, operating as a lobbyist for a specific interest group, at the detriment of the interests of another group. In this instance we see the President, Barack Obama, representing groups whose interests – the destruction of the Second Amendment and the erosion of the other nine Amendments – are at odds with the well-being of a free republic and with the safeguarding of the Bill of Rights.The duplicity and hypocrisy of the President of the United States are obvious and self-evident. President Obama and, before him, President Clinton, have used the power and influence of the Office of the Chief  Executive, to condemn the lobbying efforts of the NRA and, in so, doing, they have played favorites: furthering the dubious interests of those interest groups whose avowed goal is the dismantling of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the undermining of our Bill of Rights.In contradistinction to the underhanded, secretive use of the Office of the President (the Chief Executive of the Nation) by antigun interest groups to further their own nefarious, insidious objectives, NRA’s lobbying efforts have been subject to full disclosure, have been directed to the most honorable of goals – preservation of Americans’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms set forth with specificity in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – and have been directed to securing appropriate legislation through Congress, not through the Office of the President.The right of an interest group to lobby Congress to further that group’s objectives, if those objectives are properly disclosed, is legitimate, fully protected political speech, under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, the antigun groups, apart from lobbying Congress to further their own ends – upending the Second Amendment through the Legislative process – have, inappropriately, sought intervention by the Chief Executive, as well -- have, in fact, concentrated their lobbying campaign on the Chief Executive because Congress won't do their bidding. They trust that the Chief Executive will. But that means the Chief Executive is expected to legislate antigun laws on their behalf. And that is monstrous. We see the ludicrousness of President Obama's message to the public: asserting that he must intervene because Congress won't legislate in this area, but then asserting that he isn't making new law but simply operating within the constraints of present Congressional legislation! While an interest group is not prohibited from seeking special favor of, or groveling before, or currying favor from the Chief Executive, such instant and easy access to the President of the United States by one group, to the detriment of others, is fraught with danger especially when this behind-the-scenes actions of noxious special interest groups, namely and specifically, antigun interest groups, furthers goals that are diametrically opposed both to the well-being of a free republic and to the safeguarding of the Bill of Rights upon which a free republic depends for its survival.One must wonder whether President Obama’s recent impermissible promulgation of antigun legislation, through the device of executive directives, was not inspired by, or, more to the point, directed by antigun interest groups. Did not these antigun interest groups – angered by the failure of Congress to extend the parameters of the national instant criminal background check system of the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994” – exert pressure on the President – convincing Obama, who was amenable to their goals anyway, to use the power of his Office to further the antigun agenda along precisely because Congress wouldn’t? And, does not this circumvention of Congress by the antigun interest groups constitute an illegitimate exertion of influence by these groups on the Executive, contrary to and irrespective of the will of the American people? Do not the actions of Obama amount to a compounding of fault, having allowed his Office to be a conduit for illegal law-making?Indeed, one antigun group, “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” has, for decades, attempted to use the power of the Executive to further its own nefarious goals.The Brady Campaign, an antigun lobbying group, had appealed directly to President Carter, in the 1970s, to harass gun owners; and Carter did just that. The Brady Campaign had little success with the Republican Presidents, Reagan and H.W. Bush. But, then, Bill Clinton entered the picture. The Brady Campaign sent a confidential memorandum to the White House, setting out exactly what the Brady Campaign antigun interest and lobbying group wanted from and expected to obtain from Clinton, including, inter alia, licensing requirements and registration for handgun owners, bans on firearms, defined as ‘assault weapons,’ waiting periods, and a required “arsenal license” for anyone who owned 20 firearms or more.The Brady Campaign sought to use the power of the Executive Branch to put pressure on the Legislative Branch to further the interest of a small, virulently antigun segment of the population. Obviously, the Brady Campaign and other antigun groups have been working behind-the-scenes in recent times, as well, to push Obama to accede to their desires. Since Obama harbors anti-Second Amendment, antigun sentiments, anyway, he has been all-to-willing to use the power and influence of his Office to push the agenda of these groups – especially now, as he, in his final year of Office, is no longer afraid of offending Congress.If Hillary Clinton becomes her Party’s nominee and, thereafter, gains the Presidency, her Administration will be essentially an extension of her husband’s previous Administration, and the Brady Campaign and other antigun lobbying groups will continue to exert inappropriate, illegitimate, and, in fact, illegal influence over Hillary Clinton, just as they had exerted such influence over her husband and over Obama.Clinton, as we know, is more than merely amenable to this influence. She will be enthusiastic about using the Office of the Presidency to further the antigun agenda, even as this means by-passing Congress, and notwithstanding that Congress has sole authority to enact the laws of the Land, consistent with its law-making powers under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is successful in securing the Office of President of the United States, Americans will see further erosion of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They will see the continued erosion, too, of the Separation of Powers Doctrine as the Executive Branch amasses ever more power unto itself.You can help prevent Hillary Clinton’s ascendancy to the highest Office of the Land. If you are an NRA member, that is good. If you are a “Life Member” of the NRA, that is even better. America’s interests in preserving the Second Amendment and in preserving, as well, the other Nine Amendments of our Bill of Rights, are enhanced, and the influence exerted by the anti-American, antigun interest groups are, contrariwise, diminished, as NRA accrues more members. We ask that you encourage your family and friends to become members of NRA. And, please do not forget to vote![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.

THE NEW YORK TIMES’ CALL FOR NATIONAL GUN CONFISCATION IS LEGALLY INSUPPORTABLE AND MORALLY INSUFFERABLE

THE NEW YORK TIMES RESURRECTS FEINSTEIN'S MONSTER

The antigun groups have now made clear beyond any doubt their singular goal: remove firearms from the hands of Americans, nationally. In a rare editorial, appearing on the front page of the Saturday, December 5, 2015 edition of The New York Times, titled, “The Gun Epidemic,” the Times editorial staff presents its arguments for massive gun confiscation, at the national level. The New York Times – a vehicle of international socialist and globalist interests – is intent on divesting Americans of their sacred right to keep and bear arms. Simultaneously, the Times is clearly and unconscionably setting the stage for a Clinton Presidency in 2016.The San Bernardino shooting incident, carried out by Islamic extremists – foreign invaders, whose allegiance, as the Times reports, are to the Islamic State – should be a clarion call to arms to all Americans. Instead, the Times uses this despicable attack by the Islamic State on innocent American citizens as a pretext for disarming all Americans. Treating this invasion on our shores as simply one more mass shooting, without regard to the motivation behind it, the Times calls for a massive, gun confiscation program at the national level. The rationale given for this unprecedented call for gun confiscation is reduction of gun violence – the same platitude voiced over and over by those individuals and groups intent on divesting Americans of their natural birthright and denying to Americans the right of self-defense, notwithstanding that the Federal Government either cannot adequately protect Americans from mass shootings -- whether or not these attacks are random or carefully planned and organized -- or the Government simply will not do so, despite constant assertions and assertions to the contrary.Since President Barack Obama refuses, incongruously, to seal our borders despite clear evidence of an attack in our Country by Islamic radicals, and since he continues to allow into our Country those of the Islamic faith, who are impossible to vet, one must wonder whether Obama is intentionally jeopardizing the security of the American people, to keep the American public off-guard, consistent with international globalist and international socialist interests and objectives, in preparation for America’s integration into a unified Socialist State at some point in the not too distant future. If so, the salient reason for the NY Times’ call for a program of massive gun confiscation has little, if anything, to do with reducing gun violence in this Country -- from whatever source -- and has everything to do with destruction of America’s sovereignty and subjugation of its citizenry. A massive gun confiscation program on the national stage would certainly hasten the accomplishment of that goal, paving the way for repeal of America’s Constitution, and, therefore, repeal of a critical portion of the Constitution -- America's Bill of Rights. Thus, would we see the international globalists and socialists smoothing the transition for the Nation's incorporation into a unified mega-international Socialist Order. And, the American people would be given a new constitution sans any mention of a right, existent in the people, to keep and bear arms.To Americans who see the United States as an independent sovereign Nation, beholding to and dependent on no other nation, and who place their faith in their Bill of Rights and, particularly, on the strength of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights, such acts of gun violence, committed by criminals, lunatics, and, of late, by Islamic jihadists, there bespeaks a need for a strong citizenry, and that means an armed citizenry, not a disarmed, weakened one. But, a disarmed, weakened citizenry is clearly and specifically what the federal government has in mind for Americans. President Barack Obama has made that point many times and more incessantly -- with an air of urgency in recent days. Lest there be any doubt about this -- about the intention of wealthy, powerful, ruthless interests behind this effort to disarm the American citizenry, who use the mainstream news media to confound Americans and who proclaim that the only answer to this onslaught of gun violence in America is for American citizens to place their blind faith in and allegiance to the federal government, rather than to place faith in themselves and to take personal responsibility for defense of self and family -- suggesting, then, that the federal government -- and only the federal government can and, more to the point, is  warranted and permitted to protect them -- one ought to stop and consider the import of the following two remarks, appearing in the sixth paragraph of the NY Times front page, editorial: “It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”  The average person may not be quick to catch this, but there is an oblique message in these two assertions – both of which are utterly damning to American sensibilities, to the autonomy of the individual, to the sanctity of Americans’ Second Amendment, and certainly divisive, as the editorial can and is probably meant to tear the public apart, for The New York Times' assertions do most assuredly play to the sentiments of antigun proponents and zealots, even as those same sentiments will anger, and rightly so, every other American. So let us parse those assertions.The NY Times says the language of the Second Amendment is “peculiar.” Yet, the Times’ use of the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the language of the Second Amendment, is itself peculiar. The meaning of the independent clause in the Second Amendment – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” – is straightforward, cogent, clear, and certainly not “peculiar” to the American people. Indeed, that The New York Times would use the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the Second Amendment at all, suggests that the newspaper does not reflect America’s interests but, rather, the interests of the international socialists and globalists, intent on dismantling the Second Amendment in particular and dismantling the nine other Amendments, generally, which depend on the Second Amendment, ultimately, for their preservation. For, only to foreign governments whose history is unlike ours and whose constitutions are devoid of any mention of an inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms would America's Second Amendment possibly look "peculiar." But for an American newspaper to use that adjective to describe the Second Amendment, that should give the public pause.Take a look at the constitution of any other Western nation. Even if a constitution talks about firearms in the hands of the citizenry at all -- and very few constitutions do -- no constitution but that of the United States places that right squarely in the hands of the citizenry itself. In no other nation on this Earth does the right to keep and bear arms reside in the People. Rather, that right resides exclusively in the State. In those Western Countries that the New York Times clearly emulates, namely, France, England, and Norway, which the Times mentions in its editorial, the constitutions of those Countries do not respect the inalienable right of their citizens to keep and bear weapons in their own defense and as a means to secure their individual rights and liberties. Therefore, Countries such as France, England, and Norway, unlike the United States, clearly do not recognize that the citizens, themselves, are the ultimate guardians of their own rights and liberties, and so their citizens do not have the inalienable right to defend themselves with the most effective means available for doing so – that provided by a firearm; nor do those Countries recognize, in their people, the right of their people to secure their own rights and liberties through firearms, if the need should ever arise.Indeed, the Times admits, “that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England, and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes they did.” But, in that very admission, the Times follows up with the singularly bizarre assertion, “But at least those Countries are trying.” Really, “trying?” What are those Countries trying to do through strict gun laws? The Times' assertion is incoherent. If those Countries are trying to provide safe havens for Islamic foreign invaders, and convert their citizenry into a flock of defenseless sheep, then those Countries are certainly succeeding! Must the U.S. follow the lead of those Countries? The New York Times says, unequivocally, “yes.” The language of our Second Amendment, however, manifestly counters the Times’ assertion with an emphatic, “no!”The New York Times also says, “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.” This, too, is a particularly odd and outrageous remark as it denigrates our jurisprudence.First, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, expressly set forth in the language of our Country’s Bill of Rights. The New York Times cannot reasonably deny the truth of that assertion. And, as a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is deserving of something more than some protection. As a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is deserving of the strongest possible protection. Second, to say that a fundamental right is not unlimited, namely, absolute, is merely a legal platitude. The Times is incorrect to suggest, as it does, that the Government can employ whatever regulation of the right it wants, whenever it wants, simply because no right, even a fundamental right, is not absolute.Second, the Times says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to “reasonable regulation.” Understand, the New York Times is making a legal pronouncement, here, not merely – as most readers are inclined to see it – a colorful, somewhat innocuous, editorial remark. The Times is tacitly invoking a criterion of judicial review that many State courts use in order to determine whether a State law – regulating gun possession and gun ownership, say -- can withstand judicial scrutiny. The Times is asserting, albeit cryptically, that this standard of judicial review, ‘reasonable regulation,’ should apply, across the board, without exception, to each and every legal challenge a complainant may bring to the constitutionality of a federal or state gun law restriction. But, there is a serious problem with this. The problem is that the criterion of  ‘reasonable regulation’ is a very weak standard, virtually indistinguishable from the ‘rational basis test’ which many State courts, such as those in New York, the home of the New York Times, routinely use to test the constitutionality of their State's own draconian gun laws.Under both the ‘reasonable regulation’ standard and ‘rational basis test,’ State courts simply look to see whether a particular law is rationally related to a particular governmental purpose. In effect, this weak standard of review hamstrings Courts and allows States to impose draconian gun laws on the public. The New York Safe Act, which is one of the most restrictive gun measures in the Nation, when compared to the gun measures of any other jurisdiction in the United States, passes judicial scrutiny in New York precisely because the New York State Government need only assert – and need not argue – that the NY Safe Act is rationally directed to a legitimate government purpose – say, reduction in gun violence. If the New York Safe Act were challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction in New York – and of course various provisions of the Act, as well as the Act in its entirety, have been challenged in New York courts since enactment of the NY Safe Act – that court of competent jurisdiction is only permitted to decide whether the  Safe Act is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. In applying that standard of judicial review -- rational basis -- a court must give considerable deference to a legislative action. So, unless the law is clearly arbitrary on its face or clearly has no relationship at all to the matter for which it ostensibly was enacted, which is to say, that the government cannot demonstrate that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, the law will be upheld. So, under either the rational basis test or the reasonable regulation standard, the latter of which the Times makes specific reference to in its front page editorial, a court of competent jurisdiction is prohibited from going further in its scrutiny of the constitutionality of the law or governmental regulation. So, under the rational basis test a law can be very broad in scope and overreach its stated objective. That is of no consequence to the basic question of the constitutionality of it under either the rational basis test or under the essentially identical reasonable regulation standard. And the result is – as the NY Safe Act clearly demonstrates – that extraordinarily draconian gun laws pass constitutional muster. This is perverse. And, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), the NY Safe Act flies in the face of the high Court’s holding because New York courts continue to use a relaxed standard of review in testing the constitutionality of the NY Safe Act, notwithstanding that the Act has a highly corrosive effect on a fundamental right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Gun ownership and gun possession is a fundamental right. Even antigun proponents and zealots cannot reasonably deny the legal certainty of that fact. Legislation that impacts the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms demands extraordinary judicial scrutiny, not weakened, relaxed scrutiny. State courts and federal courts are, under our jurisprudence, expected to utilize the strict scrutiny test where fundamental rights are impacted. Can the New York Safe Act withstand judicial scrutiny under a strict scrutiny criterion? The answer is clearly, “no.” Under a strict scrutiny criterion, the State Government has the burden of showing that the NY Safe Act, which places inordinate restrictions on a citizen’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms, is nonetheless necessary to satisfy a compelling State interest – in this case: the compelling interest of the State to reduce gun violence. But, importantly, under the strict scrutiny test, the constitutionality of the law or governmental regulation under review is not presumed, unlike the constitutionality of a law or governmental regulation would be presumed under the rational basis test, or under that test's functional equivalent, the reasonable regulation standard. Therefore, the burden of proof for the State of New York is a difficult one under strict scrutiny would be exceedingly difficult to overcome. Under either the rational basis test or “reasonable regulation” standard, on the other hand, a court of review in New York is legally required to presume, in the first instance, that a law or regulation is constitutional, hence valid. So, under the rational basis test or “reasonable regulation” standard, the New York State Government is able, very easily, to enact draconian gun laws that, just as easily, pass constitutional muster. This explains why challenges to various provisions of the Safe Act – except in one or two instances – fail, and this explains why challenges to the Safe Act in its entirety have, to date, also failed. And, this explains why draconian gun laws, such as the New York Safe Act, are able to exist and continue to exist at all. And, critically, this also clearly explains why The New York Times expresses a desire for courts of competent jurisdiction to use a relaxed standard of judicial review when testing the constitutionality of a draconian State or federal gun law or governmental regulation.Through application of the rational basis test or reasonable regulation standard, New York, and any other State, and, for that matter, Congress itself, can enact gun laws that infringe the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, and such laws will still, almost invariably, pass a constitutional challenge. And that is why, traditionally at least, our jurisprudence respects challenges to laws that impact fundamental rights such as the right of the people  to keep and bear arms, requiring State and federal governments to overcome an extremely difficult standard of judicial review if their restrictive gun laws are to be held constitutional and, therefore, to survive challenges to their constitutionality. This means that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that a law or regulation is constitutional. But, under either the rational basis test or "reasonable regulation" standard that the NY Times refers to in its editorial, the burden rests with the challenger, in the first instance, to show that a particular law or governmental regulation is, in fact, unconstitutional. Under strict scrutiny, the burden rests squarely on the government to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the law or regulation is, in fact, constitutional. That is a crucial difference and explains why the New York Times not only asks for enactment of extremely restrictive gun laws on the national stage but, as well, explains why the Times would mandate use of a relaxed standard of review once the laws were challenged in federal court, and the constitutionality of those laws would be challenged. Under a relaxed standard of judicial review, such draconian gun laws would very likely survive a court challenge, testing the laws' constitutionality. Thus, the Times calls for use of the "reasonable regulation" standard of judicial review.But, if a New York State or New York federal court of competent jurisdiction applies strict scrutiny, say, to the New York Safe Act, for example, as it should, in lieu of the rational basis test, the New York State Government must prove to the Court’s satisfaction that the NY Safe Act furthers a compelling government interest. But that doesn’t end the inquiry. Strict scrutiny embraces a two-part test. Assuming the Government can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the New York Safe Act does serve a compelling State interest, the State Government must then show that the NY Safe Act is narrowly tailored to meet that objective – say, reduction of gun violence. That means the Government must prove to the satisfaction of the court, that the NY Safe Act is the least restrictive means available to the Government for reducing gun violence in the State even if the State  can show that the Act is directed to satisfying a compelling State interest. If and only if the reviewing court is satisfied that the NY Safe Act amounts to the least restrictive means available to the Government for reducing gun violence will that court of review hold the Act constitutional. Otherwise, it will not do so, and cannot legally do so. Application of strict scrutiny to a law or governmental regulation is very difficult for a government to overcome. Application of the standard of strict scrutiny is meant to be difficult to overcome when a restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right is at stake.Challenges to fundamental rights are meant to fail precisely because preservation of the fundamental rights of the American people is itself fundamental to preservation of a free Republic. And a free Republic cannot long endure if State and federal governments can, virtually at will, enact laws that tend to undercut and negate the Bill of Rights. Hence, it is highly unlikely that the New York Safe Act would survive judicial review under a strict scrutiny test. Since the NY Safe Act directly impacts a fundamental right it is presumed from the get-go, that the Act is constitutionally invalid. Thus the burden on a State government or on the federal government to show that a draconian gun law is legally required is considerable, and necessarily so. A reviewing court is likely to see the NY Safe Act as the charade and subterfuge it really is: an underhanded attempt to undercut and negate the efficacy of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under the guise of protecting the public from gun violence.Clearly, for the New York State Government to argue that denying to thousands of law-abiding New York residents access to large categories of firearms is the least restrictive means available to it for reducing gun violence is neither logically sound nor legally defensible. It is therefore highly unlikely that the NY Safe Act could withstand judicial scrutiny under a strict scrutiny standard. Thus, to say that no right – even a fundamental right – is not absolute, is not to suggest that a government can essentially regulate the right away whenever it so wishes. And, The New York Times is wrong in suggesting that it can.Now it is one thing for courts in New York to apply a weak standard of judicial review that allows for the existence of draconian gun laws, negatively impacting the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms; it is quite another to suggest that such a weak judicial standard should be applied across the board. Yet, this is precisely what the NY Times is asking for: that Congress should enact laws denying to tens of millions of law-abiding Americans the right to own and possess entire categories of firearms and that, if anyone should challenge the constitutionality of such a law, then a court of competent jurisdiction should be required to apply a relaxed standard of review, namely ‘reasonable regulation,’ which would virtually guarantee that an unconstitutional law would pass constitutional muster when it should not and would not if challenged under the strict scrutiny test.As you may recall, Democrats attempted, essentially, to expand the NY Safe Act nationally in 2013. The "illustrious," Dianne Feinstein, Democratic Party Senator from California, introduced a bill, in 2013, in the Senate, to ban so-called “assault weapons” and so-called “high capacity ammunition magazines.” Her bill, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” included 157 kinds of firearms that the American public would no longer be able to lawfully own and possess. And Americans could no longer own and possess ammunition magazines that held more than 10 cartridges, if that bill became law. Feinstein's “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" was meant to resurrect the earlier “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,” which banned 19 weapons and, in fact, to expand upon “The Assault Weapons of 1994,” which expired in accordance with its sunset provision in 2004. Fortunately, attempts by antigun Senators to renew the law, failed. And, Feinstein’s new 2013 bill could never gain traction. It failed by a vote of the Senate, 40 to 60, in April of 2013. Now, through despicable hubris and subterfuge on the part of a newspaper, The New York Times, that newspaper is attempting to resurrect Feinstein’s own dead antigun bill, using “fear," together with sleight-of-hand, to encourage the American public to take action against its own best self-interest – in effect calling upon the public to contact Congress to bring Feinstein’s Monster, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” back to life in the form of an “Assault Weapons Ban of 2016.”If there is any doubt about the New York Times’ deplorable intentions actions, attacking the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Times makes the point that: “certain kinds of weapons . . . and certain kinds of ammunition must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up. . . .” This is essentially Feinstein’s: “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.” Now, under a strict scrutiny standard of review, Feinstein’s resurrected antigun bill, as a draconian antigun law – essentially the New York Safe Act, applied nationally (assuming for purpose of argument that  an assault weapons ban could succeed, at all, in 2016, when the Act failed in 2013) -- would almost certainly be struck down by federal courts, once challenged, and it would be challenged. But, under a relaxed “reasonable regulation” standard or under its functional equivalent, the “rational basis” test, such a law would more easily pass judicial scrutiny. This is why the New York Times presses for both an assault weapons ban and, at once, deviously, insists upon a relaxed legal standard of review, so that the Government can legally require Americans who own “certain kinds of weapons” – and one can fill in the blank as to what those weapons are, although the list would probably and eventually be extended to encompass all of them – to surrender them to government authorities and if such overreaching law were challenged in federal court, such challenge would almost certainly fail.The Times adds, piously, that Americans must give up their weapons "for the good of their fellow citizens.” In other words, the Times is saying that, for the “good” of the Collective, as defined by the puppet masters of Government, the sanctity and autonomy of each individual American must be forfeited. Of course, this will not make Americans safer. In fact it will make Americans substantially less safe as American citizens will be more prone to gun violence by sociopathic Islamic jihadists, psychopathic criminals and criminal gangs, and assorted lunatics. No doubt, the Times had substantial assistance from a phalanx of antigun lawyers to assist it when drafting its front page editorial.And, keep in mind that, if the New York Times is suggesting that, in the very act of dispossessing Americans of their firearms, thereby dismantling the Second Amendment, the Government is in some bizarre manner doing something beneficial for Americans, it is abundantly clear the Times is actually doing something quite contrary to the seemingly benign act of disarming Americans. The New York Times is actually targeting all Americans – hence, resurrection of Feinstein’s Monster. Clearly, the desire of the Times editorial staff is to target the millions of  law-abiding, sane, rational American gun owners – not simply Islamic jihadists, criminals and lunatics. For, in this same front page editorial, the Times asserts, that any American who wants those weapons, which the Times calls “weapons of war,”  must be corralled and considered criminally suspect. The Times asserts in the flamboyant, typically pious manner of the antigun zealot: “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that people can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.” Ergo, if an American would want such a weapon, much less insist on owning and possessing such a weapon, there must be something seriously wrong with that individual. Thus, The New York Times is targeting essentially all Americans. This is a frontal assault on the Second Amendment itself – a frontal assault on the exercise of a fundamental right of every law-abiding American. The only outrage and national disgrace here is The New York Times itself that would undercut our Free Republic and undermine the Bill of Rights that is the bedrock of our Free Republic.If the Second Amendment is frontally assaulted by the very Government -- the federal Government that is supposed to defend and preserve it, since it is a component of our Constitution – indeed a fundamental part of it -- then the People must defend it because  a quiet coup d’etat of the federal government is already underway. Thus, The New York Times isn’t preventing insurrection, it is fomenting it, inviting it, daring Americans to take arms against the very federal Government that was created to serve the People, as that same federal Government  now boldly asserts its dominion over the People – with the devout blessing of, and encouragement of, a member of the “Fourth Estate,” that the founders had themselves blessed with protection through the language of the First Amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of the Press. That same Press is now working with the federal  Government -- not as a check against it but as a tool of it -- against the American people.The New York Times has, in its front page editorial, insidiously suggested, through a very thin veil, that any American who would fight to preserve that “peculiar” Second Amendment is an American who must be treated no differently than a lunatic, criminal, or Islamic jihadist. And, as if the incendiary nature of that front page editorial were not enough, the Times continues feeding the American public with copious amounts of nonsensical fodder inside that same Saturday, December 5, 2015 edition.In another article, appearing on page 5 of the Saturday edition of the New York Times, the newspaper cites to Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama’s emulation of Australia’s gun laws. The New York times says, “President Obama has cited the country’s gun laws as a model for the United States, calling Australia a nation ‘like ours.’” The newspaper also mentions Clinton’s statement that “the Australian approach is ‘worth considering.’” Actually, Australia is anything but a nation like ours. In our article posted on December 1, 2015, in the Arbalest Quarrel, and which was also posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News in condensed summary, we emphasized that Clinton’s support for a national gun confiscation program, if actually implemented, would be patently illegal. The mainstream news media did not, at that time, give wide coverage of her remarks at last month’s Town Hall Meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, as Clinton’s remarks were seen as too farfetched even for the mainstream news media, as her remarks show a callous disregard and disrespect for the U.S. Constitution – this coming from a person with legal training who was educated at an elite university – and most Americans would clearly take serious exception with those remark if they were subject to widespread coverage and her chances of securing the U.S. Presidency in 2016 would be jeopardized. The mainstream news media did not, apparently, wish to ruin Clinton’s chances. Apparently, the New York Times, as one mainstream news media source, has, almost two months since that Town Hall meeting, reconsidered and decided to fully support Clinton’s position on gun ownership and possession, extreme as it is and trust that, by adopting that extreme position, itself, make it appear less extreme to the American people. Of course, The Times is well aware that it is actively creating dissension in the American populace, but it is betting that most Americans will side with Clinton on Second Amendment issues. Supposedly, public addresses by the current U.S. President will also serve to make assaults on the Second Amendment less “off-putting” to most Americans. At least that is the grand design of the international globalists and socialists, who control the mainstream media and who pull the strings of many Government Officials, including those of the present U.S. President, Barack Obama.The Times newspaper is clearly setting the stage for a Clinton Presidency. But that Presidency will pave the way for the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution by way of a full frontal assault on the Second Amendment. A Republican Congress would never allow the Second Amendment to be defeated. But, assuming arguendo, Congress were to enact a law requiring confiscation of guns on an unprecedented scale, the law would not withstand judicial review under a strict scrutiny standard. The U.S. Supreme Court would be the last Branch of Government called upon to protect the U.S. Constitution. For, if federal courts applied a lesser standard of scrutiny to a massive national gun confiscation law, such as ‘reasonable regulation,’ that the New York Times is asking for, Congress would be defying the U.S. Supreme Court which has the last word on the constitutionality of a Congressional Act. For a massive gun confiscation scheme would effectively nullify the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in the 2008 Heller case and, so, would be unconstitutional on its face. That, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court would not allow.For this reason, in yet a third article appearing in the Saturday edition of the NY Times, there is posed the possibility of the U.S. President defying both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court by imposing a massive gun confiscation scheme through executive order. Of course the NY Times would like to see this but even the Times recognizes that such an action by a U.S. President would be patently illegal. Still, if Barack Obama dared to do that – attack the Second Amendment head-on – such unilateral action by the Chief  Executive, who is not reluctant to use executive orders would, in this instance, amount to an impeachable offense. But, if the Democrats take control of Congress and if Clinton secures the “Oval Office,” then Americans have much to worry about. For Clinton would certainly make several federal district court and appellate court appointments and U.S. Supreme Court nominations and such people, whom she would appoint to the federal courts and nominate to the highest Court of the Land would generally support unconstitutional executive orders, designed to weaken the Second Amendment. Ultimately, a Clinton Presidency could very well pave the way for de facto, revocation of the Second Amendment, if not outright repeal of it. Other rights under the Bill of Rights would fall like dominos.If the New York Times would manifest a concern over an assault on the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press, it is disheartening that it would demonstrate such a callous disregard for the Second. The Bill of Rights is not to be thought of like so many flavors of ice cream. One doesn’t pick and choose which ones to approve of and which ones to disapprove of. Thus, one must ask the publishers and editors of the New York Times, who, in this front page editorial, have attacked the Second Amendment without even a semblance of restraint: "have you lost your minds?" They may think that the American public is behind them on this. The Times is clearly directing its attention to the frightened and ignorant among us, who see in a Clinton Presidency what the Times says the public needs: protection that only Big Government can provide. What the Times fails to see, though, is that, if most Americans perceive a threat to their sacred rights and liberties, they will defend those rights and liberties at whatever cost, not merely from lunatics, criminals, and foreign invaders, but from an overreaching government itself. Indeed, the threat to the rights and liberties of the American People posed by the federal government itself is significantly more dangerous – infinitely more dangerous – than acts of gun violence perpetrated by lunatics, criminals and, of late, from radicalized Islamic sociopaths. The New York Times is hoping and trusting that most Americans do not -- and will not -- realize what it is they are being asked to sacrifice in the name of feigned security.So it is that the real threat to America is becoming increasingly plain to most Americans. That threat is posed by powerful, ruthless individuals and groups – the international globalists and socialists – both inside this Country and abroad, who seek to take control of the federal government from the American People, to pave the way for an International Socialist State, and they are using, through the New York Times newspaper, the bugaboo of Islamic jihadists to frighten the American public into forsaking its sacred rights and liberties. The New York Times is obviously the sounding board that gives voice to the propaganda such powerful, ruthless individuals and groups seek to use against the American People – that the People will give up their rights and liberties, unknowingly, through subterfuge, possibly, and, if that fails, then through coercion. As these un-American interests so dare to bring America to its knees, there will be a day of reckoning. And that day of reckoning is fast approaching.[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 ARBALEST QUARREL’S TAKE ON THE MIDTERM ELECTION RESULTS

For the first time in eight years Republicans have taken control of both Houses of Congress. This is no accident. The American public has had enough of Barack Obama. This glib, smooth-talking “used car” salesman can’t convince the public to purchase any more of his wrecks.In the next two years the Republicans can do much to set the Country on a corrective path, paving the way for a Republican in the White House. Through a concerted effort Republicans can rein in the Executive and can make Congress functional.This does not mean the Republicans are required to do everything; but they can’t sit idly by doing nothing, merely arguing that they do much by prohibiting Obama from doing anything. That won’t work anymore. The public won’t stand for that. The public will accept no more excuses. They will no longer buy sugar-coated lies.The results of this mid-term election are a wake-up call to Republicans. If the Republicans sit idly by for the next two years, Americans may very well see another Democrat – a Clinton at that – in the White House. Hillary Clinton feels cheated. She feels that she, not Obama, should have sat in the Oval Office these past six years. But, the puppet masters ordained Obama should rule in her stead. But now the puppet masters have given Clinton the green light. For most Americans the salient concern is that she might just make it to the White House.And don’t doubt for a moment Clinton won’t run for Office; that Clinton won’t be the Democratic Party’s candidate of choice; that Clinton won’t have a real shot at the Presidency in 2016.Although coyly disengaged from the subject of her candidacy, Hillary Clinton is quietly whipping her believers into frenzy. The lemmings support Clinton and no one else. Clinton is chomping at the bit. She lusts for the Oval Office. And many Americans – all too many – want her in the White House. She knows this and is counting on their active support.And what will Obama do in the interim? He will “ruff” a low trump card. His low trump card is his audacity.Any middle school student knows or should know we have a tripartite system of Government, based on a clear separation of powers:The Legislature shall make the laws and the President shall faithfully execute the laws, and the Judiciary, a U.S. Supreme Court, shall interpret the laws.This is the Separation of Powers Doctrine. And it exists for a reason: to preclude usurpation of all powers by one individual or one group. Usurpation of power, whether by one individual or a few, leads invariably to oligarchy or monarchy – tyranny. We are moving inexorably in that direction.Obama is obviously disdainful of Congress and of the U.S. Constitution. He wishes to accumulate legislative powers and executive powers in one Branch of Government: the Executive Branch. Is there proof of this?Consider the touchy subject of immigration. Obama has made plain his intention to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Under our Constitution he can’t do that. He says he’ll do that anyway. What does this mean?The President will do whatever he wants to do but will refrain from doing whatever he wants to do if Congress does what the President wants Congress to do.And, what does that mean?Obama wants immigration reform. So he compels Congress to act to provide him with that reform.Congress, though, doesn’t work at the behest of the Executive Branch. And the Executive Branch cannot legally assume the role of the Legislature unto itself. That constitutes a clear breach of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and is inconsistent with the dictates of the U.S. Constitution.Understand, Congress need not act on immigration matters at all. Congress determines what laws to enact. Moreover, Congress decides what matters it deals with. These are not prerogatives of the President.The President can’t act as if he were the Legislature. He says that he can. He says he can take action by executive fiat. He says immigration reform is the right thing to do. Obama says lots of things. But his saying this, that, or the other does not make it so.The President has no authority under our Constitution to dictate what laws Congress must pass. The President has no authority under our Constitution to dictate what policy issues Congress must consider. And the President has no authority under our Constitution to make law in lieu of Congress by Executive fiat simply because Congress fails to act.Obama demonstrates an incredible arrogance even to suggest America must have immigration reform. He thrusts his notion of morality on the entire Nation. Obama argues a lawful right to act, if Congress doesn’t. This he bases, ostensibly, on his own ethical belief system. But normative prescriptions don’t, ipso facto, provide a legitimate legal basis for action under the U.S. Constitution. Unilateral action based on a moral claim, however lofty, is, ultimately, clearly, unlawful, and conceivably constitutes an impeachable offense.Although the Republican Congress has much to do, it need not take on work the American public doesn’t want or truly need. It should deal with pressing matters, not unimportant ones. It must avoid being side-tracked by petty impulses and political posturing by the President.Several matters that Congress might reasonably consider spending time on these next two years include, inter alia, these:

• Encouraging economic growth and jobs for Americans
• Reining in the Executive Branch of Government
• Countering Obamacare
• Simplifying the tax code
• Developing coherent foreign policy objectives
• Reducing fraud and waste in Government
• Requiring accountability of the Federal Reserve
• Preventing Executive Branch encroachment on State rights and prerogatives.
• Repairing deteriorating infrastructure
• Protecting America from external biological and ideological threats
• Securing our borders
• Taking steps against foreign nations and foreign transnational conglomerates insinuating themselves into the political, social, economic, financial, and legal affairs of the United States.

In the next two years, Republicans must make headway to protect the fabric of American society. That will help secure our free Republic. That will go a long way to appease a rightfully angry public.Unfortunately, there are already disturbing signs from some centrist Republican Senators that, when dealing with Obama, compromise and conciliation will be the strategies employed. Confrontation is the strategy centrist Senators will reserve for their own Tea Party base. They intend to keep the base in line. Should that occur, these centrist Republicans will certainly tear the GOP wide open, and they may very well hand the White House over to Hillary Clinton in 2016. [separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.