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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

PART ONE

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

PART THREE

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

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

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

PART SIX

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

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

PART SEVEN

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

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

PART EIGHT

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

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

PART NINE

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

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

PART TEN

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

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

PART ELEVEN

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

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

PART TWELVE

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

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

PART THIRTEEN

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

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

PART FOURTEEN

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

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

PART FIFTEEN

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

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

PART SIXTEEN

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

“TREASON” -- A TIMELY ISSUE IN THE 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Treason is a word loosely bandied about, but it should not be. It should be used circumspectly; and, when properly applied to a person, legal action should be taken against that person. This nation should not suffer a traitor in its midst -- not in the streets, nor in the Oval Office.

The public uses the word, ‘treason,’ as a descriptor of individuals it loathes, whether the word is properly applied to a person or not. The public uses the word, informally, as an appellation of disgrace. The public uses the word against a person to damn a person because it finds that person’s words, or conduct, or character to be shameful. Some have said Hillary Clinton has committed treason and a plausible case can be made for doing so whether the grounds were properly stated by those making the claim. Apparently not to be outdone, Clinton has said Donald Trump has committed treason, although the ground for Clinton's claim against Trump is not only legally invalid, but patently ludicrous. But, then, Hillary Clinton never let sound logic, consistency, or truth stand in the way of her absurd and baseless assertions if she felt she could score political points with those assertions.Politicians, pundits, the mainstream news media, talk radio show hosts, news analysts, all use the word ‘treason.’ They use the word loosely, cavalierly. They use it as a rhetorical device. They use it as hyperbole, for oratorical flourish. They use it for effect, to get a visceral reaction in their audience. But are they serious? Not always, certainly not invariably.But, Americans should take the word, ‘treason,’ seriously. One should be careful about calling another person a “traitor”—that is to say, a person who commits treason. It is not something to be trifled with. If the word, ‘treason,’ fits a person, then use it. Otherwise, don’t. To use it in an off-hand, matter-of-fact, lighthearted way, reduces the import and significance of it. It is not a matter of frivolity.The word, ‘treason,’ appears in our Constitution. It appears in federal criminal Statute. The founders of our Republic do not trifle with words. Our Constitution isn’t comedy. Our criminal codes aren’t slapstick skits. Nothing in the Constitution or in our criminal statutes is to be taken lightly. If treason merits death, as the federal crime of treason provides for, one should reflect upon applying treason carefully before calling a person as a “traitor”—condemning a person for the crime of treason. Yet, the mainstream media has no wish to enlighten the American public. It plays with the word, ‘treason.’ It turns the word into something frivolous. It turns the word into something frivolous. But the word was never meant to be so taken. Did Hillary Clinton commit treason? If so we will draw that conclusion from the law as applied to the facts. It is that basic; that clear; that simple. So, let us investigate this word, ‘treason.’

WHAT DOES THE WORD, ‘TREASON,’ MEAN IN LAW AND WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR OR WHAT ARE THE BASES, IF MORE THAN ONE, UPON WHICH A CHARGE OF TREASON EXISTS?

The word, ‘treason,’ is a legal term of art. Treason is an act against the Sovereign. A person who commits treason against the United States is committing a serious crime—the most serious crime imaginable—a crime against our Country as a Sovereign Nation. In recent times, it seems there were plenty of instances when federal prosecutors could have brought a charge of treason against an individual. Yet, when was the last time Government prosecutors brought a charge of treason against anyone? The Government hasn’t done so recently, notwithstanding that crimes committed against American citizens by one group of reprehensible individuals in this Country, Islamic radicals, would demonstrably satisfy the conditions for federal prosecutors to bring a charge of treason against those Islamic radicals or, at least, would provide  for a good test case.Is it difficult to make a charge of treason stick? Or, are there other reasons Government attorneys have been reluctant to bring a charge of treason against those citizens who commit acts that support a charge of treason? We must dig deeply to find answers to these questions. The Arbalest Quarrel will do so.Foremost, what does it mean for a federal prosecutor to charge a person with the crime of treason? It means that the person, so charged, has committed acts that fit the specific elements of the crime of treason. In the U.S. Constitution and in federal law “treason” is narrowly defined.Under the United States Code and under the U.S. Constitution, a person’s actions are treasonable if and only if at least one of two conditions is satisfied. The first condition is levying war against the sovereign United States. The second condition is adhering to the Nation’s enemies, giving them aid or comfort. On the surface the two conditions seem straightforward. But, they aren’t. We must ask: What does it mean to levy war against the U.S.? This goes to acts that amount to carrying out war against the United States? But, what act, overt or covert, amounts to levying war against the Nation? We pointedly will consider whether Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, designed and carried out foreign policy that amounted not to the safeguarding of our Nation, but to levying war against it.What does it mean to give aid and comfort to the Nation’s enemies? To answer that question, we must ask: What does the phrase ‘aid and comfort’ mean? How far does it go? To what does the phrase extend? And, what does the word, ‘enemy’ mean’ in the legal sense? Does the word, ‘enemy,’ refer only to a Nation State or group of Nation States? Or, does the word extend to a group of actors that comprise no nation? Does the word, ‘enemy,’ refer to a Nation, a group of Nations, or groups of actors with whom the United States is actually at war? Or does the word, ‘enemy,’ as used in the legal sense, extend to any Nation, or group of Nations, or to any group of actors with whom our Nation is simply not allied and with whom the Nation operates on a confrontational basis other than through war.Once we answer these questions, we may then ask this: If Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State did not rise to the level of actually overtly levying war against this Nation, did her actions have the effect of harming this Nation to the extent, at least, of covertly levying war against the United States, or, otherwise, did her actions amount to adhering to our Nation’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort?Tangentially, we ask: If a person isn’t a citizen of the United States but lives within the United States and commits an act that includes elements of the crime of treason, can that person be lawfully charged with treason? Similarly, if a citizen, living outside the United States, commits an act that includes elements of the crime of treason, can that person be lawfully charged with treason if that person has not otherwise renounced his or her citizenship? Also, what are the implications of the requirement that at least two witnesses must testify to the act?We should consider, too, why the founders of our Nation, who, in 1787, drafted the Constitution, consciously saw need to draft the treason clause so narrowly. Even so, if our Nation’s leaders devise and implement policy damaging to the well-being of our Nation, should we not hold them accountable for their action, charging them with treason? And, if our Nation’s leaders serve a secret master—a master, not clearly identified but who, on the basis of harmful policies, is other than the American People and other than the Constitution upon which they take their oath—must they not answer to the American People for treason? If our Nation’s leaders—with the power, under the Constitution, to destroy a Nation through misuse of that power—do misuse that power, should not the American People hold them to account for deleterious decision-making by charging them with treason? If so, when might such harmful decision-making rise to the level of treason? Further, must acts of treason be actual? Can a person, including our Nation’s leaders, commit constructive treason? If our Nation’s leaders operate treacherously, duplicitously, heinously, hypocritically, deviously, should they not suffer to answer for the crime of treason? When, if ever, can we say, or ought to say, that a Nation’s leaders’ dereliction of duty or misuse of power and authority entails adhering to our Nation’s enemies, aiding and abetting this Nation’s enemies? We will ascertain how far even a narrow reading of the Constitutional and Statutory crime of treason extends.If there is a legal basis to charge Hillary Rodham Clinton with the crime of treason, or with other crimes against this sovereign Nation, including crimes of sedition, espionage, conspiracy to commit treason, and, yes, terrorism, the Arbalest Quarrel will adduce those. In dealing with the misconduct of Hillary Clinton, the impact of our findings may also extend to that of the U.S. Department of Justice.By failing to indict Hillary Clinton on several criminal counts—by failing to indict a person who should have been indicted on charges amounting to extremely serious criminal wrongdoing against this Nation, against this Nation’s Constitution, and against this Nation’s citizenry—thus paving the way for the very real possibility of planting a likely criminal in the highest Office in the Land—did Justice Department Officials commit treason too?[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.

ONE MAN, JAMES B. COMEY, DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I., COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF SEATING A LIKELY CRIMINAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE; HE FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, is Hillary Clinton's best enabler and as that enabler, who would suffer her evil, he forsakes and abandons not only his own good character, but the well-being of a nation.

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

“. . . you never exactly lie, but often you don’t exactly not lie, either. You tell people only what you want them to know, and not a word more or less, and let them make of it what they will.” ~Taylor Caldwell, Captains And The Kings, Part Two, Chapter 5, page 497, Doubleday & Company, Inc. (1972)

FIRST HYPOTHESIS: A MAN OF GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION, BUT ONE WHO WIELDS LITTLE TO NO POWER AND WHO FALLS PREY TO CORRUPTING INFLUENCES OR WHO OTHERWISE FINDS HIMSELF COMPROMISED, BRINGS DISHONOR TO HIMSELF, TRULY; BUT SUCH A MAN HARMS ONLY HIMSELF. HE HAS LITTLE CAPACITY FOR HARMING HIS HOUSE—AN ENTIRE NATION.

SECOND HYPOTHESIS: A MAN OF GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION BUT ONE WHO HAPPENS TO WIELD CONSIDERABLE POWER, AS WELL, HAS TREMENDOUS POWER TO PERSUADE. AND, IF THAT MAN SHOULD HAPPEN TO FALL PREY TO CORRUPTING INFLUENCES OR, IF THAT MAN SHOULD OTHERWISE FIND HIMSELF COMPROMISED, DISHONOR BEFALLS NOT ONLY HIMSELF BUT HIS HOUSE AND CAN, MOST ASSUREDLY, WITH HIS WORDS —HIS HALF-TRUTHS, HIS EVASIONS, HIS LIES—CONTRIBUTE TO THE DOWNFALL OF HIS HOUSE—AN ENTIRE NATION.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, the House Judiciary Committee held a second oversight Hearing on FBI operations.The Committee called on the F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, once again, to appear and to testify on behalf of the Bureau. House Democrats tried, however unsuccessfully and certainly inappropriately, to steer the Hearing toward irrelevant policy matters, several of which were clearly outside the purview of the Bureau and outside the true purpose of the Hearing. But House Republicans were, fortunately, not persuaded to follow suit and kept the Hearing on target. They focused their attention on the critical matter at hand: the conduct of the F.B.I. in undertaking its criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and her underlings.House Republicans grilled Comey on the F.B.I.’s mishandling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s own mishandling of classified federal Government information during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. Comey was, as always, perspicacious, articulate, respectful toward Congress, candid, and ostensibly sincere, rarely showing irritation. He was also cautious, attentive, intransigent, keenly observant, and adamant. He wouldn’t budge on his decision not to recommend, to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, indictment of Hillary Clinton on multiple federal felony charges. In Comey’s estimation, as he declared to the House Judiciary Committee, neither Hillary Clinton nor her underlings merit indictment under federal statute.Comey’s protestations are both weak and at times patently ludicrous, in light of, one, the weight of evidence screaming for indictment of Clinton—evidence Comey had himself reported in his July 5, 2016 statement to the American People; and in light, two, of the mass of inconsistencies House Republicans brought to the Director’s attention, concerning the conduct of Clinton’s cronies during the course of the F.B.I.’s criminal investigation and, too, the odd manner in which the F.B.I. conducted several of its interviews—a matter which House Republicans also brought to the F.B.I. Director’s attention.During the course of the Hearing, one inescapable and very disturbing inference, as voiced by one Republican member of the panel, could not but be drawn. It was this: the decision to let Clinton and her underlings off the hook—whosoever it was who made it—must have been decided well before the F.B.I. criminal investigation into violations of federal law had concluded—in fact, perhaps, before the criminal investigation even began. The unstated presumption, implied by the inference, is that the entire criminal investigation was an elaborate and extremely expensive but ultimately vacuous performance, predicated on necessity, no doubt and, so, definitely no hoax, for serious misconduct by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and by her underlings, did exist, and serious crimes had been, on balance, committed—but such probability of crimes the F.B.I. found were never meant to be prosecuted. Someone or some powerful vested interests here or abroad made certain that would not happen.The painful realization is that the F.B.I. has allowed Hillary Clinton and her toadies to avoid criminal prosecution for serious crimes against the Country, against this Country’s Constitution, and against this Country’s citizenry. Americans may one day—assuming this Country, as an independent Sovereign Nation still exists—bring the U.S. Department of Justice itself to account for shirking its most sacred duties to God, Country, People, and Law.

WHAT COMEY’S DECISION HAS WROUGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Through the failure of the F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, to recommend indictment of both Hillary Clinton and her cronies on felony charges and through the failure of the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to charge Hillary Clinton and her cronies with multiple felony counts, the Justice Department has laid the groundwork for placing the most despicable—and, let us say, to use one of Clinton’s own words, deplorable—person ever to hold public office in the highest Office of the Land—a selfish person, an amoral person, a person loathsomely consumed by the naked lust for power, rabidly consumed by the lurid desire for personal aggrandizement, and ravenously consumed by the noxious need to accumulate vast sums of money, ignominiously, through the sale of high public Office; a person who has clearly broken our Nation’s laws, has broken many of them, and has broken them many times over, and has urged and encouraged others to do so as well; a person who cares not one whit for the honor of our Country; or for our Constitution; or for our Country’s laws; or for our sacred rights and liberties—those sacred rights and liberties hard fought for by the founders of our Nation; or for our Countrymen, many of whom have sacrificed their life that we may remain a free People and a free, sovereign Nation.If Clinton wins the election both she and her cronies will have carte blanche to complete what Clinton, as Secretary of State, had begun: destruction of this Country’s laws, its Sovereignty, its economy, its culture, its heritage, its security, the rights and liberties of its citizenry—indeed, everything upon which this once mighty Nation once stood for and represented.At the September 28, 2016, Congressional Hearing, House Republicans once again asked the F.B.I. Director, lamely, to reopen its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s misconduct and those of her underlings. Comey again refused to do so; nor would he be willing to look into his Bureau’s own mishandling of the investigation.Congress is, as well, apparently unwilling to allow the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2014 out of Committee. Doing so would circumvent a recalcitrant Justice Department, reluctant to enforce our Nation’s laws.The Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2014 requires the appointment of outside, independent counsel to investigate serious crimes of high public officials when the Department of Justice is unable or unwilling to uphold the laws of this Nation. Congress and the Courts take over the duty of seeing that justice is served when the Executive Branch is unable or unwilling to police itself through the U.S. Department of Justice. The failure of Congress to allow open debate and a full House vote on the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2014, means that many members of Congress, as with the Executive Branch of the federal Government, are not too keen on embracing integrity in Government. Integrity does not, apparently, rank very high in importance in the conduct of our Nation’s business.The Arbalest Quarrel has previously discussed the need for appointment of independent counsel to reinvestigate Hillary Clinton’s misconduct during her tenure as Secretary of State and has written to the sponsors of the bill, Representatives Michael Turner and Rick Allen, urging them to act. The Arbalest Quarrel Article is titled, "The Foundation of Justice undone by the Foundation, Clinton." To date we have heard not a word about action on the bill. The silence is deafening.Apparently, Congress has neither the will nor the fortitude to compel integrity in the federal Government. Is this not an act of betrayal against the Country and the American People?Clearly, there is blame aplenty to go around, but what does it take to shame the Government to act at the behest of the People to prevent the calamity of a likely criminal, Hillary Rodham Clinton, seated in the White House?_____________________________________

IS HILLARY CLINTON, LIKE THE BIG BANKS, TOO BIG TO PROSECUTE, EVEN IF—ESPECIALLY IF—HER MISCONDUCT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF TREASON?

PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

“He said to himself—though not without a dim inner protest: We are our own destiny. If we are victims at all, or conquerors, we have done it in our minds, and our will, or with our faulty judgments or our illusions. If we permit others to exploit us, in private life or in government, we chose it. Or we made the fatal error of acquiescence, and for that we should be condemned. The world forgives everything but weakness and submission. It forgives everyone but a victim. For there is always battle, even if you die in it. In any event death comes to all men. How you died was your own choice, fighting or submitting.” ~Taylor Caldwell, Captains And The Kings, Part One, Chapter 17, page 178, Doubleday & Company, Inc. (1972)

APART FROM SUBSTANTIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FELONY CRIMES INVOLVING, ONE, THE MISHANDLING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, TWO, CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY IN HIGH PUBLIC OFFICE, AND, THREE, INTENTIONALLY LYING TO OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION INTO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, DID HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, AS SECRETARY OF STATE, ENGAGE IN ANY CONDUCT THAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF OUTRIGHT TREASON? IF NOT, DOES THE TOTALITY OF CLINTON’S MISCONDUCT AS SECRETARY OF STATE SUPPORT A CHARGE OF TREASON?

To answer these questions we should first take a look at the history of “treason.” We need to place the crime of “treason” in historical context. We can trace the notion of ‘treason’ to English law. An Eminent English Jurist of the Eighteenth Century, Sir William Blackstone “wrote that treason ‘imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith.’ Blackstone further noted that treason against the sovereign—termed ‘high treason’—amounts to the ‘highest civil crime.’” “State Treason: The History and Validity of Treason Against Individual States," J. Taylor McConkie, Brigham Young University, B.A.; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, 101 Ky. L.J. 281, 283 (2012/2013).Although U.S. law takes its cue from English law, the betrayal against the Sovereign that Blackstone talks about is betrayal against the Monarch, the King of England. Of course, the U.S. does not have a Monarch although one might argue that, in effect, we do have a Monarch. But, even as the U.S. President has, in evident ways in recent years, assumed ever more power unto himself, still, under our Constitution and our system of laws, it is the American people in whom sovereignty ultimately resides. The People of the United States as a singular body are essentially the Country. An act of betrayal against Country is, then, an act of betrayal against the People of the United States in whom ultimate power exists under our system of laws and under our Constitution.

CAN A CHARGE OF TREASON BE LEVELLED AGAINST THE HIGHEST OFFICIAL IN THE LAND?

Where power to make laws, enforce laws, and interpret laws rests in a Monarch—that power is absolute. A subject of the Sovereign can betray the Sovereign and thereby commit treason. But, the Sovereign cannot betray himself if he is the Supreme Law of the Land.In the United States, though, the U.S. President, as a citizen of the United States, is not a law unto himself—certainly not if our Constitution has any force and efficacy.Yet some U.S. Presidents have, in their deeds, if not in their words, ascribed such power to themselves. If betrayal, treachery, or breach of faith to Country is, in essence, as William Blackstone said, the sine qua non of “treason,” what specific conduct of an actor rises to the level of betrayal, treachery, or breach of faith to Country?

THE LAWS OF TREASON IN AMERICA

The crime of treason appears in two significant places. First and foremost, the crime of treason appears in the United States Constitution. Article III, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 set forth:“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.""The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”Of note, the President of the United States, and other high-ranking officers are not exempt from a charge of treason levelled against them as it relates to their betrayal of the American People while in Office. The U.S. Constitution makes specific provision for this betrayal. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution 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.”The crime of treason is also codified in federal Statute. You will find the crime of treason in the United States Code: Title 18, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure:” “Part I, “Crimes;” “Chapter 115, “Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities.” 18 U.S.C. § 2381, titled, clearly, plainly, and succinctly, “Treason,” sets forth: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

TAKE NOTE OF TWO IMPORTANT POINTS IN THE ABOVE ACCOUNT OF TREASON AS CODIFIED IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND IN OUR STATUTES

One, the founders of our Republic felt that the crime of treason was so horrific that they made specific provision for it in the U.S. Constitution, specifically warning the highest public officials in the Land, that they, no less than any ordinary citizen, are not above the law and that they may be charged with the crime of treason if their actions ever betray their duties to Country, to the citizens of the Nation, and to the Constitution whom they are sworn to serve.Two, concomitant with and consistent with the Constitutional provision, the federal statute clarifies the Constitutional prohibition and is, to our knowledge, the only federal Statute that specifically, directly, and unequivocally, within a few words of mentioning the crime, calls for the possibility of death for those individuals who are convicted of it. Thus, Congress made abundantly clear the particular heinousness of the crime of treason.

ENDNOTE

We continue our exposition of the crime of treason in forthcoming articles. Our purpose is to ascertain whether a reasonable legal basis exists under our law and under our Constitution to indict Hillary Rodham Clinton on the charge of treason.With less than six weeks remaining before the U.S. Presidential election every American citizen has a critical choice to make. It is absolutely incumbent on all Americans—who care deeply for the continuation of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation, beholding to no other Nation, subordinated to no other Nation, who truly believes in the rule of law and who holds to our inviolate rights and liberties as codified in our sacred Bill of Rights—to make certain that a likely criminal, Hillary Rodham Clinton, sets not one foot into the White House.There is only one way to prevent a travesty and calamity from ensuing. The stakes could not be higher. Regardless of your past or present Party affiliation, you must cast your vote for Donald Trump.How Donald Trump comports himself as U.S. President is, as we must concede, of concern. This is predicated on specific statements he has made. Yet, the Nation can survive Trump’s excesses. But, the Republic will be well lost if Hillary Clinton—a person who cares little for any American and even less for our Constitution, and especially for our Bill of Rights; and for the continuation of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation; for our traditions, our culture, and our unique history; for our jurisprudence, and, not least of all, for our system of laws, given clear, ample, and irrefutable evidence of Clinton having broken many of them—actually becomes the 45^th U.S. President.[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 CLINTON: A FLAWED CHARACTER FOR THOSE WHO SEE THE U.S. AS FLAWED

Individuals are unique and that is to be applauded; but unethical and criminal conduct is never unique, and when such conduct occurs, it is to be brought to light and roundly condemned.

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

“Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” ~ William Penn“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams (Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798)Hillary Clinton is likely a criminal—not merely a misdemeanant, but, rather, the worst sort of criminal—a felon. Her supporters don’t want to acknowledge it. They certainly don’t want to talk about it. But they must accept the truth of it even as they choose to ignore the searing reality behind it; the transparently clear evidence for it.Moreover, even though Hillary Clinton, to date, has not been indicted on felony criminal charges, this does not mean that Hillary Clinton did not commit one or more felonies as Secretary of State. The failure of the F.B.I. to recommend an indictment to the Attorney General and the failure of the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to proceed with an indictment regardless of the F.B.I.’s recommendation, does not entail that Hillary Clinton didn’t commit a crime. This point is contrary to the mainstream media’s take on the matter and it is the very point that supporters of Clinton hang their hat on, postulating that, “after all Hillary Clinton is not a criminal precisely because the Department of Justice failed to bring charges against her.” Hogwash! Probable cause dictates a finding that Hillary Clinton committed several felonies, and the lack of indictment does not obviate the truth of that assertion one iota. At times prosecutors will not charge an individual with a crime for a multitude of reasons, notwithstanding that probable cause exists that an individual did in fact commit a crime. Sometimes evidence of a crime is clear and indisputable, but, the evidence may be tainted. If so, that evidence of a crime will not be admissible in a Court of law, rendering the possibility of a conviction unlikely or moot.Perhaps prosecutors go after “bigger fish to fry” and will agree not to charge an individual with a crime if that individual is willing to “turn State’s evidence” and agree to testify against another in return for leniency or freedom from prosecution. Prosecutorial discretion permits prosecutors to charge a person with all the crimes that appear in a police report or just one or a few of them. Or prosecutors can charge a person with a crime less severe or even more severe than what appears in a police arrest report. Sometimes prosecutors will bend to political pressure to bring charges against an individual when, in their best judgment, they would rather not do so.Contrariwise, as we see here, the Justice Department may decide not to bring charges against a person who, by all reasonable accounts—if we are a Nation of laws and a Nation governed by the rule of law and not by men—should have been indicted on multiple felony criminal charges and on multiple counts within any one felony.Perhaps, Hillary Rodham Clinton, like the major banks, is too big to prosecute. Perhaps, as is increasingly evident, Hillary Clinton is protected by shadowy, sinister, wholly evil, extraordinarily wealthy, and extremely powerful interests both here and abroad, who want their “puppet” in the highest Office of the Land. These secretive, powerful interests want a creature in high Office that has done and will continue to do all that they ask of it and that will be able to deliver ever more sizable returns as President of the United States. So, if the F.B.I., and the entirety of the Justice Department, of which the F.B.I. is a critical component, has not been corrupted, it definitely has been compromised. For probable cause of Clinton’s crimes is clear and irrefutable.Substantive and substantial evidence supports a finding that Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 793, “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information” because substantive and substantial evidence exists that she mishandled, either intentionally or through gross negligence, classified Government information during her tenure as Secretary of State.Substantive and substantial evidence also supports a finding that Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is titled, “Statements or Entries Generally,” because substantive evidence exists that she lied to the F.B.I., during the Bureau’s criminal investigation. Substantive and substantial evidence supports a finding, third, that Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 201, titled, "Bribery of public officials and witnesses," because substantive and substantial evidence exists that, while serving as Secretary of State, both she and her husband utilized the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation as an illegal conduit through which wealthy donors— including individuals, foreign governments, NGOs, and multinational corporations—paid the Clintons handsomely for personal favorable treatment at the expense of the American people and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and in contravention of our Nation’s laws. The offering of bribes to public officials and the taking of bribes by public officials is a serious federal offense.The penalty for conviction on any one of the aforementioned laws includes incarceration in federal prison—incarceration for several years.It is unlikely that a person who is convicted of a felony can obtain employment with the federal Government—whether as a low-level civil servant, or one who holds super-grade under the General Schedule of the U.S. Government service. The F.B.I., for example, will not hire a person who has been convicted of a felony. One can only wonder whether the F.B.I. would seriously consider hiring Hillary Rodham Clinton for any position in the Bureau if she were to seek employment with the Bureau. Would all her sins be forgiven? Not hardly!Of Course, the Director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, had made a recommendation to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, not to indict Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Loretta Lynch, not surprisingly, accepted that recommendation. But, one would be hard-pressed to believe that James Comey would permit Hillary Rodham Clinton to work for the F.B.I. as an agent of the F.B.I. or, for that matter, as a clerk-typist within the F.B.I., based on what he had learned about her—a tidbit, no doubt, of what the public has learned about Clinton’s misconduct—and what he shared with the American public in his unprecedented statement to the American public, on July 5, 2016, the day following and marking our day of independence from tyranny. James Comey made abundantly clear to the American people that Clinton’s mishandling of Government information falls into the category of “extremely careless.”Would James Comey permit the hiring of such a person to handle F.B.I. information? And, if Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in handling classified information coming across her desk as Secretary of State, is it not likely she would be just as careless in her handling of classified federal Government information that comes across her desk as “U.S. President” Hillary Clinton?U.S. President Barack Obama, for his part, doesn’t seem to mind. He obviously doesn’t care whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled Government information in her capacity as Secretary of State, for he was off campaigning with her the very day James Comey delivered his statement to the American people, —a statement clearly damning Clinton even as Comey refused, for some unexplained and inexplicable reason, to recommend indictment, assuming that he, otherwise, wasn't compelled to recommend, to the Attorney General, no indictment on felony charges against Clinton.And, what is one to make of Obama’s assertions against Donald Trump. The President casts aspersions on Donald Trump, whom the F.B.I. has never investigated for federal crimes amounting to serious felonies and whom the F.B.I. never had to investigate for federal crimes amounting to felonies. Yet Obama tells the American people that Hillary Rodham Clinton is admirably suited to run this Country. Obama says this, oddly enough, even as Director Comey certainly must now—especially now—have serious doubts about Clinton’s ability to lead this Country—serious doubts based on the fact that the F.B.I. had a rational basis to undertake its criminal investigation of Clinton for possible violations of federal law in the first place—very serious violations of federal law—violations of specific federal law amounting to felonies. The sound conclusion to be drawn is this: probable cause exists that Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies. This is not mere speculation. This is predicated on the findings of the Bureau as illuminated for the American people through the Director’s candid July 5, 2016 statement to the American people.So, whether Director Comey recommended an indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton or not, that is beside the point because there is nothing in the Director’s July 5, 2016 statement to the American people that vindicates Clinton. He certainly didn’t say that Clinton did not commit a crime. To the contrary, the Director’s statement makes clear that the F.B.I. believes—contrary to the conclusions drawn by some mainstream media publications that Clinton did not violate Federal law—that she did in fact commit a crime—that the evidence supports a finding that Clinton did in fact commit more than one federal crime and that the evidence supports a finding that she committed federal crimes over an extended period of time—several instances of misconduct of each crime over an extended period of time.James B. Comey, then, did not give Hillary Rodham Clinton "a free pass" or “a clean bill of health,” when he failed to recommend an indictment against her on charges of violating federal law. Indeed, Comey’s arguments for not recommending indictment are so lame, when juxtaposed with the clear, cogent, and comprehensive litany of wrongdoing by Clinton that one comes away suspecting that Comey expects—indeed wants—the public to see through the obvious weaknesses of his arguments in support of not recommending an indictment of Clinton on federal criminal charges.First, Comey says, in his statement to the American public that, "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." That is all well and good, but for the fact that the F.B.I. wouldn't be prosecuting Hillary Clinton; the Criminal Division of the Justice Department would be handling the prosecution of Clinton and it is for the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, not for the F.B.I., to determine whether to proceed with the prosecution. So it is the Criminal Division's call whether or not, ultimately, to prosecute Clinton. There is certainly sufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation of the F.B.I. to the Attorney General. James Comey interjected a matter into his decision to recommend an indictment or not that isn't his to make. As Comey said, in that very same statement to American public, "in our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect." The F.B.I. collected substantive and substantial evidence of crimes. So, if the prosecutors within the Criminal Division of the Justice Department make the decision whether charges are appropriate, why would Comey attempt to preclude the prosecutors in the Justice Department from making that decision to prosecute? Of course, the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, could have indicted Hillary Clinton, regardless of the decision of the F.B.I. She said, though, that she would abide by the recommendation of the F.B.I., which is not what she said originally. The Attorney General is supposed to exercise independent judgment. Did she know what Comey's decision would be prior to Comey's statement to the public? Sure she knew. She must have known, just as Obama must have known, as he was flying off with Hillary Clinton, campaigning with her the very day Comey was delivering his unprecedented statement to the American public on July 5, 2016. The Director said that no one knew beforehand what he would be saying in his statement--that he had not coordinated his remarks with any one in the Justice Department or with any other part of government. That may be true. We can take that at face value. But, then, that is not to say, that Comey didn't inform the President and the Attorney General what his decision would be. They knew. They must have known, for if they didn't know, the Attorney General would not have expressed confidence in asserting that she would abide by the F.B.I. Director's decision, whatever that decision might be, and the U.S. President, for his part, would not have been encouraged to campaign with Hillary Clinton before he knew, with absolute certainty, what Comey's decision would be. For, how would it look for the President and for the Nation for Obama to be seen campaigning with Hillary Clinton on the very day that the F.B.I. Director asserts that he, the Director of the F.B.I., will be recommending indictment of Hillary Clinton on multiple federal felony charges?Second, Comey, asserts, "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here." That assertion suggests that the only time a prosecutor will bring a case is when there is specific case precedent for it. That is false. Precedent is always a great thing to have. It makes a conviction virtually certain. But, it is very rare  for a prosecutor to find two cases that have essentially identical facts. Rather, a prosecutor looks to see whether a given set of facts comply with the elements of a crime as set forth in statute. If they do, that is a sufficient basis to seriously consider bringing charges against an individual. But, again, whether the Criminal Division of the Justice Department chooses to prosecute or not, that is a decision for the Criminal Division, together with the Attorney General, to make. That is not a matter for the F.B.I. to decide because, again, the F.B.I. would not be prosecuting the case. The Criminal Division of the Justice Department has responsibility for that.Third, Comey stresses the lack of finding intentional or willful misconduct by Hillary Clinton in the mishandling of classified Government information as a ground for not recommending indictment. That assertion doesn't follow from the litany of damning evidence he presents to the public in his statement. But, be that as it may, the Statute, U.S.C. § 793, “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information”  doesn't require that intentional or willful misconduct be present as part of the crime, "gross negligence" is sufficient--a lesser standard. Comey's failure to even mention "gross negligence"--curiously, he does say, in his statement, that, Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of classified government information, which is essentially the same thing as "gross negligence"--illustrates sloppiness in Comey's remarks against recommending indictment of Clinton on federal criminal charges, and that sloppiness stands in stark and marked contrast to the cogency, the clarity, the precision in his detailing of Clinton's misconduct in that very same statement. One can only suspect that the Director of the F.B.I. intended for the American public--and certainly for attorneys--to see through the charade, to recognize that the F.B.I. has been compromised but that he feels, just the same, the need--perhaps for his own legacy--to let the public know that he had no choice in the matter--that the F.B.I., as with the entirety of the Executive Branch, does not serve the public--that something sinister and profane--even evil--has taken over our Government.Regardless, Comey’s statement to the American people, in its totality, makes very clear what he thinks of Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. The portrait the Director of the F.B.I. has painted of Hillary Clinton, for the American People's purview, is not a flattering one.So, another logical inference to draw from Comey’s July 5, 2016 statement to the American people is that the Director believes Hillary Rodham Clinton’s behavior as Secretary of State is morally reprehensible, and that Clinton is morally unfit to hold any position of responsibility in Government—least of all the position of President of the United States.Yet, Barack Obama continues to sing his praises of Clinton and at one and the same time casts aspersions on Trump. There is to be seen a marked inconsistency between what the public is to gather from Comey’s statement to the American people about Clinton’s conduct and what the President, Barack Obama, would have the American people believe about Clinton. Given that inconsistency, a rational person can and should dismiss, out-of-hand, Obama’s negative statements against Trump, as those statements are facially nonsensical in light of Obama’s support for a person who could not obtain employment with the F.B.I. had Clinton desired to do so because she is likely a criminal and she is certainly a security risk.In fact, Hillary Clinton would have a devil of a time securing a job with any federal agency given, one, the fact of a lengthy, intensive, and comprehensive investigation into her actions as a Cabinet Level Official of the federal Government; two, given the F.B.I.’s damning report against her and; and, three, given the fact that she is a security risk.Of course, Barack Obama has a vested interest in Hillary Clinton, for he is interested in seeing the continuation of his legacy. James Comey, though, has no vested interest in a Clinton candidacy and he certainly has no desire to support a likely criminal for President of the United States.The continuation of Obama’s legacy is something Hillary Clinton intends to promote. That legacy is something Donald Trump has no intention of promoting. None of this seems to trouble Obama, for he continues to sing his praises of Clinton and consistently maintains she is fit to serve as U.S. President. But, then, the American public should not really be surprised; nor should the public put stock in what Barack Obama has to say about Clinton. After all, Obama has, through Executive Order, made it easier for convicted felons to gain employment with the Federal Government.See, for example, the New York Post article, titled, "Obama makes it easier for felons to become government workers." That should tell the American public all it needs to know of the true worth of Obama’s remarks concerning who is and who isn’t capable of serving as President of the United States.But, it isn’t Obama that the American people need long concern themselves with. He has done his damage to this Country. One would think the American people, who voted for him, would have learned from their mistakes. For, one tacit assumption can be drawn from his remarks, as he supports Clinton and attacks Trump.A vote for Clinton is a vote for the extension of the Administrations of both Obama and Bill Clinton. Beyond the obviousness of that assertion, it should trouble any American to elect to the highest Office in the Land, a person who likely would not—indeed, probably could not—be hired at the lowest General Schedule pay Grade of the Federal Government were she to apply for a job with the Federal Government; for, a person who applies for a job with the Federal Government must undergo an F.B.I. investigation.It beggars belief that any federal agency or department would hire a person whom the F.B.I. had investigated for serious violations of federal law, regardless of the outcome of those investigation, notwithstanding Obama’s Executive Order, making it easier for criminals to secure employment in the federal Government. It is by the mere fact that the F.B.I., armed with substantive and substantial evidence of Hillary Clinton’s criminal wrongdoing, and it is by predicate acts that gave the Bureau jurisdiction to investigate Hillary Clinton at all, that Americans should think long and hard before supporting Hillary Clinton for U.S. President.Did the F.B.I. investigate Clinton for any other crimes? Is there a legitimate basis for concluding that Clinton broke any other federal laws? Did Hillary Clinton likely commit the most serious crime that any American citizen can be charged with? That is the topic of discussion in Part 2 of this article and in succeeding articles._________________________________________

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: A QUESTION OF TREASON

PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

ALL ELSE MAY BE FORGIVEN: THE CRIME OF TREASON CANNOT! AND THE SIN OF TREACHERY TO GOD AND COUNTRY MUST NOT!THE INFERNO CANTO XXXIICIRCLE NINE: COCYTUS ROUND TWO: ANTENORAThe Treacherous to CountryAt the bottom of the well Dante finds himself on a huge frozen lake. This is COCYTUS, the NINTH CIRCLE, the fourth and last great water of Hell, and here, fixed in the ice, each according to his guilt are punished sinners guilty of TREACHERY AGAINST THOSE TO WHOM THEY WERE BOUND BY SPECIAL TIES.The ice is divided into four concentric rings marked only by the different positions of the damned within the ice. This is Dante’s symbolic equivalent of the final guilt. The treacheries of these souls were denials of love (which is God) and of all human warmth. Only the remorseless dead center of the ice will serve to express their natures. As they denied God’s love, so are they furthest removed from the light and warmth of His Sun. As they denied all human ties, so are they bound only by the unyielding ice. ~Ciardi, John; Alighieri, Dante; MacAllister, Archibald. The Inferno (Signet Classics) Penguin Publishing Group

DOES HILLARY CLINTON’S MISCONDUCT EXTEND TO TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit to serve as President of the United States. In fact Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit to serve as a federal Government official in any capacity of responsibility. These two straightforward assertions are not suppositions. They are valid and logical inferences drawn from several incontrovertible facts.One, concrete evidence supports a finding Hillary Rodham Clinton had, during her tenure as Secretary of State, a Cabinet level position in the Obama Administration, either intentionally or through gross negligence, mishandled classified Government information. Doing so constitutes a serious breach of federal law, amounting to a felony if convicted.Two, concrete evidence supports a finding that Hillary Rodham Clinton had knowingly obstructed justice by lying to federal officers engaged in the legitimate criminal investigation of Clinton’s conduct. This is a serious breach of federal law, amounting to a felony if convicted.Three, concrete evidence supports a finding that Hillary Clinton engaged in an ongoing practice of corruption, having used the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation as a conduit for the selling of favors through the Department of State—a high level component of the Executive Branch of Government—to wealthy, prominent, and powerful individuals, and to multinational corporations, and to non-governmental organizations (“NGO’s”), and to foreign governments, some clearly unfriendly to the U.S. and to U.S., interests in exchange for hard cold cash. Bribery is a serious breach of federal law, amounting to a felony if convicted.Conviction on any one of the above mentioned crimes is sufficient to send a person to federal prison for several years.The mere possibility that a person has engaged in any one or more of the above crimes raises serious doubt about that person’s ability to serve this Country, and about that person’s character, namely and specifically, that person’s honesty, integrity, sincerity, sense of values, and willingness to sacrifice his or her personal needs and desires and wishes to the more sacred needs of duty to Country, duty to our Country’s Constitution and to its system of laws, and duty to our citizenry; and that duty of service does not extend to the citizenry of other Countries, contrary to what the present U.S. President, Barack Obama, says and what Hillary Clinton also ascribes to.But, let us consider whether Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her seeming service to the American people as Secretary of State, transgressed in any other way. Let us consider whether Hillary Clinton committed a crime so serious, so ignoble, and so heinous, that every other crime pales in comparison and significance. Let us consider whether evidence supports a finding that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s wrongful conduct, as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, amounts to a crime directed against the very Sovereignty of this Nation, against this Nation’s Constitution, and against the citizens of the United States.Let us in fact ask this question: apart from likely committing serious felonies during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration that have been detailed, did Hillary Clinton likely commit the most heinous crime of all—a crime so horrific that no one, from either political Party, will talk openly about it; that no one in either political Party will even speculate about? Did Hillary Clinton commit treason against this Nation? Is there a basis, in either the U.S. Constitution or federal Statute, or both, to indict Hillary Clinton on one or multiple counts of treason? And, may we not consider, concomitantly, that, apart from considering whether Hillary Rodham Clinton committed the crime of Treason, under our Constitution and under Federal Law, did she not also break God’s law, and commit the cardinal sin of treachery to Country?Now, to be sure, the Arbalest Quarrel is not the first party to consider the issue of treason in relation to Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. Some commentators and some websites have heretofore broached the subject of treason in connection with Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. Indeed, some commentators and some websites have even asserted, categorically, that Hillary Clinton did commit treason. But—and this is an important but—it is one thing to call a person a “traitor,” as rhetorical hyperbole, and this is more often the case than not. It is quite another to apply the term, ‘traitor,’ to a person from a legal standpoint, with all the consequences that such assertion constitutes. And, it is from the legal perspective—and not from the matter-of-fact, colloquial, rhetorical, man-in-the-street standpoint and perspective—that we look at treason here, that we consider the legal grounds, if any, for legitimately, realistically, and appropriately positing a charge of treason on Hillary Rodham Clinton.In undertaking this investigation into the merits of bringing a charge of treason against Hillary Clinton, we must always bear in mind that the worst citizens among us, along with the best, do have and should have, that protection afforded all citizens of the United States, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says clearly, cogently, succinctly:“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." The Sixth Amendment guarantee holds true for me; it holds true for you; and it holds true for Hillary Rodham Clinton. It holds true for all citizens of the United States.The American citizen’s natural right to defend him or herself against a criminal charge levied against that citizen is a right no less to be honored and safeguarded than the natural right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as codified in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and no less to be honored and safeguarded than the natural right of an American citizen to speak his or her mind openly and freely, as codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, uninhibited by and irrespective of the current penchant for “political and social correctness” as thrust on us all because of the personal peculiar sensitivity of a few; and no less to be honored and safeguarded than the natural right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms, as codified under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Also, when looking at the possibility that an American citizen’s conduct amounts to a crime—whether considered relatively minor in scope such as an inoffensive infraction, or one codified in our law that is so horrific that we consider it, as well, a mortal sin—a crime against nature and against God’s strictures—we must consider one’s conduct from the standpoint of federal and State statute and from the standpoint of individual State Constitutions and from the standpoint of the U.S. Constitution.Our criminal codes, whether enacted by State Legislatures or by the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitutions of the various States establish, one, the fact that certain conduct amounts to a punishable offense; two, the specific elements necessary to establish a prima facie case for the existence of a punishable offense; and, three, the penalties for conviction on that offense. In other words, our system of laws pertaining to criminal behavior requires the codification in the U.S. Constitution or the in the Constitutions of the States or in federal or State statute saying that particular behavior is criminal.So, under the U.S. Constitution and under State Constitutions, and under our federal and State system of criminal law, it is not sufficient a particular species of behavior be deemed reprehensible in order to exact a penalty for the commission of it. That is to say, if a person’s conduct isn’t statutorily prohibited, then that person’s conduct does not rise to the level of a crime, upon which a person can be charged and tried in a court of competent jurisdiction, and, if found guilty, assessed a penalty once the prohibited conduct, for which the person has been formally charged and tried, has been finally, and firmly, established and adjudicated.We point this out in exacting detail here for a reason. We do this because the discussion of treason, from a legal and philosophical perspective is not so easy to understand and to fathom as some might think.The subject of treason, seemingly simple to understand in a straightforward colloquial sense, is actually quite opaque, difficult to comprehend and to apply in the legal sense. And, it is the legal sense of “treason” you must come to know, that you must become familiar with, that you must be receptive to and come to appreciate that is important here, even if the subject matter is abstruse.That can’t be helped. Indeed our founders struggled with the very notion and concept of ‘treason’ and we’ll explain why and how in upcoming articles.So, the rhetorical use of the term, ‘treason,’ as applied, by some, to Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State, does nothing to help us to effectively defeat Hillary Clinton on that ground. So saying, doesn’t make it so. Simply calling Hillary Clinton a traitor does not, in the mere assertion, serve to persuade anyone who is predisposed to see Clinton as someone suitable to lead this Country that she isn’t.Rather, to call Clinton a “traitor” in the absence of a good legal ground for so saying simply informs those who support Clinton in her quest for the U.S. Presidency, that those who call Clinton a traitor are wrong-headed. Better then not to use the term, ‘treason,’ or ‘traitor’ in reference to Hillary Clinton at all. For, one simply displays his or her own ineptitude. So, we must be cautious. And, at worst, so saying opens one up to a defamation action. So, we must be circumspect and careful.In the next few articles, The Arbalest Quarrel shall discuss treason, from a legal, historical, and philosophical perspective. If there is a legal basis for charging Hillary Rodham Clinton with the crime of treason, we will present the grounds for doing so. In the articles that follow we will explore the legal basis, if any, for doing just that.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

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

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

PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

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

THE FOUNDATION OF JUSTICE UNDONE BY THE FOUNDATION, CLINTON

The American People Must Demand Integrity In Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMERICANS MUST SMOKE OUT RENEGADE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS

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

PAY TO PLAY: THE CLINTON FOUNDATION’S OPEN SECRET AND SILENT PURPOSE

Bribery At Its Worst: Selling Out America For Cold, Hard Cash

“Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, . . . whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or accidental condition of circumstance.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Writings: Notes on the State of Virginia/Public & Private PapersGive the Clintons one dollar, and they will send you on your way. Give the Clintons one thousand dollars, and they will deign to give you their ear. Give the Clintons one million dollars, and they will bend American policy to your advantage. Give the Clintons ten million dollars, and they will give you the keys to our Nation, laughingly sending our Nation, its People, the sacred Constitution of our Nation, and the sacred rights and liberties of the American People—all to the dark abyss of hell. ~Personal Reflections on the Clinton Dynasty by the Arbalest Quarrel.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF RECENT ARBALEST QUARREL ARTICLES ON THE CLINTON SCANDAL

American citizens who believe in the sanctity of and who work diligently to preserve and strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms believe in the inviolability of the United States Constitution. Even citizens who fail to appreciate the Second Amendment and who seek to upend it are reluctant to relinquish the U.S. Constitution in its entirety and prepared to redraft a new one. Through her actions we know Hillary Rodham Clinton scoffs at the import and purport of the Second Amendment, belittles those who support it, and has little, if any regard, for the rest of the Constitution. She believes, wrongly, that our system of laws, grounded in our Constitution, and comprising a massive body of case law, statute, and jurisprudence do not apply to her.Under her watch as an employee of the federal Government, in her capacity as Secretary of State, a Cabinet level position in the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton mishandled classified Government information. That is fact. There is no longer any reasonable doubt about it.What does the mishandling of classified information mean? It means that legal grounds exist for charging Hillary Clinton with a felony. It means that legal grounds exist for indicting Hillary Clinton on multiple counts of violating federal law, namely and particularly, 18 U.S.C. § 793. That Statute falls within Chapter 37.Chapter 37 is titled, “Espionage and Censorship.” 18 U.S.C. § 793 is titled, “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.” Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) and (g) reads, “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”Mishandling of classified information cannot be excused or cavalierly dismissed on the ground of poor judgment or innocent mistake. Hillary Clinton’s actions were calculated and callous. Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds, scrupulously catalogued by the F.B.I.—laid out in clear, cogent, and horrific detail by James B. Comey, Director of the F.B.I., in an unprecedented statement to the American people, delivered over the airwaves, on July 5, 2016, one day after the date of our Independence from tyranny—unquestionably supports Hillary Rodham Clinton’s indictment under specific federal law. Hillary Clinton compounded her misdeeds by lying about them. Lying to federal officials support Hillary Clinton’s indictment under another federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 of Chapter 37.

A THIRD FEDERAL CRIME—AND ANOTHER FELONY—THAT BOTH BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON MUST ANSWER FOR: BRIBERY

Lost, though, in the moment of the Hillary Clinton private email server scandal and her intentional cover-up of her scandalous outrageous mishandling of classified data is discussion of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation scandal. The public knows precious little about the relationship between the State Department’s foreign policy decisions and monies flowing into the Foundation. But news is trickling out. The American public has the right to know about the relationship between the State Department’s foreign policy decisions and monies flowing into the Clinton Foundation. The American public should not and must not be kept in the dark. It is patently clear that any seemingly altruistic activities of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation are merely “a front,” “a mask,” for the sale of political favors to those willing and able to pay for such favorable treatment. The Department of Justice is silent about this. Why?The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation isn’t simply a vehicle for the performance of altruistic activities, as the Clintons claim publically. The Foundation masks seedy, nefarious, illegal activities, undermining the sovereignty of our Nation and the sanctity of our Constitution, all the while contributing to the Clintons’ accumulation of personal wealth, on a massive scale. The Clintons would deny this, of course. On the Foundation’s website, the Clintons provide only this one innocuous remark, concerning the purpose of their Foundation:“We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for girls and women, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.” Stated purpose of the Clinton Foundation as set forth on its website. Stated purpose and goal of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Pay particular attention to the first sentence of the Clinton Foundation’s stated purpose. The Clintons claim their Foundation “convenes” businesses, Governments, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), and individuals for altruistic purposes. But, do these businesses include international holding companies and multinational corporations? Do these Governments include Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many others? Do these individuals include foreign nationals and wealthy, powerful oligarchs? Are these NGOs “authentic” NGOs? If so, they are tied to the United Nations. That alone should give Americans pause.

DID HILLARY CLINTON USE PRIVATE EMAIL SERVERS TO COVER HER TRACKS? OBVIOUSLY, SO!

The Clintons—Bill and Hillary—do not like to discuss the businesses, governments, individuals and NGOs who have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into their Foundation’s coffers. But the American people have the right to know and, indeed, the duty to investigate the motives of these multinational businesses, these foreign governments, these billionaires and power brokers, and these NGOs. What are their desires, wishes, and goals for flooding the Clinton Foundation, collectively, with hundreds of millions of dollars? Might not their motives transcend mere altruistic concerns? Is that not a rational inference to draw? Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton help formulate U.S. foreign policy on the basis of monies paid to the Foundation—irrespective of how that policy might impact the well-being and security of our Nation and our People? Is that not the one billion dollar question?Did not these multinational corporations, these foreign governments, these billionaires, these UN sponsored NGOs knowingly purchase the U.S. Government policy they wanted through monies paid to the Clinton Foundation? If so, those payments amount to bribes paid to the Clintons through their Foundation. The Clinton Foundation is, then, essentially a conduit, a front for illegal payments to the Clintons—a vehicle for doling out favors—in unlawful defiance of our Nation’s laws—but favors the Clintons are in a position to deliver because of their influence and power and ability to warp and bend government policy as they wish—favors the Clintons are unabashedly willing to deliver to those ready and able and willing to pay handsomely for it.Let’s take a look.

COLLUSION BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE BILL, HILLARY & CHELSEA FOUNDATION

The New York Times reported, in 2015, in a story captioned, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” “how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”The Times article goes on to say, “But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The New York Times categorically states that Hillary Rodham Clinton used her Department for personal gain. Worse yet, both of the Clintons—Bill and Hillary—allowed their lust for personal wealth to override their duty to protect and defend our Country. Russia is our adversary. Clintons’ supporters and cronies assert that Donald Trump threatens our national security. Yet, here the Clintons sit actually selling out our Country for personal gain. Whatever speculations Hillary Clinton’s supporters may cast upon Donald Trump, Americans need not resort to speculation to know that Bill Clinton, a past United States President, and Hillary Clinton, a past Secretary of State and U.S. Senator who seeks to become the 45^th President of the United States, do not, never have, and never will have our Nation’s best interests at heart. Their duty to Country will never outweigh their greed, and their lust for power and personal aggrandizement.As reported by the weblog, Politifact, the Clinton Foundation also received large sums of money from Middle Eastern Countries, namely, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Morocco, and Yemen. Receipt of monies from Yemen is particularly troubling, since terrorist groups are extremely active in that Country. The U.S. has conducted Drone strikes regularly in that Country, as reported in that same Politifact article.The Daily Caller reports that the Clinton Foundation took in nearly one hundred million dollars from other autocratic Middle Eastern Countries.Fox News Reports that the Clinton Foundation has taken in millions of dollars from Countries that imprison homosexuals. Curiously, Rights Groups, who fervently support the rights of homosexuals and transgender individuals, are notably “silent” about that fact. Why is that? Does that not illustrate hypocrisy?These incidents, of course, are just the tip of the ice-berg. But the gravity of the few incidents mentioned here explains Hillary Clinton’s true reason—the “true true” and “the whole true” for using private email servers. We know now that Clinton deliberately risked the hacking of her personal servers. Her use of private, personal email servers was intentional. She didn’t utilize private, personal email servers to conduct high level federal Government business—servers maintained in her home—as a matter of simple convenience. That rationale, as Hillary Clinton expressly conveyed to the public, is a hopelessly transparent ruse. We can dismiss that ridiculous notion out-of-hand.The American public can reasonably conclude that Hillary Clinton used private, personal email servers, instead of official Government servers to conduct federal Government business, precisely because she found it necessary to cover her tracks. She did so to preclude documentation of the Clinton Foundation’s illegal activities, for posterity, in the National Archives. She did so, as well, to make investigation of the illegal conduct involving the Clinton Foundation, difficult.But, if Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, manufactured foreign and domestic policies for the benefit of others, for personal pecuniary gain—channeling those proceeds through the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation—she committed a federal crime—a felony—beyond the two felonies the public knows about which include: the mishandling of classified Government material, 18 U.S.C. § 793, and lying to a federal official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The third federal crime, another felony, is that of bribery. The federal crime of bribery is set down in 18 U.S.C. § 201, titled, "Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses." The federal crime of Bribery says:

• “For the purpose of this section—

• the term ‘public official’ means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

• the term ‘person who has been selected to be a public official’ means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and

• the term ‘official act’ means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.

• Whoever—

• directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

• to influence any official act; or

• to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

• to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

• being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

• being influenced in his the performance of any official act;

• being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

• being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

• directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

• directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

1. shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

• Whoever—

• otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—

• directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or

• being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

1. shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”

During the eight and one-half hour Hearing of the Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held on July 7, 2016, in Washington, D.C., U.S. Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, Republican, Utah, pointedly asked the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and whether that investigation was “tied” to Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email servers to conduct official Government business. Comey was, on that score, curiously reticent about answering. In fact, he was tight-lipped. CHAFFETZ: Did you look at the Clinton Foundation? COMEY: I’m not going to comment on the existence or non-existence of any other investigations.CHAFFETZ: Was the Clinton Foundation tied into this investigation?COMEY: I'm not going to answer that.That little exchange, concerning the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, is the extent of Congressional inquiry into and the extent of James Comey's responses to Congressman Jason Chaffetz's questioning of the Foundation investigation tie-in to the Hillary Rodham Clinton private email server investigation--conducted by the F.B.I.--in eight and one-half hours of Hearing. Strange! Yet, the American public has a right to know if the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is in bed with multinational businesses, with foreign Governments, with UN affiliated NGOs, and with wealthy, powerful individuals.The simple suggestion that a foundation—any foundation—attracting the influential individuals and entities the Clinton Foundation does, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, does so because such individuals and entities simply have altruistic concerns and wish for the foundation, to spend the monies received accordingly, does precious little, in itself, to inspire confidence. Rather, and specifically, the machinations of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation inspires incredulity, at least, or otherwise simply defies rational belief.The Clinton Foundation does more—much more. The Clinton Foundation conducts business with major players around the world and generates tens and hundreds of millions of dollars because these players seek to influence foreign and domestic policies that benefit them. They know that Bill and Hillary Clinton wield influence within the highest levels of the U.S. Government. They know the Clintons can deliver! Selling out our Country for personal gain is the Clinton’s raison d’etre. The power brokers know this. They know that Bill and Hillary Clinton can be bought. They know that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been bought in the past, and in the present. They know that U.S. President Hillary Clinton would be willing to sell out our Country, in the future. If Hillary and Bill Clinton have manipulated the direction of this Country to benefit foreign interests and sponsors, to the detriment of U.S. interests and to the detriment of the well-being of the Nation’s citizenry, we must also consider the possibility that the Clintons have committed the most serious crime imaginable—treason.We will, in the next Arbalest Quarrel article, explore the legal grounds for indicting the two on charges of treason—the most heinous crime any American citizen can commit. The F.B.I. Director’s reticence in discussing the machinations of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation may bespeak the worst possible horror for this Nation: that the Clintons and their Foundation is not accountable to or beholding to U.S. law and that the Clinton’s Foundation, backed by their foreign donors, is more powerful than the U.S. Government!Most disheartening and disconcerting is the fact that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation still exists. So, in the event Hillary Rodham Clinton secures the Office of United States President, she will be in the position to use, and will undoubtedly use, and leverage the Office of U.S. President to accumulate, unto the Clinton family, ever large masses of cash. That is bad enough. Worse, Bill and Hillary Clinton will be able to formulate, will have the desire to formulate, and will in fact formulate and implement American domestic and foreign policy to benefit their donors. That policy—sold to the American People—will actually benefit those foreign and domestic actors who remit tens of millions of dollars to the Clintons, through their Foundation. Those donors will expect and will receive favorable treatment—treatment that may and, in many instances, will be detrimental—perhaps severely detrimental—to the well-being of our Nation and to the well-being of our Nation’s citizenry, in contravention to our Nation’s Constitution and to its laws.What can Congress do to prevent the travesty of a Bill and Hillary Dyarchy in this country?

CONGRESS MUST ENACT THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2016 AND MUST DO SO, NOW!

Since the Department of Justice will not perform its duties under the U.S. Constitution, Congress must act to demand integrity of the Executive Branch. A bill is pending before Congress to require integrity of Government: the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016. The bill would reenact the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Two House Republicans, Representative, Rick Allen, Republican from Georgia, and Michael Turner, Republican from Ohio, jointly introduced the new Act of 2016.Where is that bill now? Has the House acted on it? Does it intend to act on it before the General Election in November 2016? Why hasn’t the public heard about it? Are House Republicans stonewalling? If so, why?Enactment of the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016 is the best impetus for investigating the serious misconduct of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and the mysterious, likely illegal conduct of both Bill and Hillary Clinton through their “front,” the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.Failure of House Republicans to act on the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, and failure of Senate Republicans to coordinate efforts with the two U.S. Congressman who sponsored this bill, says much of the reluctance of centrist Republicans to mete out justice for Hillary Clinton. Failure to act on the bill, languishing in committee since May 2016, suggests that many Republicans do not take the corruption emanating from and permeating everything the Clinton dynasty does, seriously. We can only surmise that many Republicans in Congress secretly—and some, not so secretly—desire Hillary Clinton to win the U.S. Presidency. We, at the Arbalest Quarrel, do not. We, along with all Americans, who cherish the sanctity and inviolability of our Nation’s Constitution—which has stood the test of time—and who countenance the continued sovereignty of our Nation and of our system of laws, cannot allow this to happen, must not allow this to happen.The Arbalest Quarrel will continue to delve into the criminal conduct of the Clintons in upcoming articles.[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.

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.

SMART GUNS ARE NOT A SMART IDEA!

Stephen L. D’Andrilli, on behalf of the Arbalest Quarrel, a weblog devoted to educating the public on the meaning of State and federal firearms’ legislation, will attend “The New York City Smart Gun Symposium.” The Symposium will be held at the Brooklyn Borough Hall on August 2^nd, from 11am to 2pm. The address is: Brooklyn Borough Hall 209 Joralemon St, Brooklyn, NY 11201.Stephen D’Andrilli looks forward to joining the discussion. Stephen knows gun issues. He is happy to explain the Arbalest Quarrel’s position on “smart guns” and is available to answer questions participants in the Symposium may have about Arbalest Quarrel’s position on smart guns.Expecting questions the Arbalest Quarrel presents the following paper, directed to the politics behind the antigun establishment’s push for smart guns.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL’S POSITION ON “SMART GUNS”

Among the latest restrictive gun proposals are those involving adoption of so-called “smart guns”—the subject of this symposium. But, when considering adoption of smart guns—or any restrictive gun proposal—we must not lose sight of one important fact. Antigun ideologues shape thoughts, impressions, and beliefs about guns through propagation of lies. They broadcast lies to the masses through meaningless sound bites, repeated constantly through the mainstream media. Take the expression, ‘smart gun.’ The expression, ‘smart gun,’ is a derivative of the coined word, ‘smart phone’ and, not improbably, ‘smart bomb.’ Antigun ideologues seek to create an impression about smart guns that is at odds with the truth about them.But, what is a smart gun? NRA explains. “Conceptually, a ‘smart’ gun is one that incorporates technology that would prevent the gun from being used by an unauthorized person. Currently, no viable guns equipped with such technology exist.”Apart from technical matters relating to the production of smart guns, we must not lose sight of the political motivations percolating around smart guns.The expression ‘smart gun,’ as created and employed by antigun ideologues, is a meme, a mental virus. But what does the expression, ‘smart gun,’ suggest?Adding the adjective ‘smart’ to the noun, ‘gun,’ suggests to the mind—as those who coined the word and thrust it on the public consciousness, hope and obviously intended—that application of so-called smart gun technology to gun manufacturing makes a firearm in some sense better.To the antigun ideologue any gun that is not a ‘smart gun’ is, ipso facto, a ‘dumb’ gun. They don’t say this. That is implied. Consider why would someone want a simple, dumb phone, when one could do more with a smart phone? Similarly, who would want a dumb gun when a person can own and possess a smart gun? What kind of a firearm would any sensible person want if a person wishes to own and possess a firearm at all? Would that person want a smart gun or a dumb gun? These are the tacit questions posited by antigun ideologues.But, we must first ask: does adoption of smart technology to the production of guns truly produce a better gun? If so, in what way? We might analogize smart guns to smart phones. But the analogy between a smart phone and a smart gun is a false one. A user of a smart phone prefers a smart phone to a phone that does not incorporate smart technology because smart phone technology incorporates more features that its users want. But, with gun technology, the user isn’t looking for a device with multiple features and capabilities. In fact, simplicity generally, if not invariably, is preferred to complexity in gun technology.Of course, all guns employ technology of some sort. Firearms are technological instruments: from the earliest wheel locks and flintlocks to modern revolvers and semiautomatic weapons. But, if firearms don’t employ the new “smart” technology, they are deemed unsophisticated.The idea conveyed is that unsophisticated guns employ dumb technology. But, dumb in what sense? Are such guns dumb, as the proponents of smart guns may argue, because such guns are deemed unsafe? But, unsafe in what way? In what manner? And, unsafe to whom and under what circumstances? Antigun ideologues consider safety from the standpoint of preventing unauthorized use of firearms. That is one context. There are others.Are smart guns safer in handling or in operation, say, than guns that do not incorporate smart technology? Might not a smart gun, in an emergency, be unsafe where a dumb gun is safe? Suppose a law-abiding citizen and gun owner finds his smart gun failing to work in an emergency. Or suppose that, for the smart gun to work, the gun owner must engage multiple operations. Can the antigun ideologue continue to maintain justifiably, rationally, that the smart gun is after all a safe gun—as if safety, in one context—preventing unauthorized use of the gun—has overriding significance even if the gun doesn’t work at a time when the authorized gun owner needs the gun to work or if the smart gun requires the authorized gun owner to know the intricacies of his or her smart gun—at a time when the gun owner is in a stressful situation and is counting on the gun to work?      In some contexts, at least, the smart gun is truly the dumb gun and the dumb gun is really the smart gun. The antigun ideologue ought not to be surprised that the law-abiding gun owner places more assurance in, say, his or her stock Smith and Wesson revolver handgun or in his or her stock Glock semiautomatic pistol.The point is that a gun has little if any use if it isn’t reliable and if it can’t be utilized immediately and easily in an emergency.Reliability and ease of use of a device—any device—is certainly at least as important as safety. For, if a device isn’t reliable, of what use does it have. And, if a device isn’t easy to use—that is to say, if the device requires multiple gyrations on the part of its user before the user gets it to work—won’t that user prefer a simpler device.It isn’t coincidental that smart gun technology is being pushed on the public by those who oppose guns in civilian hands. Let’s not be coy about this. Antigun ideologues don’t want civilians to own and possess any gun. This is no secret. They’ll tell you that.Antigun ideologues push smart gun technology on the ground, as they argue, that smart guns are better guns than ordinary guns—dumb guns—that don’t incorporate smart technology. But that doesn’t mean antigun ideologues think smart guns are as reliable as dumb guns or that smart gun technology allows for ease of use.The word, ‘better,’ doesn’t necessarily imply ‘reliability’ or ‘ease of use.’ Antigun ideologues don’t know if smart guns are as reliable as guns that don’t incorporate smart technology. Indeed, they don’t know if smart guns are reliable at all. Frankly, they don’t care; nor do they care that smart guns are more intricate than guns that don’t incorporate the smart technology; nor do they care whether smart guns happen to be more difficult to operate than guns that do not incorporate the smart technology.Antigun ideologues’ aim is to render a gun inoperable if the gun falls into the wrong hands. That is what they want from a gun. That is the only thing they want and expect from a gun. Unfortunately, the concern of antigun ideologues does not extend to issues of reliability and ease of use for the authorized user—which are concerns certainly of importance to the authorized user. But, then, antigun ideologues are not individuals who seek to own and possess firearms. So, they would prefer that guns were merely props—unworkable devices, incapable of use by anyone.You will note that antigun ideologues don’t suggest that police and the military adopt smart technology in the weapons they use. Why is that? And, you don’t hear police departments and the military clamoring for the adoption of smart guns for their personnel. There is obviously a good reason for that.Now, antigun ideologues will invariably argue that the needs of the police and military differ from the needs of civilians. Regardless, one would expect, at the very least, that one’s firearm is reliable for the need at hand and allows for ease of use—no less so for the civilian than for the police officer and for the soldier.But antigun ideologues oppose civilian gun ownership on multiple grounds, including aesthetics. They argue that guns in the hands of civilians are unnecessary, unwholesome, dangerous, and even evil if one can legitimately call an inanimate object, “evil.”They seek to impose draconian gun laws, including application of unproven smart gun technology, on millions of rational, law-abiding, responsible gun owners. They wish to restrain and constrain the sacred right of millions of sane, rational, responsible law-abiding gun owners due to the reprehensible actions of criminals, lunatics, and terrorists among us who are routinely treated by the Obama Administration with “kid gloves.”Why should government be in the business of imposing smart gun technology on the public at all? If smart gun technology is to become commonplace in society, then that should come about because the gun buying public prefers it, even demands it. But demand or preference for a product or service in a capitalist society operates through the free market economy. If the gun-buying public wishes to own and possess smart guns, gun manufacturers will produce them. But government should not force gun manufacturers to manufacture guns they do not wish to make. And government should not restrict the buying options of the public to those firearms the public doesn’t wish to buy.Application of smart gun technology to firearms is not something law-abiding citizens who own and possess firearms want. It is, rather, something the Obama Administration—and antigun ideologues, who have no desire to own and possess a firearm themselves—seek to thrust on everyone else.Adoption of smart gun technology is not market driven; it is politically driven, based on personal bias, motivated by one segment of society’s personal agenda.If Americans wish to own and possess guns as is their natural right, as codified in the U.S. Constitution, on what legal ground—irrespective of personal morality, political ideology, aesthetic sensibility, or social consideration—might Congress or the State legislatures rely if they seek to compel Americans either to accept ‘smart gun’ technology or surrender—eventually and inevitably—their Constitutional right to possess firearms at all?[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 CLINTON MUST BE INDICTED AND HERE’S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.

HILLARY CLINTON EXEMPLIFIES CORRUPT LEADERSHIP AND THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SUFFERS BECAUSE OF IT

Joseph smiled his tight and bitter smile. ‘What does any man, in his heart, really want? Power. Hypocrites scream ideologies and slogans to gain it over the gullible and what I like to call the “pure in hearts.” But my—friends—have no ideologies though they will solemnly use those of others if it serves them. They are men of many interests, politicians, merchant chiefs, mine owners, industrialists, bankers, railroaders, oilmen, shipbuilders and owners, munitions makers, men of inherited wealth, shipbuilders and owners, munitions makers, men of inherited wealth, men of illustrious family both here and abroad, princes, if you will. Landowners. They have several things in common: None is devoted to his particular country. None cares about the people’s welfare in any nation. All are avaricious, beyond the avarice of the general public to comprehend. All are sublime egotists. All are enemies of what you would call freedom. They want to rule, each in his own sphere, cooperating with the others. They want to be the Elite, with absolute authority over the lives and deaths and destinies of the world. At heart, they are all Robespierres, Dantons, Mirabeaus, Jacobins.” Excerpt from Captains And The Kings, (published 1972), by Taylor Caldwell, Chapter 31One thing is clear and irrefutable. Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President of the United States. However you slice and dice it, a substantive F.B.I. investigation into Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State is sufficient reason to strike her name from consideration as a viable candidate for U.S. President. Failure of the F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton on federal criminal charges is second to the import of the investigation itself and what the investigation uncovered. The mainstream media doesn’t even mention the impact a criminal investigation into the conduct a Cabinet level Official ought to warrant. Instead, the mainstream media focuses solely on the Director’s decision. The mainstream media has sought, in recent years, to distract the public, not to inform it. Why is that?Moral failures galore exist here. Hillary Clinton should have had the good sense and decency to drop out of the race. She could and should have done so for the well-being of the Country and for the sake of the American People. She did not. That she failed to do so, the Democratic Party should have demanded she drop out of the race. The Party did not.The F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, should have followed his reason and recommended indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton on federal criminal charges. He did not. The Attorney General, Loretta Lynch should have indicted Hillary Clinton, regardless of the F.B.I.’s recommendation. She could have done so. She did not.The sitting President of the United States, Barack Obama, should not be campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton—regardless of Comey’s decision not to recommend indictment—given the sheer volume of the evidence against her and its dire nature. Instead he campaigns on her behalf, standing at her side.Bernie Sanders should have withheld his endorsement of Hillary Clinton. He endorsed her anyway, to the chagrin of millions of Americans who placed faith in him.

THE DANGER POSED BY A CLINTON PRESIDENCY

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, including the present U.S. President, and, recently, U.S. Senator, Bernie Sanders—along with Hillary Clinton’s retinue of image makers—portray Clinton as something she is not, never was, and, never could be—someone who cares about the well-being of this Nation; someone who would defend the Bill of Rights.Supporters of Hillary Clinton portray her as one concerned over the plight of millions of illegal aliens. But these illegal aliens, having snuck across our borders, have no legitimate right to remain here. They portray Hillary Clinton as someone concerned over the plight of Americans—Americans who seek constant handouts from the Federal Government. Yet, her supporters ignore the tax burden those Americans place on millions of other Americans who take responsibility for their own actions, for their own lives. They portray Clinton as someone concerned over the plight of disaffected Islamists from the Middle East whom she would bring to this Country in droves. Yet they ignore the threat posed by radical Islam—a threat that isn’t lost on anyone here or abroad.Hillary Clinton’s image makers portray Hillary Clinton as a Savior. She is nothing of the kind. Hillary Clinton feigns service to this Nation. She serves only herself and those seditious, treacherous interests that lurk in the shadows. She pretends to vouchsafe our rights and liberties. But she would destroy them. Freedom of speech would be curtailed. The right to keep and bear arms would be obliterated. Americans right to privacy would continue to be invaded, even as Clinton’s own actions would be cloaked in perpetual secrecy.

WHY HAS A LIKELY CRIMINAL EVADED A PROPER ACCOUNTING FOR HER ACTIONS?

People may speculate on Comey’s reluctance to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton on federal criminal charges. His failure to do so is sinful. His failure to do so has resulted in a cascade of sins committed by others.Comey’s damning litany of Hillary Clinton’s criminal conduct as Secretary of State screams out for her indictment. James Comey’s arguments against recommendation—when juxtaposed with the evidence for indictment outlined in his July 5, 2016 public statement to the American people—are lame and paltry, perhaps deliberately so. Was Comey telling the American People, though obliquely, that both he, and the Bureau and, by extension, the entire Justice Department, have been compromised? Possibly.

WHAT MIGHT CONGRESS DO?

What can Congress do to right a grievous wrong? Over three decades ago, Congress enacted laws to appoint independent counsel—often referred to as ‘special prosecutors’—to lead investigations into the wrongdoing of officials at the highest levels of government.The Arbalest Quarrel commenced a study of special prosecutorial appointment—the history behind it, the reasons for it, and the present status of it. The Arbalest Quarrel undertook this study to determine whether, through appointment of a special prosecutor, having independent authority, he or she might undertake a new investigation of Hillary Clinton’s bizarre conduct. This is necessary because of the Justice Department’s reluctance—for whatever reason—to “mete out justice.”A special prosecutor would undertake a review of the F.B.I.’s files. A special prosecutor and his team would have complete access to those files. A special prosecutor and his team would be unbound by the conclusions reached and decisions made by the F.B.I. Director and by the Attorney General. A special prosecutor and his team would operate independently of and beyond the reach of any Executive Department Official, including that of the U.S. President.A special prosecutor and his team would wield subpoena power and use of that subpoena power would be unconstrained. A special prosecutor would answer only to Congress.Specifically, a special prosecutor and his team would undertake an independent investigation of Hillary Clinton’s dubious activities as Secretary of State under Barack Obama. Both he and his team would investigate Clinton’s use of private email servers to conduct official Government business. Both he and his team would investigate foreign governments gaining access to that information. Both he and his team would review anew Hillary Clinton’s true motives behind her use of private email servers to conduct official Government business.A special prosecutor and his team would attempt to answer several important—even imperative—questions. Did Hillary Clinton’s use of private emails servers bespeak an intent to hide her activities from the American public? If so, that demonstrates intent to mishandle classified Government information, negating James Comey’s conclusion that Hillary Clinton did not intend to mishandle classified Government information. Why did Hillary Clinton destroy official Government records? James Comey made plain she attempted to destroy Government information. That she did so also demonstrates intent. Did she do this to avoid having Government information, pertaining to her actions as Secretary of State, deposited in the National Archives? If so, why? Did she do this to avoid having her activities recorded for posterity? If so, why? Was she aware, perhaps, that her policy decisions were contrary to the well-being of our Nation and to its People? If so, that would explain why she sought to use private email servers—even at the risk that such servers could not be properly secured—giving hackers relatively easy access.The special prosecutor and his team would review anew Hillary Clinton’s decision to lie to the F.B.I. and would string together the nature of those lies. The special prosecutor and his team would review anew the true purpose behind the Clinton Foundation. Is the Clinton Foundation a “front?” From whom did the Clinton Foundation receive and accept tens of millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars? Have some come from foreign governments and from wealthy, powerful individuals both at home and abroad? If so, have those governments and individuals paid the Clintons, through the Foundation, exorbitant monies to influence U.S. foreign and domestic policy? If so, has this influence peddling influenced foreign and domestic policy? Do the Clintons have sway over Obama? Have both Hillary and Bill Clinton attempted to cover up their Foundation’s activities from the American People?Have foreign governments hacked into Hillary Clinton’s private email servers? If so, have foreign governments obtained insight into State Department and Executive Office foreign policy analyses and decisions.Consider, did Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, enter the Mideast conflict, defending Bashar al-Assad’s regime, on the basis of information gleaned from Hillary Clinton’s private email servers? Were Hillary Clinton to become the 45^th President of the United States, would she commence use of private email servers again? If so, who in Government could stop her? Who, in Government would even know she was using private email servers to conduct Government business, at the highest level of Government?Clearly, the activities of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government are suspect. Recent pronouncements from the mouth of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the Judicial Branch, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, cast aspersions on that Branch too. Ginsburg’s assertions against a candidate for U.S. President are unprecedented and inappropriate. Both the tone of those assertions and the mere fact of them should give Americans pause.On the basis of independent review of F.B.I. files and on the basis of new discovery, Congress may be in the position to answer many critical questionsNever in our history have we faced the prospect of a person gaining access to the highest Office in the Land under a cloud of suspected criminal activity. Sure, past U.S. Presidents and our present U.S. President have acted in ways that draw serious attention to the legitimacy of their actions. But, never have the American people suffered the possibility of a dubious character occupying the highest seat in the Land, before the fact. This is an outrage to every American voter.  What can Congress do? In the past Congress relied on independent counsel, removed from the Executive Branch of Government and, therefore, beyond the influence of Government officials.

THE HISTORY OF SPECIAL PROSECUTORS*

Using special prosecutors had its birth in the 1970s, during the “Watergate” era. The Office of the U.S. President had become increasingly powerful. Congress sought to check abuses of the President. Congress feared encroachment of an “Imperial Presidency” with immunities and powers that had grown excessive and unchecked. To place a measure of control on the Presidency, Congress enacted several laws to give Congress oversight over the Chief Executive. One of those and of great importance here is The Ethics in Government Act of 1978. This Act authorizes independent special prosecutors to investigate and prosecute crimes by high officials.”The Department of Justice challenged this Act and other companion Acts when Congress first proposed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Through, the years, the Department of Justice has continued to challenge the Act.The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 Act has had a tumultuous history. Bill Clinton’s Administration had originally supported the Act. But, when special prosecutors investigated five members of Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, pursuant to their authority under the Act, Clinton abandoned his support for it. So, once the Act came up for renewal, in 1999, the Act lapsed.

NO LEGAL MECHANISM EXISTS TODAY TO BRING TO JUSTICE CABINET LEVEL OFFICERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHEN THOSE CABINET LEVEL OFFICERS VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--A DEPARTMENT THAT FALLS WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT--IS EITHER UNWILLING TO ACT TO BRING THOSE CABINET LEVEL OFFICERS TO JUSTICE BECAUSE THOSE HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ITSELF HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS UNABLE TO ACT BECAUSE HIGH LEVEL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY COMPROMISED.

Absent Congressional action, no legal mechanism exists today by which independent counsel, as special prosecutors, unconnected with the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, may investigate and prosecute corruption and felony crimes of those serving in the highest Offices of the Executive Branch. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide a framework for appointment of special prosecutors, and some legal experts question the constitutionality of their use.But, then, if the Executive Branch, overseen by the United States President, has exclusive and unfettered control over the administration of law, and if Cabinet level Officials, appointed by the President, break the law, it behooves Congress to take action if the Executive Branch cannot or will not do so. More to the point, if Justice Department Officials alone may investigate and prosecute crimes of Officials in Government, what can Congress do if those same Justice Department Officials—the principal prosecutors of crime and corruption in Government—have themselves been compromised and cannot do their jobs effectively?

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO TO RIGHT A GRIEVOUS WRONG?

Since the Justice Department refuses to indict Hillary Clinton on federal criminal charges—notwithstanding that evidence elicited by James Comey warrants indictment—indictment won’t proceed without Congressional action. Does Congress have the backbone to reauthorize The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 or enact another law like it?The paramount question of Constitutional law is this: Can Congress enact a law, allowing the Legislative Branch, itself, to appoint a special prosecutor? Would that law pass Constitutional muster? In other words, can the Legislative Branch of our Government lawfully take upon itself the administering of law if the Executive Branch is unwilling to do so or incapable of doing so? Would not Congressional administrating of law conflict with the Separation of Powers doctrine? The Separation of Powers doctrine mandates that all executive functions of Government emanate and operate from and through the Executive Branch just as all legislative functions of Government emanate and operate through the Legislative Branch of Government. The administering of law is an Executive function, not a Legislative one.The American People face a serious conundrum. How does this Nation deal with an Executive Branch run amok? The founders didn’t deal squarely with this question when they drafted our Constitution. They created no mechanism in the Constitution that allows for independent administrative review of Executive Department officials’ actions by Congress when Cabinet level Officials in the Executive Branch commit grievous wrongs, in contradistinction to their oath of Office.The founders of our Nation evidently didn’t consider that corruption in the Executive Branch could be pervasive. The founders of our Nation evidently did not truly believe the American People could be duped into electing, to the highest Office in the Land, a person of questionable moral character, a person capable of treachery, a person who not only is willing and able to commit a felony but who, most likely, has done so.We continue to explore these matters in forthcoming articles.________________________*The information provided in this section summarizes or paraphrases material obtained from the following two academic sources: “The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era,” 1945-2004, 90 Iowa L. Rev. 601, January 2005, Christopher S. Yoo, Associate Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University, Steven G. Calabresi, Professor of Law, Northwestern University, and Anthony J. Colangelo, Associate, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP; and “The Constitutionality Of Independent Officers As Checks On Abuses Of Executive Power,” 16 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 45, Fall 1982, Donald J. Simon, Associate, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse & Guido, Washington, D.C.[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’S ‘SMOKING GUN’ CANNOT BE UNDONE

“Let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” ~ Thomas PaineLost in the moment of the Dallas shooting tragedy is the serious matter of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s mishandling of official Government information. Many are those who would excuse this conduct. Most citizens likely would not. No American should.As awful as the gunning down of police officers by a lunatic is to contemplate, our Country, a Sovereign Nation, grounded upon a system of laws and a Bill of Rights, can survive this tragedy and others like it. Police departments around the Country can cope with lunatics, criminals, and terrorists if politicians in Washington D.C. would not second-guess police officers’ actions and if they would restrain themselves from running roughshod over them, and let due process take its course.But, can this Nation cope with a renegade ex-Secretary of State occupying the White House? It is more than doubtful. If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the 45^th President of the United States, she will have the willingness and power to undermine the Constitution, more than any U.S. President in recent times, beginning with the Second Amendment. The scorn she holds for our Second Amendment is evident. The American People know exactly where she stands on gun possession and gun ownership in this Country.The damage she might do is not only limited by her determination and desires but by the powers she would wield as U.S. President. Those powers she would wield as President would be second to none. She would control the vast intelligence apparatuses, the military, and the federal police forces. She would mold public education and even exert control over mass media.Should Congress fail to yield to her devious determination, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as United States President Hillary Clinton, would make law through executive fiat. Hillary Clinton has proved, time and again, she does not respect “the rule of law”—the bedrock of our Nation. Yet, we are a Nation grounded on the rule of law, as our founders intended. Our Nation is not grounded on rule by mere mortal men (or women).Mrs. Clinton’s behavior as Secretary of State makes up “Exhibit A” of her willingness to break the law. We see this through her obvious incompetency, through her disrespect for our Nation’s laws, and through the harm she would inflict on this Country—harm she would inflict on our Country with abandon and alacrity. Mrs. Clinton’s behavior as Secretary of State should serve as a warning to the American People. For, as she has operated as Secretary of State—as someone who perceives herself well above the law—so she will most certainly operate as President of the United States. Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State presage her actions as U.S. President.The mainstream media says F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, determined—after investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of several private email servers to conduct official Government business—that Clinton committed no crime. The mainstream media says this because Comey told the American public, in his July 5, 2016 statement, that he will recommend, to the Attorney General, that no criminal charges be filed against Hillary Rodham Clinton.The mainstream media has it wrong. The mainstream media is misleading the public. The F.B.I. Director’s recommendation to the Attorney General not to indict Hillary Clinton on criminal charges does not, ipso facto, mean Hillary committed no crime. The F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey said no such thing, nor did he intimate any such thing. The F.B.I. Director said, in his July 5, 2016 statement to the American People, though tacitly, that Hillary Clinton did commit a crime; that she had, in fact, committed a crime continuously over several years. Further, the F.B.I. Director said, though tacitly, that Hillary Clinton’s conduct amounted to a felony—that she committed a felony repeatedly.The F.B.I. Director’s recitation of a long list of Hillary Clinton’s criminal misdeeds make these points abundantly clear. Cataloging Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds in a public statement for the American People is the primary purpose for the F.B.I. Director’s unprecedented public statement to the American People. Comey intended that such evidence of Clinton’s criminal misdeeds be made manifestly clear to the American People. The tacit question posed to the American People as implied through Comey’s recitation of Clinton’s criminal misdeeds is this: Is Hillary Rodham Clinton a person whom American citizens truly wish to represent both them and their Country?James Comey, F.B.I. Director, the top police official in the Land, intended for the American People to understand, full well, Clinton’s culpability for her actions. Contrary to some commentators’ remarks, Comey’s statement to the American People is not a political stunt. It isn’t grandstanding. The F.B.I. Director delivered his statement in deadly earnest.Comey sets out, clearly, cogently, comprehensively, categorically, and convincingly a litany of damning evidence against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Listening to Comey’s lengthy delineation of Hillary Clinton’s wrongful conduct as Secretary of State, one expects him to conclude with something like this:“I will make the following recommendation to the Attorney General: In the F.B.I.’s estimation, after conducting an extensive investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s actions, in which she used several private email servers, exclusively and continuously over a period of years, to conduct official Government business, in her capacity as Secretary of State, a Cabinet level position, under the U.S. President, Barack Obama, the F.B.I. concludes that Hillary Rodham Clinton did in fact violate—either with actual knowledge of the wrongful, criminal nature of her actions and conduct in the handling of classified information, or through gross negligence in the handling of classified information—Section 793 of the United States Code, captioned, ‘Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information,’ that falls under Chapter 37 of the United States Code, captioned, ‘Espionage and Censorship,’ of Title 18 of the United States Code, captioned, ‘Crimes and Criminal Procedure.’ As Director of the F.B.I., I, James B. Comey, do therefore recommend to the Attorney General that Hillary Rodham Clinton be indicted and prosecuted forthwith for the aforesaid federal crime, having forsaken her duty to the United States Constitution and to the American People.”But Comey made no such recommendation to the Attorney General. This much we know. This he made clear. To the contrary, after reciting a lengthy list of criminal misconduct by Hillary Clinton, Comey asserted, singularly incongruously, that he would recommend to the Attorney General that no criminal charges be brought against Hillary Rodham Clinton.The F.B.I. Director made this assessment of Hillary Clinton’s actions: She was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified Government documents. Still, notwithstanding his failure to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton on criminal charges, the Director never said—nor did he imply—that Hillary Clinton had not committed a crime. The tacit conclusion to be drawn from the F.B.I. Director’s statement was that Hillary Clinton did commit a crime.Failure to recommend indictment is not equivalent to and is not indicative of an absence of criminal conduct; and, failure to recommend indictment does not entail lack of evidence of criminal conduct. In this instance, upon the cataloging of a laundry list of criminal misconduct on the part of Hillary Clinton, James Comey makes Hillary Clinton’s criminal conduct patently clear. So, then, why didn’t the F.B.I. Director recommend bringing criminal charges against Clinton? He said he wouldn’t recommend indictment because, as he asserted, he didn’t believe that, among other things, Clinton’s criminal actions were prosecutable. That is an odd declaration to make and one that Rudy Giuliani, former New York City Mayor and a former United States Attorney, took immediate exception with. Giuliani said he was “shocked” by James Comey’s conclusion that Clinton’s actions were not prosecutable.More shocking still was Comey’s testimony before Congress. For, two days later, on July 7, 2016, in sworn testimony before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, James Comey seemingly retracted his tacit conclusion that, in his estimation, Hillary Clinton did break the law. For he asserted, clearly, categorically and unequivocally—in contradistinction to his earlier statement to the American public—that, in his estimation, Hillary Clinton didn’t break the law.There is an obvious disconnect between James Comey’s statement to the American public on July 5, 2016 and his testimony before Congress just two days later. Second, there exists an obvious disconnect between Comey’s litany of evidence supporting indictment of Hillary Clinton and the flimsy arguments he makes against it. Third, concerning whether Hillary Clinton lied to the F.B.I., there’s also a clear disconnect between Comey’s testimony in response to questions posed by U.S. Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, Republican-Utah, and Chairman of the Committee conducting the Hearing, and questions posed to James Comey by U.S. Congressman, Trey Gowdy, Republican-South Carolina, at the same Hearing.U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy chairs the Select Committee on Benghazi. His worked helped bring Clinton’s criminal handling of classified Government information to light.But that isn’t all. Since Clinton had lied to the F.B.I., she has also violated another federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which sets forth in pertinent part,“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.” So, there exists a basis to indict Clinton under federal Statute, apart from the matter of her mishandling of classified Government information. She lied outright to the F.B.I.Clinton carries within her an air of supreme imperiousness and a feeling of imperviousness to personal harm. Indictment on criminal charges for lying to the F.B.I. would certainly preclude Clinton from continuing her campaign. So why isn’t Hillary Clinton charged with lying to the F.B.I.?Recall, Martha Stewart—wealthy businesswoman and television personality—was sent to prison was sent to prison in 2004 precisely because she lied to the F.B.I. on a matter involving insider trading—a matter significantly less critical to our Nation’s well-being than the matter at hand. The Attorney General’s Office could forgive Martha Stewart for the crime of insider trading. But the Attorney General’s Office clearly would not forgive Stewart for lying to the F.B.I. Why, then, is our Justice Department so willing—so readily willing—to forgive Hillary Clinton for lying to the F.B.I.?Less known, but just as serious, is the matter of the F.B.I.’s criminal investigation into the nefarious goings-on of the “Clinton Foundation.” Mr. Chaffetz specifically asked the F.B.I. Director whether the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct Government business was tied into the F.B.I.’s investigation into the “Clinton Foundation.” Most curiously, James Comey refused to discuss that issue at all, simply responding essentially with a terse, no comment.Given inconsistencies and, in some instances, curt utterances and evident reticence of the F.B.I. Director, James Come, during his testimony before Congress on July 7, 2016, and, too, given the odd dissembling in messaging and peculiar dislocation of meaning in the statement he delivered to the American People on July 5, 2016, we conclude that hidden, nefarious forces are at work protecting Hillary Clinton—are protecting the Executive Branch of Government that President Barack Obama, at the moment, presides over. This amounts to a tremendous miscarriage of justice.There is one supreme maxim that dictates the actions of the Executive Branch of Government: The President of the United States “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” This is mandated by Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. By extension, as is certainly clear, this means that the entirety of the work force under the U.S. President—from the highest Cabinet Official to the lowliest office worker—is expected to faithfully execute the Laws of our Nation. President Barack Obama has chosen in many critical instances, not to do so; neither did Hillary Clinton who was appointed by him and who worked under him as Secretary of State; neither would Hillary Clinton, in her capacity as U.S. President Hillary Clinton. What can be done to remedy this dire state of affairs?The Attorney General, Loretta Lynch could, of course, have indicted Hillary Clinton on criminal charges, regardless of James Comey’s recommendation to not bring criminal charges against the ex-Secretary of State. The Attorney General isn’t bound to accept the recommendation of the F.B.I. Director because a recommendation is just that—a suggested course of action. A recommendation is not a command. The Attorney General’s Office conducts its own review of the F.B.I.’s files.But, Loretta Lynch won’t indict Hillary Clinton. That won’t happen because the Attorney General and the U.S. President, Barack Obama don’t want that to happen. Obviously, the two of them—the Attorney General and the U.S. President—never wanted that to happen. Indeed, they never intended for that to happen. So the President, Barack Obama, carries on as if the entire matter of Hillary Clinton’s criminal conduct never happened. He takes to the road, campaigning on behalf of and together with Hillary Clinton (“Birds of a feather flock together”). The Attorney General, for her part, is happy to have this matter behind her as well. And both Hillary Clinton and her campaign officials breathe a collective sigh of relief.Indictment of Hillary Clinton on criminal charges would likely occur only if the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey had recommended indictment. Loretta Lynch has remarked she would adhere to the Director of the F.B.I.’s recommendation. But she said this only after her clandestine meeting with Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill, on July 2, 2016, came to light.The Attorney General realized the singular impropriety of that meeting, even as she tried to argue the innocuousness of it. It was only after that meeting came to light that Loretta Lynch said she would accept whatever recommendation the Director of the F.B.I. makes. What is left unsaid, because of this imbroglio, is that the Attorney General knew, as did the President of the United States, Barack Obama, that the Director would make “the right decision”—the only acceptable decision for Obama’s plans to have Hillary Clinton succeed him—that the F.B.I. Director would recommend to the Attorney General that no criminal charges be filed against Hillary Rodham Clinton.The American People face a sad—horrific—and inescapable truth. Wealthy, powerful, secretive, seditious elements within the United States and wealthy, powerful, secretive, insidious interests outside the United States, have, together, orchestrated a charade of justice. The U.S. Department of Justice and its salient enforcement arm, the F.B.I. has been compromised.Can Congress set things right? Specifically, can Congress appoint independent counsel? Can Congress appoint a special prosecutor or team of special prosecutors, to review the accumulated evidence in the F.B.I.’s files and, after duly investigating those files, make its own recommendation to Congress? If that special prosecutor deems an indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton appropriate, and recommends indictment, can Congress then compel the Attorney General to indict Clinton? Much is at stake for the future of this Country and for our sacred Constitution. The thought of a likely criminal occupying the highest Office in the Land should give every American pause. A likely criminal occupying that Office is not only farcical, it is appalling.In the next article we look at the intricacies of the special prosecutor appointment process to ascertain if this is feasible—if anything can be done to override a serious travesty of justice.[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.  

F.B.I. DIRECTOR JAMES B. COMEY RELUCTANTLY GIVES HILLARY CLINTON A “GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD”

“Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.” Jonathan Swift“It is an old saying that the quickest way to ruin a military career is to mishandle money or classified documents. Military defense counsel do well to remember that most old sayings are true.” USALSA REPORT: Trial Defense Service Notes: Practical Aspects of Trying Cases Involving Classified Information, Major Joseph A. Woodruff, Fort Rucker Field Office, U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency (June, 1986)On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 the top police official in the Nation, FBI Director James B. Comey, told the American public the FBI would not recommend criminal indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton. The complete text of Comey’s statement is available on the FBI’s website.The Director’s statement is divided into four parts. First, the Director explains the purpose for his “unusual statement.” Second, the Director explains the nature of the investigation. Third, he explains what the FBI found. Last, the Director explains the FBI’s decision.While seemingly straightforward, James Comey’s lengthy statement shows inconsistencies—due perhaps to his unease with the decision. Was he pressured? One cannot but wonder.Comey explains the investigation into Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server to conduct Government business, “during her time as Secretary of State.” The depth and breadth of that investigation shows the enormity of Clinton’s detestable behavior.This is after all a criminal investigation. Comey makes that fact plain. He points out the investigation proceeded as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General.“Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.”Comey doesn’t cite the federal Statute Hillary Clinton violated. It is this one: 18 U.S.C. § 793. Title 18 of the U.S. Code is titled “Crimes and Criminal Procedure.” 18 U.S.C. § 793 falls within Chapter 37. Chapter 37 is titled, “Espionage and Censorship.” 18 U.S.C. § 793 is titled, “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.” Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) and (g) reads, “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”Clinton claims her use of a personal server—actually several personal, private servers—to store or transmit government business simply shows, at worst, poor judgment—something her hangers-on and toadies willingly concede. If so, that alone should preclude her from serving as U.S. President. Clinton also claims her use of a personal server to store and transmit Government business didn’t offend State Department policy. She’s wrong. It does. She says, too, use of a private server to conduct Government business doesn’t rise to the level of a crime. Actually, it does.Clinton suggests her behavior isn’t illegal because no federal crime pertains to the kind of behavior the F.B.I. investigated. Were that true, the F.B.I. would have no legal basis to investigate Clinton. But Clinton is wrong. Her actions and behavior fall precisely within violation of a specific federal criminal law, namely, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). That Statute is the peg the FBI hangs its hat on when it commenced its investigation of Clinton’s use of a private server to conduct federal Government business.Oddly, after reciting both the nature and extent of Clinton’s actions, one expects the Director to recommend indictment of Clinton to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. He fails to do so. Understand, this does not mean Clinton didn’t violate 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). The Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, doesn’t say that. He never says that; nor does he intimate that. He does say,“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.”So, the Director makes manifestly clear that Hillary Clinton did, in fact, commit a crime--a felony. She clearly violated 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). Still, concern and confusion reign over Director Comey’s decision because Comey doesn't follow through and recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton on the ground of the sheer quantity of damning evidence against Clinton and the serious nature of it which he lays out in exquisite and excruciating detail. But, why did Comey issue a statement to the American People if, after recitation of such damning evidence against Clinton, he forbears, entirely, from recommending indictment?  Why, especially, did he issue a statement abruptly following the F.B.I.’s interview of Clinton?Reporting on that interview, The New York Times stated, “It could take weeks or longer to reach a decision. . . .” It didn't. See, “F.B.I. Interviews Clinton over Private Email Server.” Amy Chozick, July 2, 2016. So the Times must have been taken aback when Comey responded with a public statement a few days later.The Director of the F.B.I. says “I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.” He also says, “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.” Is that second assertion true? Perhaps. But, consider: Obama had made plans to campaign with and for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina later that day. They were both on their merry way to North Carolina when Comey delivered his statement to the American public.Comey asserts no other part of Government knew what he would say. But that assertion doesn’t imply that another part of the federal Government didn’t know Comey would deliver a statement. Clearly, Obama knew that. He must have known that. Many other officials in Government must have known that the Director of the F.B.I. would be making a statement to the public.More to the point, although Comey asserts he didn't tell anyone in Government what he would be saying--he hadn't given anyone in Government the text of his statement--that doesn’t mean Comey didn’t inform Obama, and others, of the F.B.I.’s decision. After all, Obama and Clinton were off, that morning, to be seen together--to campaign together--in North Carolina. Would a sitting President be seen campaigning with a candidate for the highest Office in the Land if that President harbored doubts as to Comey’s decision? Not likely.Director Comey drafted his decision with care. Each word is measured. We must parse it to understand the motive behind it and the content of it.F.B.I. Director Comey says, “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”This passage is troubling—no less so because, again, Comey drafted his statement with great care. Comey probably intended for the American public--and must certainly have intended for the legal community--to perceive a gaping hole between what the F.B.I. investigation uncovered on the one hand and, on the other hand, the peculiar reasoning and incongruent decision emanating from that investigation.For example, the F.B.I. director says no case law exists to support a recommendation to indict Hillary Clinton. But a paucity of case law shouldn't factor into the Director's decision. The absence of a fact pattern similar to or the same as those falling into actual cases is legally irrelevant. And, whether prosecutors would be likely to obtain a conviction, that, too, shouldn’t factor into the F.B.I.’s decision since the F.B.I. wouldn’t be prosecuting the case. The Attorney General’s Office would be prosecuting the case. Moreover, would the F.B.I. dare speculate as to the outcome of a case given the stakes? After all, we are talking about the behavior of a person who seeks the highest Office in the Land. Let the Attorney General make the call whether or not to prosecute Clinton. The question is, rather, simply and clearly, whether the facts of the matter under investigation meet the requirements of a federal criminal statute. They do. The facts of the matter under F.B.I. investigation meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). That is sufficient. That is enough to warrant recommendation of indictment.Director Comey also stresses the absence of actual knowledge on Clinton’s part when he discusses Clinton’s actions and behavior in this matter. But Hillary Clinton need not have actual knowledge of her wrongdoing. Actual knowledge isn’t required. The mental state of the actor as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) is met if the actor “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.” Congress clearly established a lesser standard, apart from the stringent standard of actual knowledge, to support a criminal charge under 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). Intent to commit a wrong under 18 U.S.C. § 793(f)--that is to say, actual knowledge of mishandling of classified Government information under 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), isn't necessary. A critical element of the Statute is satisfied once “gross negligence” is present. The presence of “gross negligence” on the part of Clinton and others in the State Department exists—in fact, “gross negligence” exists many times over. This is clearly manifest in Director Comey’s recitation of Clinton's many wrongs in handling classified Government information when delineating them to the American public.But, oddly, Comey refrains from ever mentioning that Clinton’s mental state does meet the standard of gross negligence even if she didn’t have actual knowledge of wrongdoing. Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) defines ‘gross negligence’ as, one, ‘a lack of slight diligence or care,’ or, two, ‘a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party. . . .” That standard has been met. Why, then, does Comey rely exclusively on a higher standard of 'actual knowledge' to commit a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) when the mental state of the actor is satisfied through a lesser standard of 'gross negligence.'The Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, says this: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” By avoiding use of the expression, ‘gross negligence,’ Comey draws the listener to his outrage over Clinton’s behavior but veers from categorizing that behavior as criminal within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), which would have mandated a recommendation of indictment.Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) also defines the word, ‘careless,’ a word the Director of the F.B.I. does use when categorizing Clinton’s actions and conduct.  The legal meaning of the noun form of the adjective, ‘careless,’ namely, ‘carelessness,’ is ‘the fact, condition, or instance of a person’s either not having done what he or she ought to have done, or having done what he or she ought not to have done; heedless inattention.’  Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) says the word, ‘carelessness’ can be a synonym for ‘negligence.’Granted, the mental state necessary to invoke 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) isn’t met through the presence of simple negligence. But, Comey says Clinton or her colleagues “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” By adding the adverb, ‘extremely,’ to the adjective, ‘careless,’ Director Comey implies that Clinton’s actions and behavior do meet the standard of ‘gross negligence,’ set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). Comey's decision not to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton, under 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), is, ultimately, and essentially, inconsistent with the import and purport of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), and with Comey's own clear understanding of the Statute's meaning and of the Statute's clear application to Clinton's conduct.The expressions, ‘extreme carelessness’ and ‘gross negligence’ are functional equivalents. But, Comey has decided he won’t recommend indictment, and, since the precise expression, ‘extremely careless’ or ‘extreme carelessness,’ does not appear in 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), Comey achieves a modicum of cover--a bare minimum of cover--having used the expression, ‘extreme carelessness,’ in lieu of the expression, ‘gross negligence,’ to explain Clinton’s actions and behavior relating to the use of personal, private, unsecured servers to conduct Government business. Nonetheless, the Director of the FBI makes abundantly clear that he finds Clinton’s actions and behavior detestable--unworthy of one who would be Secretary of State, let alone of one who would be the President of the United States. He boldly castigates Clinton and her colleagues constantly, relentlessly. His caustic words rise well above mere admonishment.So, again, we must ask: was the Director of the F.B.I. pressured into letting Clinton go? We think so. Director Comey has the weight of the future of this Country on his shoulders. Had he recommended indictment, the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, would have had to accept the recommendation or recuse herself from acting upon it. Obama would not be able to intervene in Clinton’s behalf without looking more the fool and proclaiming, beyond any doubt, his own disrespect for our Country's laws and legal process. Hillary  Clinton, for her part, would have to cease campaigning, at once.Comey’s statement bespeaks both the frustration of an honorable man caught in the middle of a blistering episode in our Nation’s history, compelled to render a decision he would rather not, but clearly disgusted over Clinton’s actions and behavior as Secretary of State. He is intent on illustrating that disgust to the American People. F.B.I. Director James Comey sets forth the grounds for recommending indicting Hillary Clinton with scintillating clarity. The arguments he propounds against doing so are, contrariwise, extraordinarily lame. Did Comey specifically intend to demonstrate, to the American People, a disconnect between the strength of the grounds for recommendation of indictment and the weakness for failing to do so? Did he intend for the American People to understand that "his hands were tied?"Certainly, James Comey’s tacit message to the American People is clear. Hillary Clinton’s actions and behavior as Secretary of State--whether one understands the criminality of them or not--were, at the very least, altogether unworthy of a person holding a Cabinet Level position. Comey is tactfully saying that, for the well-being of the Country, and to show respect for the American People, Clinton should have the decency to withdraw her candidacy. But, “decency” isn’t a component of Hillary Clinton’s character. Hillary’s character is one devoid of decency. It is one devoid of trustworthiness, of sincerity, of integrity. Indeed, had the Director of the F.B.I. recommended indictment and if the Attorney General accepted that recommendation, Clinton likely would, given the choice, continue campaigning. But, she wouldn’t be given that choice. She would have to be carried out, kicking and screaming “from the room.”So, where does that leave Americans? We have a choice this November. No less than the fate of this Country rests in the balance. The American People must consider the ramifications of electing Hillary Clinton to the highest Office of the Land. Clinton’s character, as U.S. President won’t change. That is clear. That, we know. Clinton’s behavior and actions as Secretary of State present more than an inkling of the erratic behavior and dangerous action should she become President of the United States. Criminal indictment or not, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a public disgrace. She should not be considered worthy of holding any public Office, let alone the highest Office in the Land.Of course, many individuals who support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy do not give thought to the weight of James Comey’s words. They only look to and address his decision. But, then, these same people couldn’t care less if Clinton were indicted. They would argue that indictment isn’t equivalent to conviction. But, suppose Clinton, once indicted, was convicted of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). Would that make a difference to them? Probably not.Those Americans who support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy are blind to Clinton’s multiple character flaws. They are blind to her errant and erratic behavior. They are blind to her lack of emotional stability. They are blind to her lack of competency. Those Americans who support Clinton’s candidacy are altogether blind to her loathsome lust for power and to her singular obsession with self-aggrandizement.Those Americans who support Clinton’s candidacy cannot envision or, perhaps, they simply refrain from considering the threat Clinton poses to the preservation of our Bill of Rights, the threat posed to the preservation of our Heritage, to our culture, to our History, to the very existence of an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic.Obama says that the American People may hold to an “imaginary past” or they may “reach for the future.” For Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton America’s “past” is and was just a dream, a chimera, an illusion. They seek to reconfigure America—to twist it, to reshape it beyond anything our Founders envisioned for it. Obama’s message to the American People comes across as a damning threat, less so a welcome promise of things to come if Clinton does in fact secure the White House.[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 “TERROR WATCH LIST”—A GOOD IDEA? A GOOD IDEA GONE BAD? OR A BAD IDEA ALL ALONG?

THE “TERROR WATCH LIST”—A GOOD IDEA? A GOOD IDEA GONE BAD? OR A BAD IDEA ALL ALONG?

“Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested. . . . But even that is all beside the point, the main question is: Who is issuing the indictment?” “The Trial,” a novel by Franz Kafka, published in 1925Who is issuing the indictment, indeed? Unlike Josef K., the protagonist, in Franz Kafka’s insightful allegory, we, Americans, don’t live in a dictatorship. But, is that true? Was that statement once true, but true no longer?How is it that, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union. . .” has devolved into “We the Government of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union. . . . ?”  The phrases—“insure domestic Tranquility,” “provide for the common defense,” “promote the general Welfare”—are lost in time. The federal Government and the media circus subsume these phrases, appearing in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, under the ubiquitous, deceptive expression, “national security”—an expression that appears nowhere in it. What hath this Government in the name of “We the People” wrought for the People.Understand: Nothing—absolutely nothing—Congress, or the United States President, or the President’s legions of bureaucrats do is more invidious and insidious than disemboweling and dismembering the Bill of Rights in the name of national security. We should not excuse or laud emotional trumpet calls for action before pondering the legality and ethical merits of such Government action. We should not excuse or laud emotional trumpet calls for action before considering their impact on our free Republic. We should not excuse or laud emotional trumpet calls for action before recognizing their cost—the possible loss of our precious rights and liberties. For, once lost, they’re lost forever.When emotions run high, restraint is required. The denial of gun sales to anyone whose name appears on the Government’s “terror watch list” is a recent proposal bubbling to the surface as a result of the recent carnage wrought by a home-grown self-radicalized Islamic terrorist. On Monday, June 20, 2016, the U.S. Senate voted on a measure that would do just that: preclude a person from purchasing a firearm if his or her name appears on the Government’s “terror watch list.” Fortunately, sane heads prevailed. The measure was voted down. But, we may expect further attempts by antigun Legislators in both the House and the Senate to push a measure like this one, through. [Breaking News: At the moment, June 22, 2016, the foes of the Second Amendment are staging a sit-in on the Floor of the House. They won't "sit contented" until the Second Amendment is stricken from the U.S. Constitution].Secret Government lists, such as the “terror watch list” and the “no fly list,”—and perhaps others, of which we are unaware—are problematic in a free, democratic Republic. For, once an American’s name appears on a secret government watch list, his or her rights and liberties, guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, are in jeopardy. More to the point, such lists enable the federal Government to deny an American citizen his or her rights and liberties absent any charge of criminal wrong-doing. The Government, at the stroke of a pen, denies a person his or her rights and liberties without notice, without hearing, without reasonable means to challenge the inclusion of their name, in open court. Understand, we aren’t saying or suggesting those who seek to harm innocent Americans should have access to firearms. And, those Senators who voted down the “terror watch list” measure, on June 20, 2016, aren’t tacitly suggesting that American citizens who seek to harm innocent Americans should have access to firearms. These U.S. Senators have obviously asked themselves—and we need ask ourselves too—this profound question: Are we, Americans, ready to forsake, as a Nation, our sacred rights and liberties for the illusion of, or a mere modicum of, collective security? Is this something a free Republic, founded on a Bill of Rights and on a Constitution establishing a federal Government with carefully defined, demarcated, and limited power and authority, should accept or tolerate?The proposal came before the Senate—cavalierly bandied about by those who, despite assertions to the contrary, care not one whit about our Bill of Rights. That measure would deny Americans due process of law, a right guaranteed to all Americans under the Fifth Amendment. That measure would also deny Americans their natural right to keep and bear arms, a right codified and guaranteed to Americans under the Second Amendment.Millions of law-abiding citizens exercise their sacred right to keep and bear arms. They take responsibility for their own self-defense. They pose no threat to self or others. Are they expected to sacrifice that right, codified in the Second Amendment? Is that not asking too much of Americans? Would not that sacrifice operate as a capitulation to Islamic terrorism? Would not that sacrifice eviscerate our Bill of Rights and destroy one Amendment, in particular, that proclaims our uniqueness: that Government exists—truly exists—at the pleasure of the People and does not exist as a right unto itself?Lost in discussion—because of the frenzy of the moment—is any mention, any hint, how or whether Government intends to protect Americans from Islamist terrorists without infringing the sacred right of millions of law-abiding Americans who wish “to keep and bear arms.” Some Americans, we know, have no regard for that right. They seek to undermine it—are even counting on undermining it—in part, through application of the “terror watch list” to gun sales. They relish using a disastrous event to further a wicked agenda.What do we really know about this secret “list?”Consider: “The number of names on the terror watch list has grown steeply in the past decade, compounding the problem of inaccuracies. Whereas 288,000 names were on the list in 2005, the number had grown to 1.1  million by 2009. A Justice Department audit of the watch list in 2009 revealed a thirty-five percent rate of error, and disclosed that in seventy-two percent of the cases, the FBI failed to respond to these errors by removing the person from the watch list in a timely manner.” “Symposium: Inside America’s Criminal Justice System: The Supreme Court On The Rights Of The Accused And The Incarcerated: Bright Lines, Black Bodies: The Florence Strip Search Case And Its Dire Repercussions,” 46 Akron L. Review, 433, 461-462, Teresa A. Miller, Professor of Law, State University of New York, at Buffalo (SUNY—Buffalo)(2013).The critical problem presented by the Government’s “terror watch list” and other such “watch lists” is four-fold. One, an American loses his or her rights and liberties before commission of any crime or before probable cause exists an American has even considered committing a crime. This is a “Minority Report” scenario. Two, the Government’s “terror watch list” is secret. American citizens don’t know their name appears on the list until they seek to exercise a fundamental right and find they cannot. That alone should give all Americans pause. Three, fighting to remove one’s name from a secret list is extraordinarily difficult. The Government condemns an American citizen in secret, without notice, without hearing, without satisfactory legal recourse. Four, since the “terror watch list” is secret, the Government can add names to it at will—indiscriminately. This action results in millions of American citizens divested of their Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.” The existence of secret Government “watch lists” in a free society—in a free republic—makes mincemeat of one’s rights and liberties. True Congressional oversight doesn’t and cannot exist, regardless of assertions to the contrary. Such feigned oversight is window dressing, nothing more. In the name of “national security” the Government clamps down on one’s beliefs, thoughts, actions, even absent criminal wrong-doing.One academic writer says, “the insulation of national security conduct from external review obscures hard questions surrounding liberty and security, undermining the rule of law.” See, “Essay: Rule Of Law Tropes In National Security,” 129 Harvard Law Review 1566, 1566 (2016), Shirin Sinnar, Assistant Professor of Law, Stanford law School.”The problem boils down to this: whether the Government ought to deny an American citizen’s rights and liberties merely for displaying odd character traits. The existence of a “terror watch list” creates tension with the Bill of Rights.The existence and use of a “terror watch list” raises a host of questions. Do you know the factors Government uses when placing a person on a “terror watch list?” Do you know any factor?” Can you know how those factors, change, grow, evolve through time? If your name appears on a “terror watch list,” how do you contest that? What is the monetary cost for fighting Government action? How does the Government remove a name when it uncovers a mistake? When would Government act to remove a name—your name— appearing on the “list,” mistakenly? Would Government remove a name appearing on the list mistakenly? Why has the list grown from a few thousand names to tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands, to over one million in the last several years?Suppose a person seeks to join or associate with a political group the Government targets. Would that not conflict with the free association clause of the First Amendment? Suppose a person seeks to affiliate with the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, the American Communist Party? Should that person’s name appear on a “terror watch list?” If so, how far do we go? Suppose a person seeks to affiliate with the Green Party, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, or with various groups comprising the “Tea Party.” Which affiliation warrants placing an American citizen’s name on the “terror watch list?” Should any affiliation warrant placing a person’s name on the “terror watch list.” The First Amendment sets forth in principal part, as proposed by and as elucidated by one founder of our Nation, James Madison: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good.” We have seen the insidious effects of fear-mongering before: the infamous McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, during the “Cold War.”We are now witnessing a new twist on an old ploy: an attempt to use a secret Government “terror watch list” to deny to hundreds of thousands, and conceivably eventually, to millions of Americans their natural right to keep and bear arms.Ought the Government suspend the civil liberties of potentially millions of law-abiding Americans if Government believes, rightly or wrongly, such harsh measures will reduce the carnage created by a few? Are we, as Americans, prepared to sacrifice, conceivably, all rights and liberties for the benefit of national security?Cannot an American citizen hold “extreme” views without fearing Government reprisal? Is it not the right of an American to hold and display views another American might find extreme, even distasteful? Are not American citizens slowly squeezed into a tight container as Government dictates to the public what is fit and proper thought, belief, and action?Are you willing to sacrifice free speech? Are you prepared to surrender your firearms? Are you willing to sacrifice freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? Are you willing to abandon the writ of Habeas Corpus? Are you agreeable to forgoing the right to a fair and public trial? Are you prepared to give up friends and associates because the Government doesn’t approve of their idiosyncrasies? How would the founders of our Nation respond to these questions if posed to them? Do you have answers to these questions? If so, sound off.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

SHOULD SCHOOL TEACHERS BE ARMED? THE UFT DOESN’T THINK SO, BUT ONE EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TAXING TO TAX PAYERS.

CO-FOUNDER OF ARBALEST GROUP, LLC., RESPONDS TO UFT OPINION PIECE CONCERNING THE ARMING OF NEW YORK'S SCHOOL TEACHERS

The “United Federation of Teachers (UFT”), a New York City affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, posted an article in its  publication, Teacher, titled, “Gun Fight.” The article appeared in the May 5, 2016 edition of Teacher. The editorial takes aim at the notion that arming teachers to protect students is a bad idea.Stephen L. D’Andrilli, one of three founders of the weblog, the Arbalest Quarrel, was a licensed New York teacher and receives the UFT publication, Teacher.After reading the UFT Op-Ed, Stephen felt a need to respond and did so. Stephen’s response to the Op-Ed was published in the June 2, 2016 edition of Teacher, under the Editor's title, “Editorial shoots blanks.”Stephen's response to the UFT editorial appears, in full, below:“I am responding to your recent editorial (“Gunfight”). The question posed is whether allowing educators to bring firearms to K-12 schools in New York would protect students against gun violence. The editorial considers the question from the standpoint of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.In arguing that arming educators is a bad idea, a few hypothetical situations involving armed educators are presented; outcomes are postulated; and a tacit conclusion is drawn: educators should not be allowed to bring firearms to school.The scenarios are typical straw man arguments. Nothing substantive can be deduced from them. One may argue just as readily that an armed educator would likely successfully protect the lives of his or her students from an armed aggressor. The editorial’s hypotheticals amount to straw man arguments. Straw man arguments obfuscate. They do not elucidate. Any possibility follows from a false antecedent in a counterfactual.The editorial concludes by discussing another matter entirely: the need to provide adequate mental health care for deeply disturbed individuals is no more than a stopgap. The point does not address deeply disturbed individuals who slip through the cracks; nor does it address the issue of criminals and terrorists that threaten soft targets like schools.So, if the invasion of schools by armed lunatics, terrorists, or assorted criminals cannot be contained and, through time, becomes pervasive and, if educators are not armed, what is the alternative? There is one we can think of: an armed contingent of police officers, peace officers, or private armed security to protect students, faculty, and administrators in schools. That will work, but, what will it cost? One armed guard, as the editorial staff of New York Teacher admits, will, arguably, never be enough.”

STEPHEN D'ANDRILLI'S BIO

Stephen was President and CEO of two security consulting and criminological research firms. He was also a business partner in a New York City licensed indoor gun range. Stephen is a decorated veteran police officer of the New York City Police Department. While employed with the N.Y.P.D., Stephen earned three University degrees from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Stephen earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Police Science, a Master of Arts degree in Criminal Justice Administration and a Master in Public Administration degree.Later, Stephen served as an Adjunct Professor/Lecturer of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Stephen then served as a high school Social Studies Teacher for the New York City Department of Education and served as Dean and Athletic Coach for the Department. He is an expert in personal and corporate security.Stephen is a National Rifle Association Certified Firearms Instructor (pistol, rifle and shotgun) and Training Counselor, and is an active member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors. He has testified on firearms, crime, and self-defense before governmental committees and at governmental hearings, on many occasions.Stephen has written many articles on these subjects and has appeared on television and radio. Major national and international newspapers, magazines and professional journals have profiled Stephen. Stephen is passionate about the Constitution and passionate about the Bill of Rights, the cornerstone of the Republic. Stephen is aware the Bill of Rights is under attack. Stephen understands that Americans must defend the Bill of Rights if they are to protect and preserve their heritage.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A QUESTION ABOUT IDEOLOGY ON THE SUPREME COURT

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

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

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

TOM COBURN ADDS HIS NAME TO THE GROWING LIST OF PRESENT AND FORMER REPUBLICANS WHO SAY THE SENATE SHOULD HOLD A VOTE ON GARLAND. THE QUESTION IS: WHY ARE SOME REPUBLICANS CAVING IN?

TOM COBURN ADDS HIS NAME TO THE GROWING LIST OF PRESENT AND FORMER REPUBLICANS WHO SAY THE SENATE SHOULD HOLD A VOTE ON GARLAND. THE QUESTION IS: WHY ARE SOME REPUBLICANS CAVING IN?

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” Animal Farm, by George Orwell, 1945Can we be certain that Senate Republicans are dead-set against the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Well, we know that at least one Senate Republican, Mark Steven Kirk, would like very much to see Obama’s nominee confirmed.This should come as no surprise to anyone; for Senator Kirk, the Republican, is, as we know, a virulent opponent of the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, "Senator Kirk Can't Whitewash Merrick Garland; the Record Speaks for Itself."But, what of other Senate Republicans – those who ostensibly support the Second Amendment, such as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Well, as we recently pointed out, the Senator made poignantly clear to CNN anchor Kate Bolduan that, if a confirmation is held, Judge Garland will be confirmed. Take a look at the Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, "Read the Fine Print: Garland's Confirmation Under the Microscope."Would that concern Senator Graham, presumably a staunch defender of the Second Amendment? Apparently not. After all, Senator Graham voted to confirm Obama’s first two short-list nominees to the high Court: Sonya Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The jurisprudential philosophy of these two Obama nominees is well known, and it is one diametrically opposed to that of Justices Thomas and Alito, and opposed, as well, to the jurisprudential philosophy of the late Justice Scalia.So, then, if Senator Graham harbored any doubts about the qualifications of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, it obviously was not enough to prevent him from voting for their confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. The attitudes of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan toward the Second Amendment are well known and they are contrary to those held by Justices Thomas, Alito, and to the late Justice Scalia.Of course, Senator Graham may have been duped. But that is highly unlikely. He is highly intelligent. Could any United States Senator truly doubt that Obama would nominate a judge to the high Court without having given careful consideration to that person’s jurisprudential philosophy on a range of Constitutional issues and to that person’s methodology for deciding cases and to the impact that person’s jurisprudential philosophy would have on Americans’ fundamental rights through that person's written decisions.Recently, in the New York Times, former Republican Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma, added his voice to the growing chorus of seemingly staunch supporters of the Second Amendment who are calling for action on Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.Oddly enough, former Republican Senator Coburn says, according to the NY Times, in the article, titled, “Tom Coburn, Ex-Senator, Says Merrick Garland Should Get a Vote,” that Garland should get a vote but that this should not be taken to mean that Garland should be confirmed.Wait a minute! If Garland gets a vote there exists the possibility that he may be confirmed, and, according to Senator Graham, if Garland gets a vote, he would be confirmed, no doubt about it. So, then, what is the rationale for holding a vote if past and present Republican Senators agree that Garland will be confirmed, notwithstanding their remarks that Garland ought not to be confirmed to a seat on the high Court.Obviously, if there is no vote on the confirmation, Garland cannot be confirmed. It is logically impossible for Garland to be confirmed without a vote of the Senate. But, if Garland cannot possibly be confirmed, then why hold a vote at all? Does the Senate have nothing better to do than to hold a vote on Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court if Garland could not possibly be confirmed? The entire vote issue on Garland is a red herring, and should be laid to rest until the next U.S. President assumes Office.If Coburn and others believe a vote on Obama’s nominee is required by law, that is false. While there is debate among legal academicians as to the import of the “advice and consent clause,” one point is abundantly clear, the U.S. President cannot, on his own authority, lawfully, unilaterally appoint a person to the U.S. Supreme Court.If, as is presently the case, the Senate does not consent to the nomination, allowing a vote on the nomination would not be consistent with the consent requirement. In fact there is nothing in the appointment’s clause and in the "advice and consent" clause of Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that discusses the matter of voting on a President’s nominee at all. In the present matter the Senate has spoken. The Senate has advised the President that it does not consent to the nomination of Judge Garland.Now, if Coburn and other like-minded Republicans were to argue that the Senate owes the President a vote on his nominee as a matter of professional courtesy, which, then, has nothing to do with the Senate’s obligation under the “advice and consent” clause well, consider: does the risk of snubbing a President’s nominee outweigh a threat posed to the continued preservation of the Second Amendment? It would seem that Tom Coburn would very much like to see Garland confirmed.As the NY Times reports Coburn saying, “I don’t know if he [Merrick Garland] deserves a hearing. . . . He deserves a vote out of the [Judiciary] committee.” “Tom Coburn, Ex-Senator, Says Merrick Garland Should Get a Vote,” Really? Coburn appears to be saying, although tacitly, that the Senate should dispense with a public hearing altogether – that the Senate should just hold a closed-door vote, out of the purview of the public. That would be fair? To whom? Certainly not to the American people who have more than a little stake in the matter.The mainstream media and those who call for a hearing, or a vote, or both, constantly carp that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s motivation for denying Garland a hearing and/or vote is simply to be attributed to “politics.” But, that’s mere subterfuge.The Senate Judiciary Committee is well aware that, if Garland receives a vote – whether that vote comes after or in lieu of a hearing – he will be confirmed. The House knows it; the Senate knows it; the President knows it; and the American people know it.If Garland is confirmed, the sanctity of the Second Amendment will be threatened in a manner never before seen. A threat – any feasible threat – to our fundamental rights ought never be casually dismissed as mere “politics.” That is why Senator Grassley’s Judiciary Committee must hold fast and not be swayed by rhetoric coming from surly Democrats, disloyal Republicans, and from the mainstream media that echoes and trumpets their sentiments.Once again, we are drawn back to Orwell’s allegory, "Animal Farm," which has as much application today as it had in Orwell’s time: “No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”As between those Senate Democrats who are calling for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to convene a hearing and/or hold a vote on Obama’s third nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, and those Senate Republicans who are calling for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to convene a hearing and/or hold a vote on Obama’s third nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court – as we look at each of them – as we move back and forth among them – one to the other – from Democrat to Republican, and from Republican to Democrat – it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between them. So many Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans are looking awfully like one another. Aren’t they?[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.