IT IS TIME FOR THE U.S. SENATE TO VOTE ON NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been at the forefront in the call for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Posting our first article on the subject in 2015, in our “Roadtrip with a Handgun” series, we have  remained a strong proponent of national concealed handgun carry, and have since published two dozen articles on the subject; our latest posted on November 30, 2018.We were very pleased when the Republican controlled House at long last passed their version of national handgun carry. But that was almost one year ago. The House bill is titled, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38. The House immediately sent the bill to the Senate for consideration. But, there has been no action on it to date. It has been sitting idle in the Senate Judiciary Committee ever since. That is unacceptable. More, this inaction is unconscionable. Millions of American gun owners want it, need it, and have the right to have it.We cannot wait because once the Democratic Party majority takes over control of the House on January 3, 2019, we will likely never again see it. The measure would have to be brought up once again, in the new Congress. It would then have to be voted on, and passed by the full House, and that won’t happen—not with a substantial Democratic Party House majority.The Democratic Party leadership that will define the measures to be taken up and voted upon by the full House has no desire to strengthen the Second Amendment. That is not part of the leadership’s agenda. Indeed, the goal of the Party leadership, for decades, has been, on that score—unlike its policy position on illegal aliens and border protection, where it flip-flopped—remarkably consistent. The aim of the Party leadership is to weaken the Second Amendment to the point that the fundamental right set forth in the Amendment ceases to have practical effect.It is therefore imperative for the Senate to bring the House version of the bill it has been sitting on for close to a year, to the Floor of the Senate for a vote by a full complement of Senators. The Senate will hopefully then pass the bill, and get the bill onto the desk of the U.S. President Trump, for his signature, before it adjourns. There is still time. But, the Senate must act now, without further delay.

National Handgun Concealed Carry Reciprocity Would Be a Good Thing; a Rational, Positive Step Forward.

A few readers of our articles have argued against passage of national handgun carry reciprocity, asserting the right of the people to keep and bear arms—as one of our fundamental, unalienable, and natural rights—rests beyond the lawful control of Government to regulate. If so, this would mean that present federal, State, and local Government regulation of the exercise of the right is facially invalid, and unlawful.The concern expressed is understandable. The Arbalest Quarrel has not been unmindful of the issue whether Government can legitimately regulate our fundamental, natural, enumerated rights at all, and if it can, then the extent to which Government can regulate these rights.The tension between Governmental power on the one hand and the rights and liberties of the people, on the other, was, in fact, a focus of attention for the founders of the Republic, and a dilemma. They came to an understanding, if guardedly and grudgingly by some, that, for the fledgling Republic to exist and persist through time, it would be necessary to establish a strong national government. But, having thrown off the yoke of oppression created by one autocratic rule—that of King George III—the founders, who met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787, had no desire to draft conditions, albeit unintentionally, that would allow for imposition of yet another such rule—and this one of their own making.The answer, for the framers of the Constitution, referred to as antifederalists, was to place an express Bill of Rights into the Constitution, to protect the rights and liberties of the people. The antifederalists saw inclusion of a Bill of Rights as necessary to curb a tendency of a national Government to exercise and accumulate ever more power at the expense of the people to whom that Government was, after all, designed and expected to serve.The federalists were opposed to this idea, but not because they were against securing fundamental rights and liberties for the people. Rather, they felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and redundant, as the power and authority of a central Government would be express and limited. Everything else—rights, liberties, powers—would reside in the respective States and in the people. Further, the federalists felt that, by placing emphasis on a formal Bill of Rights, this would obscure the need for creating an effective and efficient Government that could provide both national security and strength, and, at once, promote liberty. But, we have seen how this has played out, 200+ years later. And, it isn’t good. Thankfully, the antifederalists’ demand for inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution prevailed over the federalists’ objections against such inclusion.The federal Government has indeed, through time, become very effective and efficient in amassing unbridled power, along with securing, for itself, extraordinary levels and layers of secrecy, even as the American citizenry, conversely, has lost its own fundamental right to be free from unlawful Governmental searches and seizures. Indeed, there likely now exists a Government within a Government, an ominous, parallel Shadow Government, separate and apart from the apparent, ostensibly “open” Government the public sees.This Shadow Government likely siphons off billions of taxpayer dollars annually, using that money to advance its own illegitimate goals; money that serves its own interests, not those of the American people; hence, the concern of many citizens against any Government regulation of fundamental, enumerated, unalienable, and natural rights, including the right of the people to keep and bear arms, else Government inevitably, inexorably, and insidiously encroach upon and systematically and oppressively control the lives and actions of its own people.But, is there any statement in the Constitution prohibiting Government regulation of fundamental rights, as some readers assert? Let’s look at a few clauses.

The “Necessary and Proper Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution states in part that Government is “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. . . .”  This clause would appear to be an express limitation on Government regulation, certainly of the enumerated rights, as set forth in the first eight Amendments, apart from the unenumerated rights referred to in the Ninth  and Tenth. If so, the “necessary and proper clause” does restrain federal Government regulation of the Second Amendment and of other fundamental, enumerated rights of the people.

The “Supremacy Clause”

Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states in part, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . .”  The “supremacy clause” is essentially an assertion of federal preemption. The idea alluded to is that the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties are the Law of the Land and are subordinated to no other laws. But, contrary to some views expressed, the supremacy clause is not an assertion of the sanctity of the Bill of Rights, beyond the power of Congress to regulate. In fact, at least some antifederalists were much concerned about it, fearing the clause would give the federal Government too much power over the States. Yet, it may also be argued, that the supremacy clause implies that the enumerated rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are—since an express part of the Constitution, along with the Articles—well beyond the power of the federal Government to lawfully regulate. In that respect, the supremacy clause serves to contain and restrain Government regulation of the citizenry’s fundamental, enumerated rights.

The “Commerce Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution sets forth the power of Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  National concealed handgun carry reciprocity does implicate interstate commerce, but whether Congressional power to regulate the carrying of a firearm across State lines amounts to an over-extension of the commerce power, at the expense of the States, will require further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Will Happen When National Concealed Handgun Carry is Passed by the Senate and Signed into Law by the President?

Were the Senate to pass national concealed handgun carry reciprocity and the President sign it into law, it would be an odd thing, indeed, yet possible to see antigun groups and some pro-Second Amendment groups both opposing the law. Yet, both sides could do so, albeit each for its own reasons, both claiming Congress had gone beyond its authority to regulate firearms’ possession.Be that as it may, however this might play out, the Arbalest Quarrel feels that, given the myriad antigun laws already enacted, there would be far more to gain from having this one, at this moment in time, than not. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity would at least serve as a significantly pro-Second Amendment federal law to counter the plethora of State and Federal laws that aren’t. Still, we understand and respect such misgivings some pro-Second Amendment people may have on the matter._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

AS DEADLINE DRAWS NEAR, SUPPORTERS OF SECOND AMENDMENT DEMAND U.S. SENATE VOTE ON NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY.

THE U.S. SENATE MUST ACT NOW!

We have two weeks left before the Senate adjourns for the Christmas Holiday.If the Senate fails to act on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity within the next two weeks, any chance that this measure will be taken up anew and that it will become a reality when the House of Representatives seats a Democratic Party majority in 2019 will be virtually nil.The Senate Judiciary Committee has been sitting on the bill that was sent to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, last December 2017, when it passed the Republican controlled House. The version of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity that passed the House is designated, 115 H.R. 38, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” Once Senator McConnell received it, he sent it immediately to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, for action. Clearly, no work was done on it; and a year has gone by since the Judiciary Committee had received it.It is imperative we get the House version of the bill onto the Floor of the Senate for immediate roll-call vote.

THIS MATTER REQUIRES THE CONCERTED EFFORT OF EACH OF US.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been on the forefront of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity. We have written numerous articles on this subject. Interested readers are encouraged to read our articles by visiting our website.Our articles have also been published by Ammoland Shooting Sports News  See our article, “National ‘Right To Carry’ For Self-Defense Needs Your Help – Take Action.” And, we have recently posted our article on the website, The Truth About Guns. As a regular guest on “LockNLoadRadio,” hosted by Bill Frady, we have discussed the issue of national right to carry, at length.We have been getting positive responses to our articles. Many pro-Second Amendment groups, organizations, radio, respected news sources and social media, have joined us to mount a grassroots effort to strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right.We know that, as you have gotten the message, you are doing your part to get the Senate to move on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. Once the Senate passes the bill, it will be sent directly and immediately to the President for his signature. And, have no doubt about this, President Trump will sign it. He has made very clear both during his campaign for the Republican Party nomination and during his successful run against the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, that he avidly supports the natural, fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.It is time to urge Congress to act to strengthen our natural rights and liberties, not weaken them. We must have national concealed handgun carry reciprocity enacted into law now.For those of you who have not added your voice to this critical effort, there is still time.

IMPORTANT CONTACT INFORMATION:

Senator McConnell may be reached at 202/ 224-2541, but he does not provide a personal response and he will not take messages at this time. However, there is a referral to Senator McConnell's on-line email.Senator Grassley can be reached at: 202/ 224-3744. The Senator provides a personal response to your message and your message will be relayed directly to the Senator.Your Senate Delegation can be reached at: 202/ 224-3121. The switchboard will provide you the phone numbers for the Senators of your State.You can reach the White House at:  202/ 456-1414. At the prompt, you can leave a message for President Trump.The NRA can be reached at: 800/ 392-8683. You can leave a message, but be aware there may be a lengthy wait. You can also leave a message for the nra-ila.With your active assistance, we can turn the tide and see national concealed handgun carry reciprocity a reality. Please join us in this important, timely cause. Time is of the essence. We must get the Senate to act immediately on this._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

URGENT NOTICE TO ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS: NATIONAL "RIGHT TO CARRY" A HANDGUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE NEEDS YOUR HELP

The Arbalest Quarrel recently published an article, “Attention All Law Abiding Gun Owners: National Concealed Handgun Reciprocity is in Jeopardy.” And this wasn’t the first time we wrote specifically on this critical subject.In February 2018, almost ten months ago, we posted an article discussing 115 H.R. 38, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” The article is titled, "It’s Time for National Handgun Carry Reciprocity to Secure the Citizen’s Right of Armed Self-Defense, Throughout The Country.” In that article, we stated:“Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC), introduced the bill on January 3, 2017. The bill passed the House by Roll Call Vote of 231-198, on December 6, 2017. It was sent to the Senate one day later, where it was read twice and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Trump supports it. The NRA supports it. And, rank and file law enforcement officers support it too. But, there has been to date no further action on it. The bill sits in limbo. Its prospect of passage is, at present, low. Why is that?What is the U.S. Senate waiting for?”On June 27, 2018, in the Arbalest Quarrel, under the title, “National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity is the Answer To International Islamic Terrorism In The United States,” we once again questioned the seeming lackadaisical attitude of the Senate under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, toward national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. We once again asked,“What is the status of this [115 H.R. 38] bill? It languishes in Committee.” We are still asking. Indeed, why has this bill languished in the Senate Judiciary Committee for almost one year? Clearly, passage of this bill is critical to the strengthening of the Second Amendment, consistent with the intention of the founders of our free Republic who codified the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, in our Bill of Rights. Since January 2017, the Arbalest Quarrel has written over twenty articles dealing with the importance of national handgun carry reciprocity. We invite interested readers to take a look at all of our articles.We know that the Democratic Party leadership, along with virtually all Congressional Democrats, and particularly those of radical “Left,” are adamantly opposed to this bill. The burning $10,000.00 question, though, is this: Is the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, also opposed to national handgun carry reciprocity? If Senator McConnell isn’t opposed to the bill, the effect of his doing nothing to move it along has the same impact as active opposition to it. Ultimately, Senator McConnell, as the Senate Majority Leader, has absolute or virtually absolute control over what bills are acted upon and what bills are not. He wields immense power. It may be, of course, that Senator McConnell having having wished for and having sought bipartisan support on this bill and, realizing he was unable to obtain it, has been resigned to simply ignoring it, thereby allowing the bill to lapse of its own accord, without action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it presently sits. But, what can be more important than our fundamental and unalienable rights and liberties, especially the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of self-defense and as the ultimate fail-safe mechanism to prevent tyranny?If the American people have to wait for conditions to be “right” for passage of national handgun carry reciprocity, we may be waiting until Hell freezes over, especially with so many new radical Left elements poised to flex their muscle when the 116^th Congress takes over on January 3, 2019. That is why it is necessary to fast-track the Senate bill on this without further delay, so it can be sent to President Trump for his signature before the lame-duck Senate adjourns for the Christmas Holiday. For, if the lame-duck Senate does not act at once, all unfinished business of the 115^th Congress remains unfinished—dead—until or unless any pending bill of the previous, 115^th Congress, is reintroduced in the 116^th Congress, when Congressional business starts anew.Once the 116^th Congress commences business in January 2019, however, you can forget about passage of national handgun carry reciprocity and you can forget about passage of any other bill that serves to strengthen the Second Amendment. For, if there is one thing Congressional Democrats—who will seat a majority in the the House of Representatives—will focus their energies on, apart from continuing their effort to undermine President Trump, and apart from their singular objective to open our Southern border to thousands, more, of illegal aliens, it is their single-minded desire and goal to weaken the Second Amendment. And, they seek to accomplish that through federal Statute, to the point that the right embodied in the Second Amendment becomes essentially non-existent.Remember, this: no bill becomes law unless both Houses of Congress agree on passage of a bill and the U.S. President then signs the bill into law. It is reasonable to assume that a Democratic Party majority in the House of Representatives will have no incentive to strengthen the Second Amendment—and this is no understatement. So, if national handgun carry reciprocity, which passed the Republican controlled House in 2017, does not see passage in the Senate now, it will go nowhere, in 2019.The newly reconfirmed Democratic Party House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—will likely never allow national handgun carry reciprocity, or any other Pro-Second Amendment bill, to make it to the Floor of the House for debate and for a vote by the full House even if a Republican House member reintroduces national handgun carry reciprocity in 2019. And, if for some reason Nancy Pelosi, were to allow debate and a roll-call vote of a new national handgun carry reciprocity measure on the Floor of the House in 2019 or 2020, it would only happen if she knew the bill would fail and, of course, she would want the bill to fail, as she is a fierce opponent of the individual right embodied in the Second Amendment.Time is therefore of the essence. If we are to see national handgun carry reciprocity, the Senate must act promptly on the bill that passed the House under Representative Paul Ryan, and which is now and has been suspended in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.Ammoland Shooting Sports News and The Truth About Guns  immediately posted, on their websites, our article calling for Americans to urge the Senate to act on the bill the Senate has been sitting on for almost a year. And it is a top story. If you do a search on Google, using the phrase, “national handgun carry,” you will see also that the Arbalest Quarrel article, as it appears on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, has the number one spot, and the article has held that spot for several days.The Arbalest Quarrel continues to reach out to Pro-Second Amendment organizations and to responsible social media and news sources to mount a last-ditch grass-roots effort for passage of the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.”Over the past few days, we have made substantial progress and hope remains. We trust that thousands of American citizens have responded to our plea and have made calls to Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley, and that they have contacted NRA and the White House, too. And, we know that thousands of Americans who cherish their sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms have responded with their views and comments on Pro-Second Amendment websites and social media to get the word out. Your message to Senate Republicans should be clear and clearly expressed: “If you want my vote, pass national concealed handgun carry reciprocity now!” “Votes” are one thing that all politicians know well and are sensitive to.The Arbalest Quarrel is doing its part. To further this important and timely matter. The President of the Arbalest Quarrel, Stephen L. D'Andrilli, sent a letter to Vice President Mike Pence, asking the Vice President to urge President Trump to call the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, urging Senator McConnell to hold a full Senate Roll-Call vote on the bill, before the Senate adjourns for the Christmas Holiday, and the business of the 115th Congress ends.The content of that letter which was sent on official Arbalest Quarrel letterhead, on Tuesday, November 27, 2018, via Priority FedEx Overnight, is as follows:________________________________________________November 27, 2018                                 via FedEx Priority OvernightThe Vice President of the United States The White HouseOffice of the Vice President1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20500Re: National Concealed Handgun Carry ReciprocityDear Mr. Vice President:I had the distinct honor and privilege of meeting and talking with you at the 2014 annual convention of the NRA, in Indianapolis, and, once again, a year later, at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City, where you were a guest speaker at the New York Meeting. This coming April 2019, I will be attending the NRA Convention that will be held once again in Indianapolis.I am aware that a central plank of the Democratic Party leadership is directed to destruction of the Second Amendment-the surest path to tyranny if the Democratic Party succeeds. So, the best way to derail the Democratic Party's efforts is to strengthen the Second Amendment. It is essentially for this reason that I am writing to you, and I am doing so out of a sense of urgency, as time is of the essence.Almost one year ago, the Republican controlled House voted for passage of 115 H.R. 38, "Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. "The House passed the bill on December 6, 2017, and it was immediately sent to the Senate for action. If Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, had pushed for passage of the bill, I feel certain it would have passed in the Republican controlled Senate. But, inexplicably, and disturbingly, the bill has lied dormant in the Senate Judiciary Committee, for almost a year.A Democratic Party controlled House will likely not allow for passage of a bill for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. So, any attempt by Senate Republicans to resurrect the bill in a Republican controlled Senate, when the new Congress commences business, on January 3, 2019, will be futile. We therefore have only a small window of opportunity remaining before the Senate recess. This is why the Senate must pass this measure without delay and present it to President Trump for his signature, before the Senate adjourns on December 14, 2018.On our website, the Arbalest Quarrel, have discussed the importance of moving this bill through the Senate, while Republicans control both Houses of Congress. The link to our article is: We invite both you and President Trump to review our article and to act on this.Nothing has more importance to me than the sacred rights and liberties set forth in our Constitution, and the preservation of our way of life, grounded in the Judea-Christian ethic. Both are under constant assault by Leftist elements inside our Country and outside it, and by our purported "free" Press.As President Trump has made support of the Second Amendment an important part of his campaign, national handgun carry reciprocity would stand as his most important achievement in safeguarding the individual's natural right of self-defense with a firearm. And, too, defending the Second Amendment through passage of this bill will demonstrate to millions of American citizens the veracity of the President ' s promises, the value of his word, and the strength of the President's will to complete what he sets out to do.I respectfully request you urge President Trump to call upon Senator McConnell to hold a Senate floor roll-call vote on national handgun carry reciprocity before the Senate adjourns on December 14, 2018.I welcome the opportunity to assist further in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of help. Thank you very much.Respectfully submitted, _______________________________________________________________Time is of the essence. The fight is not over. Right-To-Carry nationwide is still possible. Keep in mind what the late Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “A right delayed is a right denied.” And, many of you may recall the profound witticism of the late, great New York Yankees baseball catcher, Yogi Berra: “It ain’t over till it’s over.”Please do your part, if you haven't already acted, to help make National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity the Law of the Land.  Whether it's one or two phone calls or a quick text message, doing something is better than doing nothing. The fate of national handgun carry reciprocity and the fate of our fundamental, natural right, etched in stone in the Second Amendment, is ultimately in your hands._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ATTENTION ALL LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS: NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS IN JEOPARDY.

Concealed handgun carry reciprocity is about to die. It is about to die through deliberate inaction or callous indifference of the U.S. Senate. But we have a small window of opportunity: 21 days left to achieve the goal that has eluded us for years. It seemed assured of being accomplished by the Republican controlled 115^th Congress but, it wasn’t.Congress still has time to act before the end of the year, but that does nothing to explain why Congress failed to get this done. It certainly had ample opportunity to do so.

WHAT HAPPENED? WHY DID A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS FAIL TO FULFILL PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN PROMISE?

The House of Representatives and the Senate did introduce several national handgun carry reciprocity bills in the last two years. One such bill was 115 H.R. 38, titled, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. The bill's synopsis reads: “AN ACT to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.” The measure was voted on by the full House, and the Republican controlled House passed the bill, on December 6, 2017, by recorded roll call vote: 231 to 198. The vast majority of House Democrats voted against passage of the bill. Only 6 of 184 Democrats voted for passage of the bill. Contrariwise, the vast majority of House Republicans, 225, voted for passage of the bill; and 14 voted against passage.One day later, on December 7, 2017, the bill was sent to and received by the Senate, where it was read twice, in accordance with Senate protocol, and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for action. And, then we heard—Nothing! Dead Silence!The bill apparently fell into a deep, dark abyss.Senator Mitch McConnell, who, as Senate Majority Leader, has ultimate authority for determining what bills are voted on by the full Senate, said and did nothing to get the Judiciary Committee to act so that the bill could be voted on by the full Senate.Why didn’t the Judiciary Committee act on this? They certainly could have, but didn’t. And, why didn’t Senator Mitch McConnell urge the Judiciary Committee to action, so the full Senate would have had the opportunity to vote for passage of national concealed handgun carry legislation? We don’t know. He could have seen to this, but didn’t. Senate Republicans who can answer these questions, aren’t saying.Much about this, we don’t know. It is deeply perplexing.

BUT, THIS MUCH WE DO KNOW—

Senator Mitch McConnell can get things done when he wants to. Senator Mitch McConnell was able to get Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirmed as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This wasn’t easy, given the strenuous pushback by Senate Democrats. And the Senator should be commended for his zealous, unflagging effort in that regard. He should be just as zealous in getting national concealed handgun legislation through the full Senate. He certainly could have done so. For some reason, he chose not to. Yet, he still has time to get this done before the 116^th Congress begins its first term, on January 3, 2019, because, at that point, it would be futile. The House will seat a Democratic Party majority; and the Democratic Party leadership's agenda will include the drafting of bills to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not to strengthen that basic, fundamental, natural, and unalienable rightThe 2016 general election earned us President Donald Trump along with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. National Right-to-Carry was in our grasp. The timing couldn’t have been better. This is what law-abiding gun owners wanted, and NRA and other Pro-Second Amendment organizations campaigned vigorously for it. Our once-in-a-lifetime real hope for National Right-to-Carry is now slipping through our fingers.The Senate had over a year to act on the bill, from late 2017, when it first received the bill from the House. But the Senate failed to act.

CAN’T THE SENATE SIMPLY PASS THE BILL NEXT YEAR AND SEND IT ON TO PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS SIGNATURE IN 2019?

NO! IT CANNOT! All pending bills die.“At the end of a two-year session, Congress adjourns 'sine die' or 'without day' and not reconvene until a new Congress starts some time the next January.After that, the slate is wiped clean; there is no business pending. All of the ‘H.R.’ and ‘S.’ numbered titles that have been discussed and debated for the past two years will be archived. When Congress reconvenes, the process starts all over again.” When Congress reconvenes in 2019, House Republicans can reintroduce concealed handgun carry reciprocity but with a Democratic Party House of Representatives majority, the bill would never pass. So, whatever the Senate does in 2019, won’t matter because both Houses of Congress must pass a bill before a bill is sent to the President for his signature, at which point, a bill then becomes the Law of the Land, in accordance with Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

TIME TO PASS CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS OF THE ESSENCE!

There is no time to waste. The Senate is scheduled to adjourn on December 14, 2018. If the Senate fails to pass the bill by emergency roll call vote, we will have lost the only real opportunity to see concealed handgun carry reciprocity through to fruition.And, keep in mind: the Senate’s failure to act on national handgun carry places extreme pressure on President Trump who made this issue one of the signature issues of his campaign for U.S. President. Failure to accomplish this goal can well lead to Trump’s defeat in the general U.S. Presidential election of 2020. We must place the Senate’s feet to the fire.” This is where you can help!

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

IMMEDIATELY CALL:U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee): (202) 224-3744U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: (202) 224-2541Your Senate Delegation: (202) 224-3121TELL THEM THIS:“The Senate must vote on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 bill immediately. The bill passed the House on December 6, 2017, almost one year ago, and has since been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. That is unacceptable! We have only a few precious weeks to get this matter completed. The Senate must pass this bill and send it immediately to the President for his signature. President Trump will sign the bill into law, fulfilling an important campaign promise. My continued support for you will depend on your vote to approve this bill.”You should also contact NRA and President Trump, reminding them of their commitment to support national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. The contact numbers are as follows:The White House: (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414National Rifle Association (NRA): (800) 672-3888We must put pressure on those who can get this matter accomplished.Making a few important phone calls will only take a few minutes of your time. It is quick and easy, and critically important to safeguard and strengthen our right to keep and bear arms.What you do can make a difference and you will be proud to have taken an active part in protecting our natural, fundamental, unalienable, and sacred right to safeguard our lives and the lives of those closest to us, with the best means available: a firearm.If you chose to do nothing, you will only have yourself to blame.THIS IS OUR LAST REAL SHOT AT PASSAGE OF SIGNIFICANT PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT LEGISLATION!DON’T HESITATE TO TAKE THE SHOT. YOU WILL REGRET IT BECAUSE IT MAY BE YOUR LAST!__________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IN THE THROES OF AMERICA’S MODERN DAY CIVIL WAR

THERE IS NO COMING TOGETHER OF AMERICANS; THERE NO LONGER CAN BE; IT IS MUCH TOO LATE IN THE DAY FOR THAT.

Congressional Democrats and radical Leftists, both in their ranks and in the Nation at large, threaten more than the loss of civility in America. They threaten, generally, the loss of law and order in society. Worse, they exhibit contempt for the Nation’s history; traditions; core values; and the Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethic as they, themselves, are Godless. As an expression of their deep-seated contempt for the Nation’s history, traditions, values and religious ethic, undergirding the Nation’s morality, they threaten harm, potentially even loss of life against those Americans who don’t happen to agree with them. Worst of all, they threaten the very soul of the Nation. All of this accompanies their radical agenda for the Nation. They do nothing to hide their smug self-assurance and their sense of moral self-righteousness that they, after all, know what is best for this Country and for its people. They do nothing to hide their crassness, their coarseness, their intellectual shallowness and obtuseness. Even as some commentators call for Congressional Democrats to extend an olive branch to Congressional Republicans, there can be no coming together in America. It is much too late in the day for that.The forces that seek to destroy the U.S. President, Donald Trump, have made that much clear. Democrats will not work with Trump. They never intended to do so, as they hate him for daring to defeat Hillary Clinton. There is too much bad blood. Those radical forces in Congress, in the media, and in the public, too, have made it abundantly clear they intend to do all in their power to remove Trump from Office; and prior to impeachment and removal from Office, they continue, non-stop, to berate and obstruct and frustrate both him and his Administration and to constantly, callously, caustically berate and intimidate those who work in Trump’s Administration and members of the public as well who happen to support President Trump and his policy objectives.The forces marshaled against Trump have attempted grid-lock in Washington, D.C. The ludicrous, costly, time-consuming, exasperating Mueller/Rosenstein probe is evidence of and a constant stark reminder of that. Americans who support the President must therefore be constantly vigilant and wary of Democrats and of Centrist Republicans—those Republicans who in have, through their words and actions declare themselves to be “Never Trumpers.” Americans must never place their trust in these people.The calls for violence and the existence of actual acts of violence against the public that Americans have witnessed—especially in recent months, weeks, and even days—cannot, must not be considered mere hyperbole. And the cause for this violence cannot reasonably, rationally be laid at the feet of President Trump as the mainstream media, erroneously, but incessantly and vociferously asserts. The cause for this violence must be laid at the feet of Left-wing agitators and among those Congressional Democrats and those officials who once served in the Obama Administration, who still have impact among some members of the public, namely, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and Obama, himself, among others—all of whom continuously parade before and preen before media cameras.Consider some of pronouncements of Congressional Democrats, along with that of the Democratic Party Candidate for U.S. President in 2016, Hillary Clinton, and that of Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General under President Barack Obama:“I think that we owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn’t be our original purpose.” ~Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Party Minority Leader“. . . You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” ~Hillary Clinton“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” ~ Testimony of Hillary Clinton during October 23, 2015 Congressional Hearing on Benghazi tragedy that led to the deaths of four Americans.“When they go low, we kick ‘em. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about." ~Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General, under President Barack Obama“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. . . . I want you to talk to them, whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” Maxine Waters, Congressional Representative, 43rd District of CaliforniaCongressional Democrats, the radical Left, the mainstream media, and those Republicans who demean and attack the President and who attack those who support him, apart from being callous disrupters of stability in society, are also inveterate liars. They operate through deceit, fabrication, dissimulation and disassembly. The objectives of these people are far removed from the needs and wishes and belief system of the mainstream of the American citizenry.Increasingly, Congressional Democrats, the radical Left, and their cohorts in the mainstream media dare to question the continued importance of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, they would even cast portions of it aside if they could. This is a disturbing but clearly unmistakable fact and is inconsistent with any claim they might happen to make to protect and defend the Constitution. For they see this Document—the framework of a free Republic—not as a source of pride, a sacred Document to be upheld with reverence; a Document to be faithfully retained and adhered to. They see it as a disconcerting, confounding obstacle. Indeed, they have stated a desire to see entire clauses, and sections of Articles, and entire Amendments changed, modified, ignored, even abrogated, as it suits them, as they determine that a particular Article, or Amendment, or section or clause of an Article or Amendment, happens to prove inconsistent with the accomplishment of or simply inconvenient to the shaping of their desires and the implementation of their goals. There are ominous portents on the horizon.___________________________________________________________ 2

"KRISTALLNACHT" IN AMERICA: NOT BY ACCIDENT

WHAT OCCURRED IN GERMANY IS HAPPENING HERE IN AMERICA.

In November, 1938 in an incident known as ‘Kristallnacht,’—which translates roughly as ‘night of broken glass’—Nazis in Germany vandalized Jewish businesses, schools, and homes.Today, in America, radical Leftist groups in California, Oregon, and Washington State, and in other States around the Country, use similar tactics against their enemies. As in Germany, at that time, eighty years ago, police here at home in the U.S. have, in many instances, also stood by. Rank and file municipal police officers were obviously ordered by their superiors to “stand down;” to watch, observe, but not to contain the mob violence occurring on the streets. There are several instances of police inaction during rioting.In California, on the UC Berkelely Campus, in February 2017, police, in riot gear, stood by as rioters damaged buildings and assaulted individuals. In Seattle, Washington, in March 2018, police stood by as demonstrators blocked traffic, causing massive gridlock. And, in Portland, Oregon, in August 2018, angry protestors damaged automobiles and berated employees leaving the Federal Immigration and Customs Building because the Mayor of the City, Ted Wheeler, had ordered police to “stand down.”In each case City Officials sheepishly and speciously and peculiarly declared, inter alia, that more violence would have ensued if police had taken action to uphold the law. Really?But, what is really taking place in America, today, is this: as in Germany, decades ago, high Government officials and bureaucratic functionaries of the “Deep State,”—who owe allegiance to the agenda and policy goals of the Bushes, and Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama and, Hillary Clinton, had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—have used their power and authority to subvert the Constitution of the United States and to subvert the authority of President Trump under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Their actions border on if not cross the line of actionable crimes under our Nation’s federal sedition laws.Congressional Democrats have worked in tandem with these sinister government officials and functionaries—these bad actors of the bureaucratic Deep State—who operate in the shadows, behind the walls of Government buildings, securely ensconced in their offices, unobserved by the public, baldly contemptuous of Congressional oversight, seemingly beyond public scrutiny. Congressional Democrats, for their part, blithely ignore or otherwise urge on the public to assault members of Trump’s Administration, and these Congressional Democrats have gone so far as to applaud the actions of radical Left-wing agitators, as these Left-wing extremists damage property, assault individuals, and generally create a climate of consternation and fear among the populace.The mainstream Press in America gives a pass to violence created by extremist Left-wing agitators—like the internationalist Antifa group that relishes the use of violence against the extreme Right of the political spectrum and anyone else who happens to disagree with their aims—but then the mainstream Press appears nonplussed when it is similarly attacked by Antifa members.The Press seems to be unaware that, when aligning with radical groups, it has a proverbial tiger by the tail. Antifa (“Anti-fascist”) is, after all, a collection of extremist elements that have no clear aim other than to destroy anyone or anything they disagree with, as the radical group's inflammatory website, as obnoxiously bold as the group, itself, makes clear.But Antifa is a useful tool of both the Democratic Party and billionaire globalists, as that organization wreaks havoc in Nation States, to soften them up, to tear them down, to turn them into cogs of a new system of global governance.The clash between opponents on the extremes of the political spectrum is, of course, nothing new. But, the reason for violent upheaval in American society, today, unlike in Germany and Russia, in the aftermath of World War I and the onset of the Great Depression, is demonstrably different today and it is notably peculiar.

THE CAUSES FOR POLITICAL UPHEAVAL IN GERMANY AND RUSSIA IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY WERE CLEAR BUT THE CAUSES FOR POLITICAL UPHEAVAL IN THE UNITED STATES, IN THE EARLY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, ARE NOT.

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” ~Edmund Burke, Eighteenth Century Irish Statesman, author, orator, political theorist, and philosopher“You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve YOUR freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it.” ~John AdamsIn the aftermath of World War I, Germany saw violent clashes between Left-wing Communists and Right-wing Fascist Groups, each fighting for dominance and control of Germany after the collapse of the weak, Weimar Republic. And, in Russia, before the conclusion of the World War I, the Red Army (the extremists on the Left, the Bolsheviks) fought the White Army (the forces of the autocrat, Tzar Nicholas, extremists on the Right) for dominance and control of the Country.  The extremists of both political groups in both Countries espoused totalitarian rule and, in that respect, both are an anathema to the traditions and core values of the United States—values that Germany and Russia never shared and in fact had no comprehension of.The circumstances that led to political unrest and totalitarianism in Germany, after World War I are clear enough. The victorious allies forced Germany to pay billions of dollars in reparation payments. Massive unemployment swept through the Country, devastating the lives of German citizens. Germans, understandably, were resentful. Kaiser Wilhelm was forced to abdicate and went into exile. Perhaps, worst of all, the Treaty of Versailles, that Germany was forced to sign, included a “Guilt Clause,” placing blame for World War I solely on Germany. There was no need for that, and, in truth, placing guilt for the War on Germany was patently unfair. There was no one simple cause for the war. All European participants were equally responsible; they all bear a share of the guilt for the horror that unfolded. Roughly 35 million soldiers and civilians lost their lives in that “Great War” to end all wars. Inclusion of the “Guilt Clause” in the Treaty rightfully angered Germans.In an atmosphere of political and economic tension and turmoil, following the defeat of Germany  a clash of radical elements—Communists on the extreme Left and Fascist groups on the far right—fought each other for dominance and control. Such a clash was unavoidable. The Communists lost. The National Socialist German Workers Party—the Nazis—won. It was simply a matter of one autocratic form of Government winning out over another, in Germany.Similarly, extremist elements—those loyal to the Tzar—and those intent on a new form of totalitarianism, one ostensibly predicated on the economic system of communism—engaged each other in a bloody civil war. The Bolsheviks, on the extreme Left, prevailed over the forces loyal to the Tzar, on the extreme Right. The Tzar, together with his immediate family, were murdered.The clash between the two factions in America is not, however, a clash between two extremist elements. For, so stating, the clash between two the factions as one merely between two extremist elements in America presents an unduly restrictive picture of the conflict and frames the conflict in overly simplistic and therefore erroneous manner.The crisis unfolding here in America, today, is unlike that which befell Germany and Russia. The nature of the crisis is, though, cut and dry, nonetheless. There is in fact a battle that is being waged for the life and soul of the Nation. It is a battle that has been waging for decades although only recently has this clash between the two factions become visible since the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, which was not supposed to happen; but happened it did! It is a clash between two contrary visions for the Country: one faction seeks to abrogate the U.S. Constitution and dismantle a free Republic, so that the remains of the Nation may be subsumed into a new globalist political, social, economic, financial and cultural transnational, globalist system of governance; and a second faction that seeks to preserve the United States Constitution and hold firm to the U.S. as an independent, sovereign Nation and free Republic as established and grounded in the U.S. Constitution, according to the plain wording of the Constitution, as conceived, drafted, and implemented by the framers of it.The mainstream media has created a false narrative to hide the true nature of this modern-day confrontation between two factions, each of which has mutually exclusive visions for the Nation. The mainstream media, the Press, has deliberately and cleverly hidden this because the Press, itself, is not a neutral party. It has taken a side in this conflict. It had always taken a side in this conflict—a conflict that now threatens to engulf this Nation in a conflagration that the Press itself wishes for; that itself welcomes; that it is doing everything in its power to help bring about, even as it says that it does not._______________________________________________________3

IS AMERICA TRULY IN THE THROES OF A CLASH BETWEEN TWO EXTREMIST ELEMENTS IN AMERICA AS WAS THE CASE IN GERMANY AND IN RUSSIA, DURING THE EARLY PART OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY?

Americans are facing clashes between Democrats—through their surrogates, agitators on the left, urged on by a compliant press—and those Americans who support the U.S. President, Donald Trump; but is America truly in the throes of a clash between two extremist elements, seeking dominance, or is there a false narrative at work here and a false dichotomy, hiding the true dichotomy that points to the root cause of a very real threat to America?Americans, are presently witnessing a surge of totalitarian sentiment and political unrest in the United States; make no mistake about it. But why, now? Furthermore, we must ask: is this surge of totalitarian sentiment and political unrest coming from two opposing sides that the mainstream media’s narrative portrays: the seeming forces for good—albeit forces that includes extremist groups like Antifa whom the mainstream media continually apologizes for—and the seeming forces of evil, namely those represented by President Donald Trump and by tens of millions of strong supporters of his Administration? Or is there something else at work here? Clearly, there is massive polarization in society and tremendous cultural upheaval but, the mainstream media confuses the root causes for this upheaval. This confusion may stem in part from a true misunderstanding as to what is actually transpiring and unfolding in this Country or it may be due to a deliberate attempt at obfuscation and misdirection. Let us see, which it is. It would seem, at first glance, from an even cursory examination, that no reason exists for turmoil and upheaval in AmericaConsider: the economy has definitely improved dramatically under President Trump. Even the mainstream Press, admits as much although it does so grudgingly. So, economically, there is no cause for unrest in the United States. Certainly, no Country is forcing Americans to remit billions of dollars in reparation payments as the victors in the First World War imposed on Germany. And, although poverty does exist in this Nation, it always has. But, even so, any claim that poverty here compares to the poverty existent in Russia, under the reign of Tzar Nicholas, or that Germany and, the United States, too, both suffered, during the Great Depression, would stretch credulity.Until Donald Trump became U.S. President, previous Presidents have as a matter of tradition, voluntarily—even though U.S. tax dollars could always be better used at home money—agreed, mystifyingly, to give money freely and abundantly to other Countries. Since the creation of NATO, the United States has given more money to fund NATO than any other member Nation, and Trump has rightfully questioned that. Americans ought to be pleased that he has done so, but Democrats and the radical Left and the mainstream media, oddly enough, castigate Trump for doing so. Is that a reason for angry mobs of the extreme Left to take to the streets in this Country, causing fear among the citizenry and concomitantly, destruction? Surely, not. But Leftist agitators cause violence, dissension, and chaos anyway, often at the behest of the Democratic Party that looks on gleefully; and the Party’s compliant Press, bizarrely, casts blame for this on Donald Trump and on his supporters.America also remits, annually, tens of millions of dollars in aid to Mexico and t to Central American Countries; ostensibly to aid the economies of these Countries and to contain criminal violence, although it would appear that our Government does little if anything to ascertain that the monies are properly used to assist the peoples of those Countries. And, what do Americans receive in return for that largess we hand out to the Governments of Mexico and Central America? We suffer waves of people—thousands of uneducated or poorly educated, and the unskilled of these Nations—all of whom are bent on forcing their way into our Country. Through bad past practice that has allowed tens of millions of them to remain here, these multitudes claim a right—albeit wrongly—to do so.President Trump rightfully questions payments to these Countries as it has done nothing to stem the tide of illegal aliens. And, it is hardly an argument that, were President Trump to withhold payments to these Central American Countries, we, Americans, will suffer yet further waves of illegal aliens into our Country. Americans should be pleased that President Trump carefully considers Government expenditures, but he is chastised for doing so by Democrats and by the radical Left and by the mainstream media. And angry mobs of Leftist dissidents take to the streets, demonstrating against and remonstrating against a Government they disingenuously claim to be callous to the plight of so many millions of illegal aliens? Really? Consider:As the Governments of those Countries empty out their drawer of thousands of undesirables, the U.S. is expected to—indeed is required to—take these people in? And, if not, is that cause for turmoil in this Country, that the U.S. President desires to control the Nation’s borders against waves of illegal aliens invading our Country, as the President has every right to do, and, in fact, has a duty to do? In fact, Democrats, such as U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Nation’s previous U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, themselves, even once said as much. So, then, what has, in the intervening recent years changed? What would explain the incendiary violence and caustic anger, even hatred that is embroiling our Country?We return to the perplexing question:

HOW IS IT AND WHY IS IT THAT AMERICANS ARE WITNESSING EXTREMIST VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY AT THIS POINT IN TIME?

Extremist groups, in any Country, be they on the proverbial Right or Left of the political spectrum, do have their own agenda—a  nebulous one to be sure, but an agenda that is remarkably similar insofar as that agenda always involves the disassembling of a nation. Extremist groups do not suffer each other well, but, as one, they do suffer the presence of law, order, and stability in a nation—any nation—as law, order, and stability does not operate to their advantage.If disorder and instability presently exists in a nation, extremist groups use that disorder and instability to grab control of the reins of government of that nation. If order and stability do happen to exist in a nation, then they seek to disrupt such order and stability. If successful, that allows them, once again, to muscle their way to grab control of a nation.However, while proclaiming different economic, social, political, and cultural objectives, extremists impose their will on a nation and maintain that imposition of will on a nation by and through the same mechanisms of force and intimidation. A communist dictatorship under Joseph Stalin and a fascist dictatorship under Adolf Hitler are, from the standpoint of the average citizen, remarkably similar: they are both oppressive and repressive to the extreme. But, the governments of Germany and Russia, in the aftermath of World War I, were both weakened. Both nations were in the grip of massive instability, disorder, and dislocation. Monarchist totalitarian systems had existed in both Countries, and new forms of totalitarian rule would appear. Autocratic rule is not, then, not something alien to these Countries. They always had such rule in one form or another. Here, in the United States, though, we do not. So, then, what is the root cause for the rise of totalitarianism in this Country?_____________________________________________________4

WHAT TRULY IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE RISE OF TOTALITARIANISM IN AMERICA TODAY?

Totalitarianism is definitely on the rise in America today, but the circumstances that allowed for totalitarianism of one form or another to exist in Germany and Russia does nothing to explain why totalitarianism is making inroads here in America and, at this juncture. But, notwithstanding news reports and editorials and the opinions expressed flippantly and superficially and disingenuously, by talk-show hosts, it is necessary to point out that totalitarianism is not—contrary to all these false pronouncements—a manifestation of the very presence of the U.S. President, Donald Trump in the Oval Office. In fact, President Trump is actively working to prevent totalitarianism in our Country. Totalitarianism is coming, nonetheless, but it is not emanating from President Trump or from any of his foreign or domestic policies. It is coming from the radical Left and from the so-called “Democratic Party,” that the radical Left in America has co-opted, and it is coming from a new crop of local, State, and Federal politicians who are running for public Office throughout the Country.The so-called “Blue Wave” is a tsunami that, if it succeeds, will usher in totalitarian rule in the U.S.It is curious to note that Democrats and those individuals and institutional forces that support the downfall of the President Trump are masters at disguising their true intentions. Consider how it is that extremists invariably use seemingly benign expressions, such as ‘liberal democracy’ and ‘democratic socialism,’ to describe their motives which is, despite the seeming innocuousness of the expressions used, really a decoy as these elements intend—if radical Left politicians ever obtain power—to rule with an “iron fist;” to clamp down on dissent; to create fear and confusion in the population of America they control.It is remarkable, too, that these radical Left-wing elements invariably twist commentary to suggest it is their opponents who seek to impose the very thing that they, themselves, desire, and will impose—and, in fact, are already imposing on businesses and in college campuses, and in the populations at large in those nations of Western Europe, comprising the EU, and here, at home, in the United States. What these forces seek is absolute control over all thought and action of the people.

WHO ARE THE TRUE DESTROYERS OF WESTERN NATION STATES? WHO ARE THE TRUE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES?

It remains to be said and emphasized that Germany and Russia, unlike the United States, have a history of totalitarian rule. We, in the United States, do not. Importantly, the framers were well aware of the possibility of totalitarian rule, as it is the default position of governments throughout the world. The framers of our Constitution sought, through the wondrous blueprint for our Nation that they drafted, to prevent that from happening in the new Nation they were giving birth to. Yet, totalitarianism is rearing its ugly head here, nonetheless. But, it is not coming from the far Right groups that have long ago lost their influence and power.Why is it that totalitarianism is arising in the United States? Is this truly an occurrence from within the Nation? Or, could it be that extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, extremely ruthless internationalist elements are deliberately creating turmoil here in the furtherance of their own plans, their own agenda, for world dominance?Since there is no plausible reason for public unrest here in the U.S., seditious, sinister interests must invent a reason; must create unrest, artificially, in the U.S. through the device, the artifice of this thing called, ‘identity politics.’ And, have these seditious, sinister interests not effectively orchestrated dissension in our Nation in a calculated move to create disorder, disruption, confusion in the minds of Americans, and mass upheaval in American society? Have they not done this to weaken the Nation from within? Of course they have! 

THE CHANT GOES OUT: “BLAME DONALD TRUMP! IGNORE HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS; APPLAUD HIS DEFEATS; OBSTRUCT, DISRUPT, AND FRUSTRATE THE PRESIDENT AT EVERY TURN!”

The linchpin of the game plan of the seditious, insidious, ruthless internationalist elements who are the true puppet masters who have orchestrated and implemented the assault on America is this: Blame the U.S. President Donald Trump for the turmoil in society and for the insinuation of autocratic rule in our Nation. This is the mantra—the pretext for the violence occurring in America. But it is a False Flag operating. The President wants, with all his heart to prevent violence. He seeks stability in society. But these sinister, seditious elements want none of that. They fight with, contest with the President at every turn. These radical elements on the Left intend to foment violence as they seek to destroy the Constitutional underpinnings of a free Republic and a free people.So it is that the Nation’s Press, along with Congressional Democrats, and their compatriots in academia and in the entertainment industry, at the behest of their internationalist benefactors, lash out vehemently, continuously, noxiously, at the President—and their pronouncements become ever more outlandish, ever more fantastic—which would be laughable, as one beholds such ludicrous efforts to attack both the President and the very institution of the U.S. Presidency, if the ends they envision, if realized, were not so tragic for our Nation and for its citizenry.Donald Trump, they say, is the sole cause for turmoil in society; and that caustic acclamation has been constantly, incessantly, vociferously pounded into the American public. It is, in fact, the din of a drumbeat that has sounded since Donald Trump became the Republican Party nominee for U.S. President and it has only become louder, more insistent, with each passing day since Donald Trump took the oath of Office.They ignore the President’s many accomplishments. They accentuate, blare out, his few defeats. They do everything in their power to place roadblocks in the President's path, to prevent the President from accomplishing his tasks, his duty to the American people and his duty to the U.S. Constitution. They employ extremist groups to weaken the resolve of the people; to cause disruption in society and confusion in the mind of the American public; to disassemble the Nation’s history; its traditions; and the Nation’s core values; to perfunctorily ignore the founding principles undergirding our Nation’s rule of law; and to abrogate the sacred, fundamental, natural rights of the American people. President Trump and those who support him are cast as the scapegoat to be attacked as the root cause of the problems in America, even as such problems that exist are of their own making. For, it is, in fact, the Nation the founders bequeathed to us that they seek to destroy. That is what makes their effort most  insidious.The Democratic Party, co-opted by the fringe elements of the Left, supported by an activist, Left-wing news media, and funded by ruthless billionaires who identify with no one Country, all seek to create a new international order, an international political, social, economic, financial, and cultural system of governance—one in which the populace of a Country is bereft of its national identity and reduced to abject servitude.________________________________________________5

IN ITS ZEAL TO DESTROY THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STIRS UP UNREST IN THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE USE OF AGENT PROVOCATEURS AND LEFT-WING AGITATORS.

Is President Trump responsible for turmoil in society? No; of course not! Yet, Democrats, and the radical Left, and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, maintain that President Trump is responsible for this and that he is an autocrat. But, the claim, like so much commentary by Democrats and by the radical Left is absolutely false. In fact, it is odd that Democrats and the extremist Left in this Country, along with the compliant mainstream media, would portray President Trump as an autocrat at all, when Trump seeks to strengthen the Nation’s Bill of Rights, unlike his predecessors, and like Democrats and the radical Left today, who seek to weaken Americans’ fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights.The creation of turmoil in the Nation is a dangerous ploy; an artificial construct to undermine the President; to regain power and thereby return to the agenda advocated by the Bushes, Barack Obama, and the Clintons, at the behest of their globalist benefactors: pave the way for the Nation’s inclusion into a new political, economic, social, and cultural global system of governance—a system in which the very concepts of ‘nation state’ and ‘citizen’ and ‘national identity’ are viewed as archaic, obsolete.Democrats, and the radical Left, and the mainstream media are pulling the old switcheroo on the American people. Trump is not an autocrat, and he has no desire to be one. He was never a proponent of totalitarianism, and there is nothing that he has done to suggest that autocratic rule exists here or that he intends to institute autocratic rule in this Country. It is all merely an incendiary talking point for radical left-wing Democrats and for the radical Socialist and Communist and anarchist groups in America, who themselves seek to impose autocratic rule on the United States. Totalitarianism is, after all, inbred in political and economic systems based on Socialism and Communism—the systems that radical Left groups embrace and that the Democratic Party itself, by leaps and bounds, increasingly is also embracing, as extremist Left-wing groups take control of the Party. But, Democrats and these extreme Left-wing groups—through their echo chamber, the mainstream media—continually mislead and misdirect the American public.

THE RADICAL LEFT AND DEMOCRATS SEEK TO INSTITUTE A REIGN OF TOTALITARIANISM IN AMERICA.

Clearly, it is, the radical Left and Democrats, not President Trump, who seek to institute a reign of totalitarianism, a reign of terror in this Country. It is they who seek to weaken the rights and liberties of Americans. It is they, not President Trump who seeks to create an inordinately strong federal Government. It is they, not President Trump, who seek to rewrite the Constitution, to conform to their agenda. It is they, not President Trump, who create ad hoc law to fit the occasion, thereby making a mockery of our entire body of law and extensive jurisprudential history. It is they who exclaim disdain for the American people whom, as they articulate, had the audacity and temerity to vote for Donald Trump, rather than for Hillary Clinton.It is they, not President Trump, who dare to presume that Americans must be led, like sheep, for it is they, not President Trump who presume to know what is best for the American people. It is they, not President Trump, who fear a free Republic and an armed citizenry. So, it is they, not President Trump, who dare to embrace autocratic rule even as they claim, however implausibly, that it is President Trump, not they, who are the true autocrats, the true creators of totalitarianism, the harbingers of autocratic rule in America.

DEMOCRATS AND EXTREMIST LEFT-WING GROUPS SEEK TO DESTROY A NATION IN THE NAME OF DEFENDING IT.

Democrats and extremist left-wing groups seek to undercut the fabric upon which this Nation was conceived; a Nation that the founders, in their wisdom, designed and bequeathed to the American people.It’s the radical Left, not Trump, that seeks to crush dissent in America; to impose its will on the electorate; to thrust its agenda on the American public. It’s the radical Left, not Trump, that seeks to eliminate the citizenry’s fundamental rights of free speech and freedom of association. It’s the radical Left, not Trump, that seeks to discriminate against the free exercise of religion. It’s the radical Left, not Trump, that seeks to eliminate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It’s the radical Left, not Trump, that seeks to eliminate the right of the people to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. And, it’s the radical Left, not Trump, that seeks to undermine the principles of due process under our system of law.The mainstream media’s constant caustic, vicious, vitriolic, virulent personal attacks on both Donald Trump and his family, coupled with waves of Left-wing demonstrations—more frequent and more violent as we approach the 2018 Midterm Elections—is, then, no accident. Trump, after all, so Americans are told, was never supposed to have won the U.S. Presidency. His ascent to the Oval Office was much more than a surprise to the internationalist billionaire enclave that supported Hillary Clinton; it was a veritable shock. The Democratic process worked, but, not in the manner they expected; not in the matter they foresaw; not in the matter they had wished.This, of course, explains why Americans now see turmoil infecting a Nation that generally operates in accordance with civility. Apparently, civility is now out of fashion and out-the-door in the radical Left’s lust to acquire power.The radical Left sees in the psychological defense mechanism of projection a useful propaganda tool as it projects onto the President what it is that the Left itself seeks: absolute control—control over the mind, heart, and actions of Americans. It seeks absolute control over the very soul and psyche of our Country.Radical Leftist individuals and groups that attack the U.S. President—claiming he is the autocrat—should not be believed. For, it is they, not he, who seek to thrust autocratic rule on the Nation, thereby undermining the rule of law; undercutting the sanctity and autonomy of each American citizen; and destroying the very foundation of this Country as a free Republic and independent Sovereign Nation State. Thus, it is that the radical Left foments violence in America, much more than mere incivility.The radical Left hopes that a flare-up of violence that it, not Donald Trump, is responsible for, will create a conflagration across the Nation. But, this rage and fury cannot hide the fact that no plausible reason exists for it, other than the fact that Trump, unlike the Clinton and Bush clans, and unlike Obama, does not accept their aims; does not accept their agenda. For the radical Left, along with the Democratic Party that it has co-opted, and along with the Clintons, and Obama, and the Bushes, and, too, the centrist Republicans, supporters of Bush—the moderates, the so-called “Never Trumpers”—seek nothing less than the dismantling of our Nation, even if they pretend they don’t. They seek, and have always sought, through the various economic global pacts and treaties, to subordinate the U.S. Constitution and our system of laws to a new international world order in which all member Nation States lose their independence and sovereignty; and, in which they lose their history, their traditions, their core values, and their national identity.The precursor to all this is in stark evidence in our Country. The radical Left and their sponsors in the Democratic Party question the fundamental, natural rights secured for the American people in the Bill of Rights. They equate patriotism with paternalism and parochialism and tribalism. They equate nationalism with fascism. They trample the American flag. They denounce “maleness” as “toxic.” They undercut the very concept of ‘citizen.’ They seek to flood this Country with waves of uneducated, unskilled migrants who have no knowledge of our Constitution, our laws, our history, our traditions, and our core values and couldn’t care less about any of that. They are selfish seekers of welfare assistance at taxpayer expense; pawns in a game orchestrated by those that seek to disassemble this Country and draw it into a new world order. Thus, the very presence of these migrants, these illegal aliens, will destroy an already weakened welfare system, and ravage the fabric of society.The radical Leftists, funded by powerful, wealthy internationalist benefactors, call for a borderless, porous America. But, that is incompatible with the very notion of an independent, Sovereign Nation State. Such a call for a borderless America is a tacit nod to an end to the sovereignty of our Nation and an end to our system of laws, and an end to the very rule of law.These radical Leftists suspend “due process” when it is convenient for them to do so. They invent crimes in an implausible attempt to impeach or to indict President Trump, all the while ignoring the obvious criminal conduct of Hillary Clinton, so she could run for President, and gain “the throne.” In sum, the radical Left and the Democratic Party perceive our Constitution, and our system of laws and justice as an impediment to their agenda. The Constitution and laws for these people are tools, at times useful, at times not, to be amended, suspended, ignored, or abrogated, on mere “say-so,” based on their own bizarre system of morality, and as political expediency dictates.To get an inkling as to what a Socialist or Communist Dictatorship would look like in the United States, simply consider what your life would be like had Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders gained the Presidency. Consider the Nation’s direction once you lose your basic rights and your individual autonomy under the Presidency of Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, or Elizabeth Warren, all of whom are making a bid for the Democratic Party nomination in 2020.___________________________________________________6

THE PUSH FOR AN AUTOCRATIC ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT

The Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations have slowly, inexorably directed the United States toward a Socialist/Communist autocracy. One way they have done this is through the mechanism of international pacts and treaties. The EU is Totalitarianism writ large. The Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations have sought, quietly, through the previous few decades to insinuate the United States into a global economic, political, and social world government through vehicles like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). President Trump would have none of it. To fulfill one promise to the American people, he signed an executive order, disavowing the TPP, and he did so during his first week in Office.Trump has directed the American people back on the path toward a Nation as envisioned by the founders of our Republic—a direction that Clinton, and the Bush clan, and Obama, and the Democratic Party candidates of the new radical Left—perceive as archaic, anachronistic and no longer worth emulating or preserving.

WHO ARE THE TARGETS OF THE RADICAL LEFT? THE “SILENT MAJORITY” OF AMERICANS?

The new target of this uncivil, unruly radical Left mob and the new target of the mainstream media, and the new target of the Democratic Party and of the wealthy, powerful, internationalist forces that finance them, command them, and influence them, that we see today, are not the so-called, “Alt-right”, or white supremacists, or those who fall within a particular race, religion, or ethnic group. No! It is between those who seek to disassemble and to demolish ‘independent, sovereign nation states’ and the traditions, history, culture, and system of laws that inform them; and those forces that seek to maintain the existence of ‘independent, sovereign nation states.’Thus, contrary to what many Americans believe, as conveyed to the public through the mainstream media, the real political opponents of radical grotesque Left-wing monstrosities such as “Antifa,” and “Black Lives Matter,” are not extremist right-wing groups—generally lumped under the catch-all expressions, “Alt Right” and “White Supremacists.” For, extremist right-wing groups have no real power. They had been marginalized decades ago.

WHO TRULY ARE THE ENEMIES OF THE RADICAL LEFT AND THOSE WHO EMBRACE THEIR AGENDA OR ACQUIESCE TO IT?

The enemies of the radical Left and of the new radical Democratic Party and of the political vacuum inhabited by so-called Congressional moderates and centrists of either Party, and the enemies of the globalist “elite,” are the vast numbers of Americans who do have real power; the silent majority. They include Americans who cherish the rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights; Americans who believe in the sanctity and autonomy of the individual; Americans who believe that the concept of the ‘Nation State’ and the concept of ‘citizen’ have real import and purport; who believe in our sacred National heritage and history; and who believe in our Judeo-Christian moral values.The enemies of the radical Left are, in fact, those Americans who voted for and who happen to support the U.S. President, Donald Trump—the millions of Americans who happen to disagree with the agenda and goals of the radical Left. The silent majority has been awakened. They know what is at stake if the Democrats and the radical Left assume power. Americans will see the weakening of their Constitution; the loss of their fundamental rights and liberties; the fracturing of a Nation and a free Republic. Thus, these millions of Americans—this silent majority—are silent no more.

THE REAL CONFLICT IN AMERICA AND IN EUROPE IS ONE NO ONE IN THE MEDIA TALKS ABOUT: IT IS BETWEEN COLLECTIVISTS AND INDIVIDUALISTS

The real conflict today is between the forces of “Collectivism” and those of “Individualism.” The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about the basic precepts and belief system of both.  The conflict today is between those who seek to preserve the concept of the ‘Nation State’ and those who seek to destroy it and who seek to subsume present Western nation states into a new political, social, economic, financial, and cultural framework, one that is presided over by a group of extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, innately secretive, and abjectly amoral, ruthless transnational individuals who do not owe allegiance to any Country.The formation of the EU is but one step in accomplishing their goal for a one world system of governance--a system of governance devoid of nation states; but these forces that seek to destroy this Nation and that seek to destroy all Western nations have not accomplished their ultimate goal as yet, as the U.S. as an independent Sovereign Nation State still exists; its Constitution is still intact. The nations of the EU, though, cannot say the same. These Nation States exist more in name now and less in substance.The political and social and cultural, as well as economic, independence and sovereignty of these Nations has been systematically undermined and is, even at this present moment in time, being systematically destroyed. But, the end game of the ruthless forces that are working toward the destruction of every Western Nation State  has not yet been realized. President Trump opposes the goals of these ruthless globalists. Those Americans who support President Trump had perceived that this Nation was losing its historical, moral and legal under footing and underpinnings and enough Americans saw that the Nation was slowly being dismantled; that the Nation's Constitution was slowly being shredded, and to counter act these actions, they elected Donald Trump as President of the United States.The transnationalist forces that saw this were furious, as their plans for world domination were coming to a screeching, grinding halt. The importance of the U.S. to their plans for world domination cannot be overstated. The U.S. must be consolidated into the EU, and they have been fighting to regain control ever since President Trump assumed Office. What is playing out in the Nations of the EU, and what is playing out here in the United States, is the final war for survival of a people’s national identity, together with the sanctity of the very notion of a ‘Nation State.’ To counter the efforts of the citizenry of the Nations of the EU that seek to regain control of their respective Nation's independence, sovereignty, and cultural, social, and political identity, the transnationalist "elite" have attacked this spirit and sentiment of nationalism as neo-fascism. They do this in order to marginalize nationalist fervor; to treat it like a disease, a virus, a pandemic that must be stamped out.Similarly, in the U.S. in an attempt to counter the President, the mainstream media, on behalf of its globalist benefactors, denigrates the tens of millions of strong supporters of Trump: disparaging Americans who support Trump—the silent majority of the Nation. The mainstream media disparages Trump's supporters through the use of epithets; through the use of pejorative labels, calling Trump supporters 'racists,' 'xenophobes,' 'fascists,' 'tribalists,' parochialists,' and 'paternalists,' and 'white supremacist' to name a few of the common and less common pejoratives applied to President Trump's supporters. Indeed, the mainstream media even disparages the word, 'nationalist.' Yet, those American citizens who support Trump are not racists; nor are they xenophobes; nor are they fascists, tribalists, or paternalists; nor are they white supremacists. President Trump's supporters are true Americans who have a vision of this Country that hearkens back to the very creation of our Nation as a free Republic. These Americans espouse the doctrine--the philosophy--of “Individualism,” that accurately describes their belief system. These Americans seek to reclaim their Country from those elements both inside the Country and outside it, that seek to destroy the very fabric of our free Republic and that seek to destroy the sanctity of the autonomy of each individual American citizen. The would-be destroyers of our Nation are aptly referred to as "Collectivists."  Those individuals, who ascribe to Collectivism  seek an end to the existence of Nation States; an end to the very concept of "citizen" of a Nation State; and an end to the supremacy of a Nation's Constitution, system of laws, and jurisprudence. Neither the term, 'Collectivism,' or 'Individualism,' is used as a pejorative, but merely as a convenient label that adequately and accurately expresses the axioms, the precepts  of two mutually incompatible political, social, and moral philosophical doctrinal systems upon which a society might be constructed. __________________________________________________________7

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA CHOOSES TO USE A FALSE DICHOTOMY TO DESCRIBE THE CLASH OF IDEAS BETWEEN SUPPORTERS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THOSE WHO DO NOT SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT.

The mainstream media, at the behest of its transnationalist benefactors, has created a false, fake narrative: namely that the clash of ideologies is simply one between fascists and anti-fascists. So, anyone who supports Trump is deemed an “Alt Right” or “White Supremacist. They are cast as right-wing extremists. But, the radical Left, including, infamously, Antifa, the so-called antifascists, are not, today, similarly cast as extremists on the Left, but, rather, as forces of “Good,” in spite of the violence these groups cause--the violence they actually relish causing. And the mainstream media and the Democratic Party play to radical left-wing groups like Antifa, proclaiming that the violence they cause is not really violence at all but merely the demonstration of and displays of righteous indignation by those who perceive flaws in society and who seek fundamental fairness in society. Really? By tearing society down and by physically harming American citizens? The mainstream media and the Democratic Party embrace the antics and violence of radical groups, like Antifa. So, Trump and his supporters are cast as the villains in a drama that plays like a Shakespearean drama to the public. The Press knows that the labels they choose to employ to describe groups are critical to the false narrative--the fake news they write and talk about.The labels used by the mainstream media are memes, mental viruses, that infect--and are meant to infect--the psyche of the populace, that is target of the propaganda. And, through its wanton blather, the mainstream media continually and blatantly smears the U.S. President and tens of millions of Americans but, at one and the same time, sanctifies the words and actions of socialists, communists, and anarchists. Yet, the political, economic, and social views of these left-wing extremists are decidedly beyond the pale. And, the methods employed by these left-wing extremists for instituting the rupture in and of society are patently illegal; morally outrageous and reprehensible; destructive to the health and well-being of this Nation; and a clear and present danger to the health, safety, security, and well-being of the Nation's citizenry. The mainstream media cares not that left-wing extremists they write so gingerly about, so as not to ruffle feathers, is a monstrous force that needs to be contained and restrained, as these left-wing radicals are not merely exercising and expressing their First Amendment right of speech when they threaten the health, safety, and well-being of the citizenry.Is not the mainstream media merely playing, then to a liberal base when it actively supports radical left-wing groups and radical left-wing ideologies? Similarly, when the mainstream media refers to Trump supporters--average Americans, tens of millions of them--not as "patriots" or "conservatives" but as, for example, fascists, does the mainstream media not do so merely because such words as 'patriot' and 'conservative' do not “play well” in the narratives they wish to construct for the American public? It would appear that the mainstream media has deliberately cast a philosophical dichotomy--a very real philosophical dichotomy--in moral terms--good versus evil: where those espousing Left-wing views, whether liberal or radical, as the good; and those espousing right-wing views and values, as inherently evil, as the mainstream media does not distinguish between those members of the public who espouse conservative social, moral, and political values, and those who espouse far right-wing views and values. The dichotomy so conveyed is noticeably, deliberately conveyed in Manichean terms: good versus evil. That is what we see. So, it is that President Trump and his supporters are constantly, unceremoniously referred to and dismissed as fascists, racists, and xenophobes--the forces of evil; and Leftists, whether perceived as "liberal," including "civil libertarians" or radical elements, comprising socialists, communists, and anarchists, are described as forces for good.The mainstream media continues to foist this myth on Americans, casting forces on the left of the political spectrum, however radical the views of Leftists happen to be, as morally good, and casting Trump supporters as morally evil. This is no accident. The stark dichotomy conveyed makes plain that the mainstream media has cast its lot with those elements in society that seek to tear down the traditions, history, core values, and moral ethos of this Nation. The mainstream media is in the pocket of internationalists who intend to upend the very foundation of this Country as an independent, sovereign Nation and Free Republic. Thus, the writings of newspapers and the commentary of talk-show hosts has, day by day, become ever more extreme. There is no longer any attempt to find a "common middle ground," for there can be none. Either this Country continues to exist in accordance with the founders' intentions, as laid out in the U.S. Constitution, or it does not. It is clear what camp the mainstream media falls into.What is really playing out in this Country and across Western Europe is a clash between two mutually exclusive ideologies: those who support a new world order—one in which the notions of ‘nation state’ and ‘citizen’ and ‘national borders' or 'national boundaries’ are perceived as archaic, and those who seek to retain those concepts and to retain the reality represented by those concepts. It is a clash of ideas at the most basic, primary, primal level.It is a clash between two factions. We see, one faction, the Collectivists who seek to destroy the political and social structures of this Nation. These Collectivists seek to destroy the very foundation of the Nation State, a social and political system that has endured for hundreds of years. They seek to subsume all Western Nation States into a new political, social, economic, and cultural paradigm, a global socialist world order, that will see a few inordinately wealthy, powerful rulers, sitting at the top of the political and social pyramid, and billions of serfs, eking out a meager existence at the bottom of the political and social pyramid. Such a system is suggestive of and would effectively operate as modern version of medieval feudalism. The other faction comprises the Individualists, namely those who seek to preserve the political and social structures of the Nation State, and the autonomy of the Individual. In our Nation State--the United States of America--the founders of the Nation had intended, planned, and provided for the existence of and preservation of an independent, sovereign Nation, beholding to no other Nation, and one whose Constitution and laws would not be and would never be subordinated to the Constitution or laws of any other Nation, group of Nations, or any other political, economic, social, and cultural system of any kind.__________________________________________________________8

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN AMERICA NO LONGER REPRESENTS AMERICANS; IT HAS DEVOLVED INTO A TOOL OF THE SOCIALISTS, COMMUNISTS, AND ANARCHISTS.

What has become of the Democratic Party in America that once existed—one that ostensibly represented the common working man in the United States but now has forsaken him and embraces millions of non-Americans, along with the alien cultures of those who would destroy our history, our traditions, our core values, and drain our economy dry? Is this not in fact the plan of Democrats? Is not their goal to tear down our institutions, to rewrite our history, to abrogate our laws and Constitution, to demolish the fabric of our society and to destroy the very core being of what it means to be an American? Cannot this be inferred from recent words and actions of Congressional Democrats?The Democratic Party once included moderates and conservatives--so-called, "Blue-Dog" Democrats, but no longer. The Democratic Party is now a bastion of left-wing radicals. In fact, the Democratic Party isn’t even trying to hide the fact that it has become the haven of socialists, anarchists, and communists, all of whom are heavily financed by transnationalist billionaires who seek to undermine all Western Nation States and to subsume them into a new, One-world Government that they alone control. These individuals owe no allegiance to any Nation State, as they seek to destroy all Nation States. They have been plotting for decades in their horrific attempt to create a new paradigm for the world—one devoid of independent, Sovereign Nation States and one devoid of a free citizenry.No longer is the world to be run by Nation States, but, rather, the world is to be run by them—this corporate and financial elite.This corporate and financial elite are using the radical Left as a tool, a cudgel against those populations of nations that seek to retain their National identity; their core values; their traditions and history. And, it is using the mainstream media to sanction the despicable actions of this radical Left.These transnationalists are deliberately wreaking havoc throughout the civilized Western Nations of the world, in order to bring them to heel, into a one world government—a world without national borders; a world that they seek to dominate with their money, organization, reach, and clout. The populations throughout the world will be reduced to penury, serfdom.The U.S. need only learn from the EU. This federation of Nation States is being reconfigured into a system where Nation States cease to exist; where the influx of millions of poorly educated, destitute migrants and refugees from third world countries are shepherded into the EU to undermine national identity; to destroy the very fabric of societal cohesion. This has occurred, and is still occurring in the EU; and it is happening in the U.S., too, as these transnationalist billionaires orchestrate “caravans” of tens of thousands of migrants to infest the U.S. Through their presence it is expected that these migrants will, by sheer force of numbers, weaken the social, cultural, economic, legal, and political structural foundation and functioning of our Country and its institutions and, as well, weaken, the bonds that tie Americans together.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND THEIR “FAKE NEWS” ARE CO-CONSPIRATORS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE NATION.

The reach of the billionaire transnationalists like the Rothschild clan, and George Soros, and Tom Steyer, and others like them, is world-wide. They intend to bring the U.S. into their cunning, loathsome grasp. Since we know who they are, the question is why the Press is not investigating these people. The Press keeps their identity, their connections to the Democrats and to the radical Left hidden, secretive. The radical Left needs funding, massive funding to operate, and these billionaire transnationalists provide that funding.Caravans of millions of illegal migrants and refugees and the mass demonstrations and marches in this Country don’t just happen on their own. They require organization and financing: millions of dollars. The New York Times alludes to this but leaves the answer, as to whom it is that is providing the funding, tantalizing cryptic, claiming, they don’t know who is behind these massive movements of people across our border and the massive demonstrations in this Country. That presumes of course a tacit admission, an acknowledgment, of the existence of a powerful, wealthy “hand” in all of this. We might then ask: why it is that well-financed news organizations don’t investigate this, bring the matter to light? But, then, we know the answer. The mainstream media, this Press, is a co-conspirator in the effort to savage our Nation. The Press is  a member of this “Collectivist”  faction that seeks to destroy this Nation and that seeks to shred the very Constitution of the United States under which the Nation operates. The Press  has therefore betrayed a trust owed to the people of this Country. This Press therefore hardly deserves the Freedom of the Press under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that it so jealously guards.We know, then, who the major players are in this vast conspiracy to derail the Administration of the U.S. President, Donald Trump; to undermine the Nation's Constitution; and to undercut the Nation's history, the Nation's traditions, and the Nation's core values. They include Congressional Democrats, and radical Leftist elements. They include as well, several Congressional Republicans, those who slur the President, the so-called, "Never Trumpers." They include the mainstream media. They include Hollywood moguls and Hollywood actors. They include billionaire globalists, including the CEOs of major multinational companies. And, they include Federal Government Bureaucrats of the "Deep State." There are many, many forces at work that have been working for decades to destroy the Nation that so many in this Country have sacrificed to protect--many with their lives.This November, the American public shall determine whether the forces that seek to undermine this Nation and its Constitution will prevail or not. If Republicans can maintain majorities in both Houses of Congress that will definitely help in keeping the forces of Collectivism at bay. To be sure, that, alone, will not be enough to defeat the Collectivists' agenda, but it will, nonetheless, go a long way toward protecting our Nation and its Constitution against the Collectivists' insurgency. This is no time to relax. Midterm elections--this Midterm election in particular--is critical to the survival of our Nation. Keep in mind that the forces that seek to crush this Nation and its citizenry into submission are well-organized and well-funded, and have many decades of successful effort expended in laying the groundwork to see their goals for a one world government, eventually, realized. Whether they ultimately succeed or not, is up to you, the voter. You will determine the kind of Nation you wish to live in--indeed, whether you will continue to live in a Nation at all.__________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WALKAWAY MARCH AND RALLY

ARBALEST QUARREL CONTRIBUTING WRITER SERIES

"Why I chose to 'WalkAway' from the Democratic Party," By Tammy LaPorte, Hartford, Connecticut*

I was raised as a young woman to believe that the Democratic Party was the party that cared for all people. They were the party of acceptance, tolerance, and peace, unlike Republicans, I was told. Not once did I question why I was a registered Democrat. In hindsight this was incredibly foolish. Like others, I wanted to be a good person and a lover of all, regardless of a person’s race, color, or personal preferences. After all, you can’t possibly be a Republican and care for the welfare of others. Or can you?My “aha” moment came during the 2016 General Election Primary. I began following the Primary debates religiously on all networks. As time passed, I found myself drawn to the Republican Party. That Party made more sense to me. Much more sense. Not once did I see Republicans engage in the outrageous and appalling behavior of Democrats and those associated with them, on the far “Left.” Violent protests, vandalism, and threats to our courageous men and women in “Blue,” were becoming the norm. And Democrats were attempting to justify this behavior. I could not accept that. It wasn’t long before I turned to my husband and said, “I think I’ve been a Republican my whole life but just didn’t realize it!”Today, I can proudly say, I’m a registered Republican. As a proud Republican, I continue to be engaged in politics like never before.Listening to Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh was particularly hard for me, as a woman. I asked myself, “could the accusation against Judge Kavanaugh really be true?” Once again, I was told that I should believe Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation simply because she is a woman and because I am a woman. I was told what I should think and feel, based on my gender, alone. But, I have the right to think and feel for myself. I don’t need and I don’t want other people to tell me what I should think; or what I should believe; or how I should act. As a woman, wife, and mother I strongly believe in Due Process as a fundamental Constitutional right.During this difficult time, I happened to see Brandon Straka, a self-confessed former “liberal,” on Fox News, speaking about his growing movement, the #WalkAway Campaign. I was thrilled to hear that I need no longer be alone in my political journey. Through this true Grassroots movement many Americans, including former registered Democrats, like me, have united to carry the message that:You too can #WalkAway from the Democratic Party—the Party that has walked away from you!To show Democrats and the Far Left that there is, in fact, another voice in America, the #WalkAway Campaign is holding a March and rally in Washington D.C., on October 26-28.   There will be an evening Gala dinner at the Trump International Hotel, on Friday, the day before the march. Dinesh D’Souza a conservative author, filmmaker, and political commentator, and others, will be speaking.The march and rally itself will be held late Saturday morning, and will include several noted speakers. In addition, the entertainer, Kaya Jones, and others, will perform at the rally.The march will conclude with a Sunday farewell brunch at the Trump International Hotel, again with Dinesh D’Souza, as a speaker.U.S. Capitol Police, Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police, and Homeland Security agents and officers will be on hand to maintain order, and to provide for the safety, security, and well-being of those participating in the march and rally.Right Side Broadcasting will live stream the march. Go to https://walkawaymarch.com/  to register for the events today and to charter a group bus.It’s time for the silent majority to become “unsilent.” Whether you’re a #WalkAway or a #WalkWith, we urge you to take part in the march and rally in Washington D.C, on October 26-28.  We’re taking our Country back! Please join us!_____________________________________________*Qualification: The Arbalest Quarrel became aware of the #WalkAway march and rally through the writer of this article. AQ has no independent knowledge about the #WalkAway march and rally, or about the #WalkAway movement, or knowledge of the movement's creator, Brandon Straka. We therefore invite the reader to do his or her own research. But, AQ does point out that the Connecticut Republican Party supports the #WalkAway march and rally. And, a writer, Fredy Lowe, posted an article, in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on August 7, 2018, about the #WalkAway movement. The article is titled, “Liberal Democrats, Please Join Us in MAGA, Please Just #WalkAway.”________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE MODERN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR: A CLASH OF IDEOLOGIES

PART THREE*

“A closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. These different premises—often implicit—are what provide the consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and groups on numerous, unrelated issues. They have different visions of how the world works.” ~ from A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell, Economist and Social Theorist; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.“You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve YOUR freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it.” ~John Adams“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.” ~Benjamin Franklin

A CLASH OF IDEOLOGIES; A NATION AT A CROSSROADS**

No one can reasonably doubt that the United States is in the throes of a major cataclysmic event. Two factions face off against each other in mortal combat for the soul and psyche of this Country. We see, in the desperation of one faction, the lengths at which it will go in its bid to regain control of its agenda. That faction through its proxies in Washington, comprising Congressional Democrats and Centrist “Bush” and “McCain” Republicans, has maintained control for the last three decades. That faction has exerted a stranglehold on the Country, slowly squeezing the lifeblood out of the Nation and its citizenry through control, inter alia, of Congress; the Federal bureaucracy; the federal courts; the mass media; and, of course, through the Federal Reserve, part of the Central Banking system--the brainchild of Mayer Amschel Rothschild--that has extended its tentacles around the world, up to the present day.The Leftist faction was well on its way toward completing the items on its agenda, as Barack Obama was ticking off the items during his two terms in Office. Hillary Clinton was poised to be elected U.S. President. Leftists of all stripes were smugly confident. After all, hadn't virtually all the exit polls predict a win--a landslide. They were certain that Hillary Clinton would secure the U.S. Presidency.Even if many on the Left would have preferred the Socialist, Bernie Sanders, as President, they knew, full well, that Hillary Clinton, would faithfully proceed, in the footsteps of her predecessor, Barack Obama, toward accomplishment of the Leftist agenda.Had Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, she likely would have re-nominated Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to the high Court; or, if not him, then she certainly would have nominated someone like him, someone who shares Judge Garland's jurisprudential philosophy and jurisprudential approach to case analysis--a man who had no fear of legislating from the Bench; a man who would contort and distort the dictates of the U.S. Constitution beyond anything the framers of that historic and sacred Document had intended or would have wished for. And, with control of two critical Federal Branches, the Executive and Judiciary, along with control of the mass media apparatus and the massive federal bureaucracy, the actual composition of Congress would, likely, have been, at least, in the short term of less critical importance. But, Clinton did not make it into the White House. Leftists, in our Country, including the internationalist billionaire benefactors of Leftist groups and causes, were thunderstruck, and they were already plotting their revenge, even before Donald Trump took the Oath of Office, as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

SEATING JURISTS ON THE SUPREME COURT WHOSE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACH TO CASE ANALYSIS COMMENCES WITH AN ABIDING LOVE FOR, DUE RESPECT FOR, AND DUE REGARD GIVEN FOR THE IMPORT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN, AND WHO INTERPRET FEDERAL STATUTE ACCORDING TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE TEXT, WAS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT GOALS IF NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT GOAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS IT MOST CERTAINLY WAS FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR HIM.

With the surprising election of Donald Trump as our Nation’s 45^th President, and with Republican control of Congress—especially, the U.S. Senate—and too, with Trump’s nomination of one strict Constitutional constructionist and originalist, Neil Gorsuch, presently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, and a second strict Constitutional constructionist and originalist, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, just confirmed as Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court now securely has a conservative-wing majority, albeit with one important caveat. Chief Justice Roberts is considered the new swing vote moderate. Chief Justice Roberts is, though, a more reliable conservative than retired Justice, Anthony Kennedy. So, where does this leave Leftists, and their agenda?Leftists and Leftist mobs are left scurrying about hither and yon; ranting and raving. The Leftist agenda seems to be on the verge of collapse or, if not, then, for the moment at least, the work of effectuating the Leftist agenda has certainly appreciably slowed. And, with the Left's failure to derail Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the high Court, that critical item of the Leftist agenda--preventing a conservative-wing majority, is a failed item. And the Leftist faction knows it. Leftists know that federal and State legislation that fails to cohere with the United States Constitution will not be allowed to go unchallenged. They know that, with Brett Kavanaugh on the high Court, those challenges will be taken up for high Court review. An "assault weapons" case, like the Kolbe and Friedman, would henceforth be heard. Leftists know that, if lower Courts continue to ignore the precedents of Heller and McDonald with impunity, there will now be a day of reckoning, and those lower Courts that so act with impunity will be called on the carpet for it.Democratic Party control of the Judiciary, is, then, critical to completion of the Leftist agenda and that can only be accomplished through election of a Democrat as U.S. President, along with Democratic Party control of the Senate. Failure to win the White House in 2016, and failure to control the Senate explains why Democrats have, themselves, gone off the rails in their attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court.And Americans have seen just how far Democrats are willing to go. After Judge Kavanaugh acquitted himself well in defending the vicious personal assault against him, they would not, could not admit even that much. Democrats speciously, even ridiculously, claimed that Judge Brett Kavanaugh has shown that he is unfit, temperamentally, to sit on the high Court, ostensibly because he happened to have the seeming audacity of displaying emotion and in having displayed righteous indignation in defending his character, his reputation, and his honor against a scurrilous, flimsy, rambling, barefaced, unsupported, uncorroborated public attack; an attack engineered by the Democratic Party leadership and by those Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as they desperately sought to prevent, by any means they could drum up, the Senate confirmation of a highly qualified Judge--however outrageous, patently unethical, and, perhaps, even illegal those means may be.These "Leftists" cared not one whit that they would be damaging, possibly, irreparably, the character and reputation of an honorable man. And they cared not at all that doing so would also endanger the life, safety, and well-being of Judge Kavanaugh and that of his family. They operated callously, maliciously, and reprehensibly, completely beyond the bounds of reason, and ethics, and human decency. Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee are utterly shameless. Their machinations and subterfuge rest well beyond the pale of human decency, let alone beyond the pale of what would count as proper U.S. Senate etiquette, decorum, and propriety. Americans have not, for decades, seen anything like the public spectacle they bore witness to that took place over several days of Confirmation Hearing. Democrats appeared, by turns, as circus clowns, sanctimonious inquisitors, and, as members of a cabaret burlesque troupe--many things, indeed, but not solemn, dignified members of the United States Senate, that a few Americans might have mistaken them to be.The disgusting displays of Democrats during the course of the Hearing, and the actions orchestrated by Democrats and by their allies behind the scenes is just a foretaste of what the American public may come to see, and would have every reason to expect if a liberal-wing Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps, or Stephen Breyer, retires or resigns from the high Court before President Trump’s first term in Office ends, and President Trump thereupon nominates a third Judge to sit on the high Court. Keep in mind that, according to USA Today, Justice Ginsburg is 85 years of age, and Justice Breyer is 79.If one more conservative-wing Trump nominee can be confirmed--assuming one of the liberal-wing Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer, retires--the conservative-wing majority, barring any unforeseen event, will be stronger yet, virtually impervious to Leftist attempts to complete the hijacking of the Nation and the Nation's  Constitution. The Leftist faction knows that it has suffered a profound defeat having failed to derail the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh or at least to delay a vote on the confirmation until after the 2018 Midterm elections, when it hopes to gain Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

LEFTISTS KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THE COMING MIDTERM ELECTIONS. CONSERVATIVES SHOULD KNOW WHAT IS AT STAKE, TOO.

So, with the 2018 Midterm elections around the corner, Leftists are frantically, frenetically engaged in  sketching out new strategies in a bid to regain traction so that they can continue jumpstart the Leftist agenda. Republicans must not sit back and relax.The Leftist leadership, Congressional Democrats, and their billionaire internationalist benefactors know this; they know that they have been hamstrung, and they are literally exploding with rage. They have no cogent argument to make in their defense. Mobs of activists are enlisted to shout down conservative voices and anyone else who disagrees with the Leftist agenda. Mass demonstrations, violent outbursts, visible threats to those they target all point to the singular desperation of this faction. They can do nothing now, but flail about. So, the first order of business for Leftists is for Democrats to regain control of the U.S. Senate. But, even with a substantial number of reliable Democrats in the Senate, along with several swing votes in the U.S. Senate, that would not mean that more Democratic nominees for Federal Court seats, at all levels, would be confirmed. For, only the President of the United States can nominate federal judges, although Democrats can and in fact have blocked confirmation of many of Trump's nominees to sit on the lower federal Courts. So, then, the second order of business for Leftists is to make sure that Democrats can regain and hold control of the U.S. Senate through 2020 with the goal then of retaking the U.S. Presidency with a reliable Leftist. Once that step is accomplished, Democrats will be able once again to nominate reliably Leftist judges to sit on the federal Judiciary and will be able to confirm those Leftist Judges. Then Leftists will find themselves in a stronger position to reset the political and social direction of the Country, albeit with a little more difficulty now that the highest Court in the Land sits a reliable four Justice Conservative wing + one moderate/conservative Chief Justice majority.

CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME AMERICANS MAY THINK, THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THIS NATION IS DIRE. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A CIVIL WAR.

We see two distinctive political/social factions fighting for control of the Country's direction. Two visions for our Country are coming into sharp focus, into sharp relief. Whichever side ultimately prevails will see its world view realized. But, what are those two world views? How would each vision, if realized, affect this Country, and affect the lives of the Country's citizenry and affect the Constitution upon which the foundation of our Nation rests? We begin with this assertion: the two visions--the two world views--for this Country and for its people, rest on two mutually exclusive frameworks. Only one of the two can be realized. Democrats are a proxy for one vision. Republicans are a proxy for the second. It is not, then, a simple matter of a Republicans versus Democrats conflict that we are seeing. That is too simplistic. To frame the issue in terms of Republicans versus Democrats trivializes the matter before us.We are engaged in a Civil War. The central question before the Nation, then, can be stated thusly:Shall the Country continue to exist as an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic as the founders conceived and intended, with the Nation’s Constitution, laws, and judiciary intact and supreme, subordinated to no external system of laws and external tribunals; or, will the Country, as an independent Sovereign Nation and Free Republic, see its status as a singular, unique, independent, sovereign Nation State, at once diminished, impaired, or severely truncated?If the independence and sovereignty of the United States is impaired, we must consider a corollary question, namely, whether the supremacy of the Nation’s Constitution, its laws, and jurisprudence will similarly be impaired. And, if the United States finds its sovereignty and independence curtailed by pacts and treaties it happens to enter into with foreign entities through which such foreign elements insinuate their power and authority over this Country’s Government and institutions, will we then see the United States, as an independent sovereign political entity, subsumed into a new transnational political, economic, financial, and social framework, requiring that the Nation’s system of laws be subordinated to or otherwise replaced by foreign law and foreign jurisprudence? If such events were to occur, then this Nation and its Constitution will, de facto, cease to exist.If such were to occur we would see the United States and the American people effectively subordinated to the governance and will of a new transnational political, economic, financial, and social system to which the Nation would henceforth belong. This is not conspiracy. This is not alternative history. This is fact. The events that have played out before us in recent months dispel perfunctory dismissal of the seriousness of the situation facing the Nation and its people. We have seen clear and categorical attacks on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We have seen lower U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal flaunting the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and flaunting the President's Article 2 powers. We have seen indisputable, irrefutable evidence of high level federal bureaucrats having conspired against and continuing to conspire against the United State President; and we have seen indisputable, irrefutable evidence of high level bureaucrats actively attempting to sabotage the Administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. We have seen indisputable, irrefutable evidence of  the leadership of a few States openly defying Federal law; and in open revolt against Federal Officers tasked with enforcing Federal law. We see a Press, misusing its sacred right under the First Amendment. It has undertaken a campaign of disinformation and misinformation. It routinely smears the President, in a reprehensible attempt to discredit him, to isolate him, to prevent him from doing his job on behalf of the American people; and, in that reprehensible attack on the President, the Press has also attacked the very institution of Office of the U.S. Presidency, and, in so doing, has attacked our institutions, our Nation, and our people. We have seen an insidious attempt to question the sanctity of the very notions of, 'Nation State,' and of  'Citizen of the United States.' We see raging mobs in the Streets, on university campuses, and in the Halls of Congress. We have seen lunatics harassing both Government officials and members of Congress. We see sacred statues toppled; history rewritten; our Nation's Flag disrespected; our system of laws defied. None of this is accident. It is all by design.Ever since Donald Trump assumed the mantle of President of the United States, the ruthless, secretive, seditious, extraordinarily powerful, and inordinately wealthy forces that have worked to disassemble this Nation, have had to come out of the shadows, albeit reluctantly. What they could not accomplish quietly, within the interstices of the Nation's laws and institutions, they have come to realize they must use brute force. These forces are fomenting violence, anarchy, in a crude but, as they see it, necessary attempt, to force the Country back on the path they had established for the Country, a path that the Clintons, and Bush, and Obama--the willing accomplices of the Leftist agenda--had quietly, inexorably directed this Nation and its people to.As we continue to explore the two visions of the Country--one ascribed to the Leftist agenda, and the second ascribed to the Conservative cause--we need to take a closer look at the two factions--one of whom we have referred to here as "Leftist" and the other that we have alluded to as "Conservative." We must take a closer look at these two factions, and we begin with a consideration of the labels heretofore used as descriptors for them, even as we find all those descriptors  to be inapt. We explain why. We then consider better descriptors that better encapsulate the beliefs, precepts, assumptions, aims, and ultimate goals of each faction, each side, in this conflict. We will then take a close look at several of those beliefs, precepts, assumptions, and aims, and show the logical end point realizations of each.

WHAT EXPRESSIONS BEST DESCRIBE THE TWO FACTIONS?

In describing the two factions, the two combatants, we have considered various terminology and rejected that terminology because we considered the verbiage are either vague and ambiguous, and therefore likely to create confusion, or too narrow in scope or range, and therefore deficient as descriptors. We have heretofore employed the expressions, ‘Democrat,’ ‘Leftist’, ‘Progressive,’ ‘Liberal,’ and ‘Radical’ loosely and often interchangeably to denote one faction. And, we have employed the expressions, ‘Republican,’ ‘Conservative,’ and ‘Populist’, loosely, often interchangeably to denote the other faction. But, these expressions, as well, are too vague or ambiguous and too limited in range to be effective for our purpose here. Furthermore, they have been so overused that they are tantamount to clichés. A couple of the expressions may be considered to be, simply, pejoratives. Lastly, a few of the expressions,  may readily, or, at least, arguably suggest ideas, beliefs, and precepts of  both factions, as there exists significant overlap. Or, the expressions are simply and essentially empty and vacuous vessels, and so serve no useful, functional purpose.We have also considered using the expressions, ‘Globalist’ or ‘Internationalist’ or ‘Transnationalist’ to describe one faction and the expression, ‘Nationalist’ to describe the other faction. But these expressions as delineated come up short as apt descriptors, as they, too, have been overused; are, in fact, inaccurate descriptors; and, in reference to the term, ‘Nationalist,’ have been used as a term of  disparagement, as the mainstream media, when writing or talking about President Trump or anyone who supports him, equates the President’s nationalist fervor with fascism, even though President Trump is clearly not a fascist and the term ‘nationalism’ does not denote ‘fascism’ and should not be construed as synonymous with ‘fascism.’ But, the allusions are there, operating as a meme.A well-learned attorney, and legal scholar with whom we have discussed the matter, suggested that the expressions, ‘Collectivist,’ and ‘Individualist’ are the best terminology to be used to describe the belief system of a member of one faction or the other.’ And we concur. These two expressions are precise, carry no connotation of disparagement, have not heretofore been used by anyone, to our knowledge, to describe the two factions; and broadly embrace all beliefs, precepts, presuppositions and aims of the two groups facing off in this modern civil war taking place in America, but without any overlap. Therefore, mutual exclusivity in both the connotation and denotation of the expressions, as applied to each of the respective groups, is faithfully maintained. The expressions, ‘Collectivist’ and ‘Individualist,’ then, are the two expressions we will use as referrers and descriptors for each of the two factions at war with each other.Now, let us consider several of the basic belief systems, precepts, and ultimate goal and logical outcome of the Collectivist and Individualist philosophies. We will see in this delineated list two competing visions for our Country, one of which, taken to its logical conclusion, results in the ultimate dissolution of the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, together with the dissolution of the Nation’s Constitution and system of laws, and the other which preserves the Country as an independent, Sovereign Nation State, with its Constitution and laws intact.We thus have two distinct, mutually exclusive visions of the Country and of the world; two distinct notions of law and government, and of the relationship of man to government and to each other—two distinct visions, only one which can be realized; and two ever diverging paths, only one, of which, our Nation can take! Our Nation is at a crossroads.

COLLECTIVISTS VERSUS INDIVIDUALISTS

COLLECTIVISTS’ BELIEFS, PRECEPTS, PRESUPPOSITIONS AND AIMS APROPOS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY

1) The ‘nation state’ is an archaic concept. The United States must eventually be subsumed into a new transnational political, economic, cultural, and social framework. This new framework will consist of the relics of the old western nation states, to be overseen by a world financial and technocratic conglomerate that will prescribe uniform rules of operation, behavior, and conduct of the various units and populations within it.2) Since the concept of ‘citizen’ is tied to rights and liberties, privileges and immunities of a select group of people within the nation state, called “The United States Of America,” and, as this nation state, as a political construct, is, eventually, to be dismantled, a concept of ‘citizen of The United States’ will no longer be meaningful. Individuals who were once perceived as citizens of The United States will henceforth be considered “subjects” within a greater, transnational political, economic, financial, cultural, system of governance, comprising people of diverse cultures.3) Diverse populations of people who inhabit vast regions throughout the world are henceforth to be integrated into a new global political and social and economic and financial and cultural world community.4) Since there nation states will no longer exist, there will no longer exist national borders to be protected. Hence, the subjects of this new transnational political, social, economic and cultural paradigm are free to travel to and reside in any geographical unit within the span or global reach of the new system of governance that the subject wishes to travel to and reside in. Such entry and exit points that had once demarcated geographical borders of nation states dismantled are henceforth erased.5) The U.S. Constitution which includes the rights and liberties of the citizens, codified in the Bill Of Rights, is meaningful only within the context of The United States, as an independent sovereign nation state. Once the United States ceases to exist, it follows that the U.S. constitution will be rendered ineffective and obsolete. Hence the political entity that existed as “The United States” is dissolved, along with the various states within the Union. The Nation will be subsumed within the new broad transnational system of global governance. 6) The U.S. Constitution need not be formally repealed. It simply will, upon the formal dismantling of The United States, have no legal force or effect. the governing board—the rulers—of this new system of global governance will prepare and implement a new legal and administrative framework for the system’s governance. This new legal and administrative framework—consisting of a new system of laws, rules, regulations, along with a new jurisprudential philosophy and methodology for handling civil disputes that happen to arise and criminal conduct that must be adjudicated—will be established, handled through civil and criminal tribunals, dispersed throughout the global system of governance. A constitution for the vast populations residing in this new world order may or may not be drafted. It may be useful, but is not required. The global system of governance will control the populace with a vast network of intelligence and police apparatuses. a standing army, with barracks throughout the global system of governance will also be established and maintained. 7) All populations that reside in the new global political and social, and economic framework are subject to the jurisdiction of this new transnational system of governance. This transnational system of governance will be created and enforced by overseers, appointed by the new global governing board, to mete out justice and to set forth those privileges the subjects may have and enjoy. such privileges that the subjects of this global system of governance enjoy may be refined, modified, or eliminated, as the global governing board sees fit. 8) Substantive and procedural rights are perceived as all man-made constructs. since it is decreed that, for political purposes, no creator exists, it follows, there are no natural fundamental rights intrinsic to man, endowed by a creator upon man. such rights and liberties that subjects have are deemed mere platitudes as subjects have no inherent rights or liberties as such, but, rather, privileges bestowed upon them, denoted by licenses, that are presented to subjects by the overseers of the new transnational system of global governance. licenses shall be surrendered to the overseers on demand or as prescribed by such laws and regulations, seen as edicts, that the governing board happens to create. and, since rights and liberties are no more than or other than licenses bestowed on subjects, they can easily be ceded to the overseers upon demand. It shall be declared, then, that no subject within the new transnational system of governance can claim any right or liberty as a matter of personal right, as no such personal rights exist inherently in man.9) Thus, all rights, privileges, and liberties are considered man-made constructs and artifices. The governing board may, at its pleasure, modify or eliminate outright such rights, liberties, and privileges as it deems necessary, as the members of the governing board hold exclusive power and authority throughout the reach of the global system of governance.10) The ethical system utilized by the governing board of this transnational system of governance, as applied to the subjects therein, is based on the notion of utilitarian consequentialism. This is a system of ethics in which “the good” is defined in terms of ‘utility’ maximization. What constitutes ‘the good’ is anything the rulers of this transnational system of governance, through their overseers, define ‘the good’ as applied to and as maximized for the greatest number of people.11) Morality: the concept of ‘moral good’ is determined by the consequences of one’s actions alone—not by one’s intention to do a good or evil act. What constitutes “moral goodness” in the broadest sense is, then, that which benefits the collective—the majority of people. What benefits the collective, does not necessarily also benefit the individual. In fact, what benefits the collective may be deleterious and detrimental to the individual. Thus, for example, if the ownership of firearms for self-defense is considered beneficial to the individual but detrimental to the masses, then firearms’ ownership must be curtailed. Similarly, if free speech, and free association among particular groups are deemed to harm collective cohesion, then freedom of speech and freedom of association are inferred to be contrary to maintenance of the ‘moral good,’ the moral fiber of the populations and must be constrained. Acts that neither benefit the collective nor are deemed harmful to the collective are considered to be morally neutral. Morally neutral acts are acts that can be tolerated.12) Results desired outweigh adherence to any constitution created or to any laws established. If the results to be achieved conflicts with the law as applied, then, the law must give way to the result to be achieved. Thus, the political or social end to be achieved or desired shall always override the constitution, if there is one, or such laws, rules, and regulations that are made. If, then, a desired political or social end to be achieved or desired can be achieved in no way other than by ignoring, suspending, or abrogating such laws, rules, and regulations, then such laws, rules and laws shall be suspended, abrogated, or simply ignored. Thus, the means to be achieved always justifies the end sought. thus, all laws, rules, regulations, or codes of conduct are merely ad hoc and, therefore, ultimately illusory.13) Thus, “law” is whatever the governing board essentially says law is. The governing board may create or suspend law by simple proclamation or government edict. Law is adjusted by demand or need to obtain a particular result. Order is maintained by force. the governing Board may, periodically, create disorder, too, as a political device to achieve their goals. 14) Individual ambition and motivation and desire is contained and constrained. It is collective will—the will of the masses—shaped, molded and periodically contorted, distorted, and then reshaped, remolded and reconfigured by the rulers as to garner, essentially a condition of neutral political stasis. It is this state of neutral stasis that is ultimately desired. So, it is that neutral stasis that is considered the “ultimate good” and it is thus that utility is maximized, and “the will” of the masses—“the will” of the collective is achieved. 15)The vast populations of the world that fall under the domain of this new transnational system of global governance will be reduced to penury and servitude.16) “Popular opinion” overrides the effect and impact of the constitution, if there is one, and overrides such laws that are created. But, ‘popular opinion’ as understood by collectivists is less a spontaneous public response to perceived grievances, emanating from the public, and more a political and social device, used by those who wield power to create the illusion that the masses, the collective ‘will,” wields power to affect political and social change and that the desire to do so emanates from the masses. It does not.  Popular opinion is driven by the demand of those in power to achieve a desired end, as power—its creation and use—falls within the purview of government, not the people. This illustrates, once again, that all law is ad hoc for the collectivist. Law, as such, is an artifice, another tool of government to be used as a mechanism of control. The transnational system of governance is a system of governance ruled by men—the rulers of this transnational system of governance; it is not a system ruled by law.17) Individuals, or groups of individuals, that, from time to time, happen to rise up against the global system of governance will be quashed by the police and army, if necessary. but, generally, the governing board will use the subjects, themselves, to constrain dissent. use of the populace itself, as a self-righteous horde, is preferred, to maintain order, as police and army standby at the ready. the illusion is maintained that the populace—the collective, the masses, themselves—are the rulers, as this fosters the false notion that it is the collective will that operates to create cohesion, order, and perpetual harmony in society. But that notion is the supreme, ultimate myth since governmental power and authority does not rest in the people, but in government itself and government is not answerable to the people, but only to itself, as it is the ruling “elite”—ever shadowy and secretive, who wield actual power and authority.18) Eventually, the unique history, culture, traditions, and values that identify the peoples of the various independent nation states will be forgotten, dissolved in the mists of the past. A new history will be drafted; a new culture, set of traditions, and set of core values will be created for this new amorphous mass of people that inhabit the vast lands overseen by the rulers of this global system of governance. A single currency will be used throughout the system of governance, and a single language adopted throughout the realm. the ministers of propaganda will periodically monitor and revise language to maintain homogeneity in thought and action among the subjects of this vast global system of governance.The vision of the proponents of Collectivism is inconsistent with the vision the founders of our Nation had for our Country. In fact, it is anathema to the vision of our founders.In the next segment we look at the founder’s vision. It is the vision of Individualism, and, up to this point in time, it has prevailed, albeit Collectivists have been slowly, quietly replacing it with their own vision.With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, Collectivists have had to come out of the shadows. Their vision for the Country is on full display through the antics of Democrats and through raging mobs of agitators, and, through the creation of and utilization of “false flag” operations. Collectivists are testing the limits of the American public’s patience for and tolerance to the changes they seek to impose on the Nation. They are doing this to soften the resolve of the American people; to disassemble the legal, social, financial, economic, and political framework and fabric of this Nation in order to pave the way for the ultimate dismantling of the Country as an independent Sovereign Nation State, thereby paving the way for the Country’s inclusion into a new transnational, global system of governance. If anyone should doubt what Collectivists are planning, keep in mind the steps they have taken to date that, even a few short years ago would have been so ludicrous as to be dismissed out-of-hand. Many of these Collectivists have, in fact, called for massive revision of the Constitution, and an end to the very concepts of ‘nation’ and ‘citizen’ as commonly understood and defined.Collectivists have lost power to effectuate the changes they seek, the changes to society that had been quietly unfolding through the the administrations of two Bushes; Bill Clinton; and Barack Obama; and which would have continued through the administration of a second Clinton, Hillary, or that of a third Bush, Jeb.  INDIVIDUALISTS' BELIEFS, PRECEPTS, PRESUPPOSITIONS AND AIMS1) the concept of the ‘nation state’ is not archaic. it is not to be perceived as applicable only to past eras. it is as basic and fundamental, and pertinent, and useful a construct today as in any past century. And, The United States as a Nation State is to be understood as an independent sovereign entity, neither beholding to nor subordinated to any other nation, commonwealth of nations federation of nations, or governmental entity of any kind; nor beholding to or subordinated to any one individual or group of individuals or to any corporate or financial entity of any shape or kind.2) The United States is a political construct, created by the people of The United States, through the nation's Constitution. Since the Nation and its Government were created by the people, the Nation and its government can only be dismantled by the people of The United States, if they so wish, in accordance with the Constitution they conceived, ratified, and implemented, or where the existence of tyranny in, of, or by government so demands it. 3) The federal government created by the people of The United States has only such power and authority as codified in the Constitution of The United States. The powers and authority of the federal government are limited, created by the people, through the Constitution. Ultimate power and authority rests with and vests in the people themselves, not in government.4) The concept of ‘citizen’ is tied inextricably to the concept of a ‘nation state.’ Certain rights and liberties, privileges and immunities exist for those people who are deemed citizens. 5) Rights and liberties, privileges and immunities cannot be and must not be summarily curtailed, contained, restrained, or erased, except as prescribed by and in full accord with and compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States. And, those rights and liberties deemed fundamental, natural, unalienable, as set forth in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, can never be eliminated by law or even by the Constitution, as those rights exist independent of the Constitution—are simply codifications of rights existent in the American citizen, him or herself. As codifications of preexistent rights and liberties they serve merely as reminders to those servants of the people, in government, that such fundamental, natural rights are bequeathed to man by the Creator. They are not privileges bestowed to man by government. If the servants of the people forget that fact, there is one right in particular—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—shall forever remain as a potent reminder to those who serve the people that true power and authority rightfully exists, has always existed, and shall always exist in the people themselves, and not in their servants. Thus, among the unenumerated rights and liberties of the citizenry, such specific fundamental, unalienable, natural rights and liberties exist are so indelibly linked to the Nation as a free Republic, that the containment or abrogation of those rights and liberties is equivalent to the destruction of the Nation as a free Republic.6) As the United States is an independent, sovereign nation, its Constitution and laws can never lawfully be abrogated or subordinated to the laws of any other nation or international or transnational body, federation, or commonwealth of nations. Thus, no person, group of people, nation, federation of nations, or entity of any kind outside the U.S. has authority over, nor shall such person or entity lawfully exert authority or power over the United States or its citizenry.7) As no person, group of people, nation, federation of nations, or entity of any kind external to the U.S. has authority over, or can lawfully exert authority or power over the United States or over its citizenry, similarly, no person, group of people or influences internal to the U.S. shall operate to relinquish authority of the Nation to an external power or force of any kind; nor shall any person or group of people or influences within this Nation denigrate or subvert the ultimate and absolute authority of the citizenry of this Nation; nor shall any person, or group of people or influences within the Country restrain or subvert the sanctity of the autonomy of the individual citizen 8) As a legitimate, independent, sovereign ‘nation state,’ the geographical borders of The United States are physically demarcated. the government of the United States has the right and the duty to protect the integrity of its borders from any intrusion by aliens who dare to cross the nation’s borders illegally and who dare remain in this country illegally.9) Thus, no one, not a citizen of the United States, can claim entry into this country as a matter of right, but may only enter and remain in the United States as the laws of this Nation and the Nation’s Constitution so prescribe.10) Those individuals who presume to enter this country as a matter of right, and do so, in a manner inconsistent with the nation’s laws and Constitution, have illegally transgressed the nation’s laws and Constitution. Such individuals are deemed, ‘illegal aliens,’ not ‘undocumented aliens’ nor ‘undocumented immigrants,’ nor ‘nondocumented citizens.’ When individuals have transgressed our Nation’s laws, they are not privileged to remain within our nation’s boundaries; nor are they entitled to the full panoply of rights and liberties, privileges and immunities that exist for the American citizen. Thus, those individuals, who enter this country illegally, are subject to prosecution and either confinement or deportation, as dictated by law and by the U.S. Constitution, and, further, such individuals rightfully merit public condemnation, not public approbation.11) The sanctity of the individual American citizen is not to be denied. Morality proceeds from the idea that whatever is in the best interests of the individual generally overrides the interests of the multitude, the Collective. the ‘morally good’ is defined in terms of those actions that serve the best interests of the individual American citizen, so long as the interest obtained does not negatively impact the life, liberty, and property, of another individual. A person’s intention to do good or evil, as well as all consequences stemming from that intention, determine that which is morally good as opposed to that which is deemed morally evil.12) the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, and the strictures of law must always be adhered to if this Nation is to be deemed truthfully to be a Nation that is governed by laws and not by men.13) No person, regardless of station in life, or personal monetary wealth, is considered to be above the law, on the basis of that station in life, or on the basis of ones’ personal financial means.14) Our Nation’s Constitution and its laws—statutes and body of case law—dictate a person’s rights, duties, and responsibilities in our nation.15) No person or political body shall contrive/conspire to ignore our nation’s Constitution or system of laws, or the rights and liberties existent therein; nor shall any person or political body establish its own set of ad hoc rules to be applied whenever that person or that political body so wishes in order to accomplish either a personal or political end; nor shall any person or political body contrive or conspire to apply laws unlawfully to denigrate, or disparage another person, or to deny to a person such rights, liberties, and procedural due process to which that person is entitled; nor shall any person or political body create ad hoc laws or rules to do same.16) The Nation’s history, traditions, and core values are sacred and sacrosanct. The Nation’s history, traditions, and core values are not to be abrogated, as they define our Nation. The Nation’s history, traditions, and core values create, together, this Nation’s identity, and the identity of its people.17) Popular opinion does not, never did, and never will control or supersede the Nation’s Constitution or laws or the supremacy of the fundamental rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.18) Results are never more important than adherence to the Constitution and laws of the Land. If the goal to be achieved conflicts with the law as applied, then law must never give way to the goal desired. No political or social end to be achieved shall ever dictate when or if, or how the Constitution or the laws of the Land ought to be or might be suspended, constrained, or abrogated.19) If the desired political or social end to be achieved conflicts with the Constitution or the Nation’s laws, it is the political or social end that must be forsaken, never the Constitution nor the Nation’s laws.20) Thus, suspension or repudiation of the Nation’s Constitutional precepts and laws must never be and can never be justifiably or rightfully suspended in favor of achieving the political or social end. For, it is understood that the danger of suspension, containment or abrogation of the Constitution or laws to achieve a political or social end is detrimental to the preservation of a free Republic and a free people.21) Thus, preservation of the Constitution and of the laws of the Land and of the Nation’s system of jurisprudence always outweighs the achievement of a particular political or social goal or end. The attainment or realization of any political or social goal, however seemingly critical to the well-being of this Nation or its people at a particular moment in time or necessitated by seemingly perceived changed circumstances, can never and must never be deemed more critical than strict application of the Nation’s Constitution and laws, that attainment or realization of a particular goal shall suffer cause to ignore, contain, constrain, or abrogate, whether for the particular moment or henceforth, forever. 22) Thus, the desire to achieve any political or social end can never justify the suspension or abrogation of the sacred precepts of the constitution and laws of United States.WHERE DO AMERICANS FIND THEMSELVES AT THIS JUNCTURE, NOW THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?With Brett Kavanaugh now on the high Court, the Individualists' vision for this Country now has a better chance to prevail in the decades ahead than the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the high Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a "Living Document," susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country's independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this Nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But, there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant. Be mindful of this fact: if, after the 2016 Midterm Elections, the Democrats—as a vehicle of the forces of Collectivism—gain majority control of the House, they can create serious obstacles to President Trump’s goals to bring this Nation back on track toward preserving the vision of this Nation as understood by this Nation’s founders.Collectivists want their power back; they want to place their agenda back on track. After the 2016 midterm elections we will see whether Collectivists regain some of their lost power by retaking the House of Representatives. Those who espouse Individualism can prevent that. Americans will have to choose the kind of Country they want or whether they still want a Country at all.The forces of Collectivism, as we have seen, are capable of planning and implementing the most obscene, insidious stratagems to frustrate the efforts of the Trump Administration and thereby frustrate the will of the American people. These Collectivists are ruthless, relentless, and seemingly impervious to defeat. They have unlimited stores of cash, along with extremely effective organizational skills. They are masters of propaganda. They control legions of agitators. They know how to whip the ill-informed among us into a frenetic, raging mob, urging them to coerce and intimidate law-abiding citizens, including Government officials and members of Congress. They are absolutely bent on getting their way. We must see to it that they don't.____________________________________________________________*Note: to readers: This is a substantial revision of Part Three.**After the fact, the Arbalest Quarrel came across a website, “Freedom Keys,” that does a good job in setting forth critical differences between the two mutually distinct and incompatible groups: Collectivists and Individualists. What the Arbalest Quarrel does, distinct from the creators of that website, is to take the key predicates of each group and draw the necessary inferences as to what the precepts and beliefs of each group mean and the end toward which the particular belief systems and basic axioms of these two distinct, divergent groups, point.

WHERE DO AMERICANS FIND THEMSELVES AT THIS JUNCTURE, NOW THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

With Brett Kavanaugh now on the high Court, the Individualists' vision for this Country is now more likely to prevail in the decades ahead than is the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the high Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a "Living Document," susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country's independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this Nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But, there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant.The forces of Collectivism, as we have seen, are capable of planning and implementing most obscene, insidious stratagems to frustrate the efforts of the Trump Administration and thereby frustrate the will of the American people. These Collectivists are ruthless, relentless, and seemingly impervious to defeat. They have unlimited stores of cash, along with extremely effective organizational skills. They are masters of propaganda. They control legions of agitators. They know how to whip the ill-informed among us into a frenetic, raging mob, urging them to coerce and intimidate law-abiding citizens, including Government officials and members of Congress. They are absolutely bent on getting their way. We must see to it that they don't. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A MODERN CIVIL WAR IN THE MAKING: TWO DISSIMILAR VISIONS FOR AMERICA

PART 2

“We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are.” ~ Anaïs Nin, French-American diarist, essayist, novelist, February 21, 1903 – January 14, 1977“The clash between the two visions is not over the actual or desirable degree of freedom, justice, power, or equality—or over the fact that that there can only be degrees and not absolutes—but rather over what these things consist of, in whatever degree they occur.” ~ from A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell, Economist and Social Theorist; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.The Nation sits, today, at a crossroads, just as it did at the juncture of the American Civil War. With each passing day, trust between the two sides further diminishes. The feelings of the one toward the other becomes more corrosive; the differences between the two ever clearer, ever more stark; the convictions of each, ever more entrenched.In an atmosphere of strong animosity and deep suspicion, compromise and negotiation between the two sides is impossible. Each side holds faithfully to a different vision of America. Each is insistent that its vision come to fruition. But, the two visions for the Country, grounded, as each is, in different belief structures, in different value systems, in different presumptive notions of justice and fundamental fairness, the two are inherently incompatible; so, even if the two sides were willing to negotiate, to compromise, any negotiation, any compromise would not bear fruit; would, in fact, be sterile. Where a path diverges, one or the other can be taken, but not both. Only one vision for this Country is capable of realization.One side, one faction holds to a vision of America that proceeds from the view that the Nation, conceived and created as a sovereign, independent Nation State, must always remain so, and must remain so in fact, not merely in name. That faction holds also to a vision of the Nation, where: the American people are the supreme authority; Government is understood to be a construct created by the people for the benefit of the people; certain fundamental rights and liberties preexist in the people, bequeathed to the people by the Creator; and, as the Government does not create those fundamental, natural, preexistent rights and liberties, Government lacks lawful authority to eliminate those rights and liberties. That faction’s vision coheres clearly, cleanly, and categorically with the vision of the founders of the Nation, the framers of the Nation’s Constitution.The other faction’s vision of the Country is predicated on an entirely different set of precepts. It does not accept the view that the people are the supreme authority; rather, it is Government itself that is deemed the supreme authority. This faction also does not adhere to the idea that rights and liberties are to be perceived as fundamental, natural, forces, preexistent in the people. This faction doesn’t see  some rights and liberties—or any rights and liberties, for that matter—as immutable forces endowed in man by the Creator at all; but, views rights and liberties as man-made artifices, no different than any law, rule, regulation, code, or ordinance. And, as such, this faction sees that rights and liberties may be lawfully modified or eliminated when Government deems it beneficial to do so for the good of the people as a whole, even as that “good” manifests as detrimental to the individual. This faction has, then, a vision of the Country completely at loggerheads with that of the founders of the Republic. But, this doesn’t faze the faction’s adherents. This faction has determined that the foundation of the Nation, its Constitution, the bedrock of a free Republic, along with the Nation’s most celebrated canons and cherished values, can and ought to be and must be altered or eliminated outright, consistent with what this faction perceives to be a new reality emerging in the world at large.The differences between the two factions cannot be reconciled for those differences rest upon mutually exclusive inferences—inferences that establish both the structure of government and society, and the relationship of man to those structures and to each other. And those inferences themselves follow from an entirely different set of axiomatic premises—premises at once basic and primordial.The two sides that fought each other in the American Civil War—the Union and the Confederacy—did not perceive their differences, profound as they were, as a vast existential divide between them, not to the extent seen today. The American Civil War was perceived as a confrontation between States’ rights advocates and advocates for a strong centralized Federal Government. Arguably, the nineteenth century conflict between the Union and Confederacy may be viewed as a continuation of a debate--a longstanding debate--commenced among the founders of the Republic. One side, the Federalists, espoused a strong central Government; the other side, the Antifederalists, suspicious of a strong central Government, espoused decentralization of authority. But, for all that, the South, in the American Civil War, still professed to hold to the relevance of the concept of the ‘Nation State.’ Its concerns were directed to the allocation of power within that Nation State; nor did either the Union or the Confederacy contest the inherent importance of and sanctity of the Bill of Rights. That is not the case today.Unlike the two sides that fought each other in the American Civil War, the Union and the Confederacy, one side, the leftist faction, has, in this present conflict, questioned the very meaning and meaningfulness of the concept of  ‘Nation State,’ in this age of Globalization and massive movements of people across national boundaries. That helps to explain why that faction would question, and abhor, and mock, President Trump’s* campaign slogan, ‘America First;’ for that faction sees the slogan as an affront to their bedrock principles; an unacceptable return to an archaic world view in contrast to their “modern” world view; and an obstacle to fulfillment of their goals.  That faction, too, believes that rights and liberties are subject to modification, or even elimination, when, their usefulness does not cohere with—as they see—changed circumstances in the world.The other faction holds to the vision of this Country that the founders of the Republic held. This faction believes in the continued relevance of the concept of ‘Nation State’ and, therefore, professes a strong need to preserve this Country as an independent Sovereign Nation; to preserve the supremacy of the Nation’s laws, and to preserve the integrity of the Nation’s physical borders. This faction also believes in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Modification, much less, elimination of any of the rights and liberties set forth therein is an anathema. This faction, then, holds to a vision of and for the Country that has stood the test of time; a vision that has endured for over two hundred years. The other side seeks to undo that vision of the Country. The other side seeks to construct the Nation anew. Its “modern” vision for this Country distorts and contorts the foundation upon which this Nation rests, as articulated in the Nation’s Constitution, and questions the very meaningfulness of the concept ‘Nation State’ and of the concept of ‘citizen of the United States.’Congressional Democratic Party members, the proxies for the leaders of the leftist faction—secretive, amoral, extraordinarily wealthy, and abjectly ruthless transnationalist, Globalist financiers and entrepreneurs—are well aware the power they wielded in Government, on behalf of their secretive, ruthless benefactors, has eroded; their agenda contained; their desires and aims to reshape the Country all but frustrated. They cannot abide this. They and the secretive, ruthless, inordinately wealthy and powerful transnationalists who seek to thrust the United States, “kicking and screaming” if need be, into their new international world order, have mobilized legions of progressive Leftist elements: agents provocateurs, agitators, to stir up dissension in society; to breed confusion and unrest in the Nation; to deliberately create and to maximize disorder and chaos in the Country. This, then, is their response to Governmental power and influence that they have lost but which they refuse to relinquish.Democrats seek to recover their lost power on behalf of the faction they represent. They seek to regain control of Government, to continue to work toward completing the items on their agenda, as their efforts to remake the Country into the image they envision had been rudely interrupted and disrupted through loss of 2016 U.S. Presidential election to the populist, Donald Trump. Too regain control, Democrats have reprehensibly dispensed with adherence to our Nation's laws even as they claim to abide by them. They are masters of deception. They are cunning, dispassionate, hypocritical, ruthless. They have plowed ahead with their agenda, even though doing so skirts the law and extends well beyond the bounds of common decency. To assist them in their efforts they coopted the feminist #MeToo movement. They have formed alliances with left-wing progressive groups on and off university campuses, and with the far-left radical anarchist group, 'Antifa.'  Their echo chamber, the mainstream media, works on their behalf, as do media moguls, actors, and directors in the entertainment business and in the technology sector; and, as do bureaucrats of the "Deep State" and left-wing jurists, sprinkled in federal courts across the Country by Obama.The police often stand at the sideline, forbidden by Leftist State Governments that control them, to interfere. But, police, and the military too, will need, eventually, to take a side, to take a stand in the conflict.Unless one side capitulates to the other—and that won’t happen—further and more severe clashes are inevitable.____________________________________*Trump, strictly speaking is not a Republican—certainly not in a conventional sense. And, while this leftist faction likely would have accepted a Republican Centrist as President--someone like Jeb Bush, albeit having preferred Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders as President, it does not see in the Bush clan, a mortal enemy, that it sees in President Trump, whom it attacks daily. The Bush clan, unlike Trump, shares the same neoliberal economic principles and much the same social, legal, political, and cultural precepts and interests that cohere with and complement those of the EU, that this faction emulates. Indeed, centrist Republicans, like the Bush clan, properly considered, belong to the faction that seeks this “new” vision for America. Trump and most Americans accept none of that. Trump's Presidency reflects a vision of the Country the founders intended for it. Americans, seeing that vision slipping away, elected Donald Trump to serve as U.S. President, to set the direction of the Nation aright. Many Americans recognized this Nation’s goals were off kilter; that the Nation had moved far afield from the core values and legal precepts of the Nation’s founding. But as Trump is now President, and not Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, and as the faction that wanted Hillary Clinton to be U.S. President, and fully expected that she would be President, cannot and will not abide the election results. Thus, the tension that has festered between the two factions for decades, have now reached a “tipping point.” The battle over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation is merely the most recent proof of and exemplification of that clash._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

THE UNITED STATES ON THE CUSP OF A MODERN-DAY CIVIL WAR

PART ONE

A WAKE-UP CALL FOR AMERICANS

“Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.” ~ from A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell, Economist and Social Theorist; Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.Make no mistake about it: The United States is on the cusp of a civil war. It is a war fought not with swords, firearms, and artillery—at least not yet—but through throngs of people chanting and screaming in the streets; in buildings; on university campuses; and in the public square; even outside private residences. These throngs are threatening, ridiculing, harassing, and assaulting Americans who do not share their views, their sensibilities. And physical altercations and clashes have occurred. More of those are on the horizon; that is certain. No one should doubt it. The outcome of this modern conflict will have as deep and lasting effect on this Nation and on its citizenry as did the American Civil War.In the present conflict, there can be no negotiation with or compromise between the two factions, for the gulf dividing them is too vast, the chasm too deep. The outcome of the present civil war will be profound. This conflict’s outcome will determine the Nation’s social, political, economic, and legal contours for generations to come.Americans see the clash between the two factions playing out most aggressively, of late, through the Senate confirmation process of the President’s second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Brett Kavanaugh presently sits as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He is, by any estimate, a brilliant jurist with many years of judicial experience. No one should doubt that. No one can reasonably refute or rebut that. No matter. One faction intends to strike his nomination down.Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, pose, essentially, as proxies for the two factions in conflict. One faction supports confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court and is working to see it happen. The other intends to prevent it. Few Americans remain on the sidelines. Both factions in this modern civil conflict know that the Judiciary—more so than Congress, or the Chief Executive—has power, predicated on the jurisprudential and philosophical predispositions of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, either to strengthen or weaken the bedrock of the Nation: its Constitution. In their individual approaches to case analysis, through the methodologies employed, one vision of the Country sees actualization.Democratic Party proxies, frantic and frenetic, fearing imminent confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court, have lost all sense of decorum, all reason, all self-restraint. They have been unable to shoot holes in Brett Kavanaugh’s legal methodology; in his understanding of the law. That much is clear.Democrats, and the public at large that tuned to the Confirmation Hearing, know that Bret Kavanaugh has a keen analytical mind; that he is legally astute; that his years of experience as a lawyer and as a jurist make him eminently qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats and the public at large know that Judge Kavanaugh has a deep, abiding respect for the Nation’s system of laws; for its Constitution; and for the Nation’s massive body of jurisprudence, accumulated over two centuries.Democrats, and the lay public also know that Kavanaugh’s methodology for analyzing cases reflects respect for case law precedent; and for the plain meaning of statutes; and for adherence to “original intent,” when applying the U.S. Constitution to the facts of a case. And, as for the latter two points, there’s the rub. For, one faction seeks a jurist to sit on the high Court who has no qualms about legislating from the Bench: someone like Judge Merrick Garland,* a Judge, whose jurisprudential methodology and jurisprudential philosophy just happen to coincide with the political and social agenda championed by the previous U.S. President, Barack Obama, who nominated him to sit on the high Court—a jurist who would also be championed by the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton who failed to get elected. Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to case analysis and jurisprudential and ethical philosophies are antithetical to those of Judge Merrick Garland.Knowing what is at stake, Democrats have become frantic, desperate. At the last minute, in a last ditch effort to delay, with the aim of ultimately derailing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats have sought the last refuge of the hopeless: character assassination. As they could not successfully attack the man’s principles, his ability, his experience, they launched a vicious, audacious, reprehensible, despicable attack on the man himself.Each side, in this conflict, knows full well that the very soul and psyche of this Nation and its people is at stake. The outcome of the present conflict will, then, from that perspective, be far-reaching—conceivably more so than that of the previous conflict, devastating as that conflict was and as far-reaching in its consequences that it was for the Confederacy; and for the Nation; and for all Americans.Before we explain how the very soul and psyche of the Nation is at stake and what, precisely, we mean by that and why we say that the outcome of the present conflict may very well have consequences that are, potentially, more far-reaching than the consequences of the American Civil War, let us, for the moment, consider what resulted from the South’s defeat in that conflict. We see that:

• The secession of the Confederate States from the Union was withdrawn, and the Nation reunited.
• The Confederacy was placed under military rule.
• The Federal Government gained supremacy over the States (all States) and State Governments (all State Governments), clearly and unequivocally. In that regard, the diminution of the power of the States has negatively impacted the “Union” States as much as it has the States of the Confederacy. This “Federalism” pervades to the present day.
• Slavery was de facto eliminated. This led to de jure elimination of slavery with the passage of the 13^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The loss of State power to the Federal Government is, arguably, the most significant outcome of the American Civil War; and the Federal Government’s accumulation of power at the expense of the States has grown exponentially in the years and decades since the American Civil War ended.Now, suppose for a moment, that the Confederacy prevailed; this Nation would likely have formed a  confederation of two sovereign independent Nation States, comprising States of their own. But, the concept of 'Sovereign Nation States'—the USA and CSA—not beholding to or subordinated to foreign Nations or to political entities of one sort or another, unlike those Nations comprising the EU, was never at stake. Secondly, preservation of the fundamental, unalienable, natural rights and liberties of the people, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, was never questioned during the American Civil War, either. With the conclusion of the American Civil War, the United States remained a Sovereign, independent Nation State, albeit as one Sovereign Nation State, rather than two.We, American citizens, must keep these two points uppermost in mind, because the notion of ‘Nation State’ and the notion of natural rights preexistent in the individual—will either be preserved and strengthened, or they will not, depending on which faction prevails in this modern civil war.While the stakes in the present conflict are emphatic, the lines between the two factions in the present conflict are not. With the American Civil War, a clear physical demarcation existed for the most part between the two sides: North and South, and the Civil War combatants, “Yankee” or “Rebel,” aligned with one side or the other, although among the border States—Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia—the demarcation was not clear-cut, static, but more tenuous, more fluid. Close family members took one side or the other. Brother fought against brother; father against son; cousin against cousin; and uncle against nephew.As with the border States during the American Civil War, we see today, too, that physical demarcations do not predominately mark the boundaries between the two sides, between the two factions, although a preponderance of one faction lives in the Coastal States, and a preponderance of the other resides in the interior States. But, ultimately, for most people, it is the precepts and tenets that one holds to that determines which side one fights on, rather than where one lives.The precepts and tenets one holds to determines whom one considers his friend or his foe. And, as the precepts and tenets held by one faction are inconsistent with the precepts and tenets held by the other, any compromise between the two factions is sterile, impossible. The Country is, then, very clearly in the midst of an existential crisis. It is a crisis taking hold of people on a primordial level. Americans are lining up; taking sides in a major clash of competing visions for this Country. Each faction’s vision for this Country rests on distinct, incompatible social, political, economic, and ethical philosophies. Only one side, one faction will prevail in the unfolding conflict.We will see either massive upheaval, a cataclysmic sea change in the political, social, economic, and legal structure of our Nation, or we will see preserved those principles, those core values and mores upon which the political, social, economic, and legal structure and fabric of our Nation has stood and endured for over two centuries—principles and core values that so many Americans had fought, and for which so many had died, to preserve: principles and core values—unchanging and eternal.[We continue with this article in the next installment]._________________________________________________*Under Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution the President nominates a person to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. But, the President shall do so only with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The "advice and consent" of the Senate operates as a condition precedent to actual appointment. But, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to give its advice and consent. And the Senate has not done so, here, with Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to sit on the high Court. Those Democrats and Leftists, of all stripes, who wanted and had expected the Senate to provide a Hearing and Roll-Call vote on Merrick Garland were apoplectic. Merrick Garland, who would, have been Barack Obama's third appointment to the high Court, would have given the liberal-wing of the Court a clear majority, sufficient to move the left-wing agenda along. Leftists conclude that Republicans have stolen a seat on the high Court that belongs to them. That helps, in part, to explain, but certainly does not justify the outrageous, reprehensible smear campaign Senate Democrats launched against President Trump's nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, in their late hour effort to defeat Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the high Court._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

DEMOCRATS ASSERT: “FOR THE SAKE OF OUR AGENDA, LET’S PUT TRUTH ASIDE; WE MUST DESTROY THE REPUTATION AND CHARACTER OF BRETT KAVANAUGH.”

SENATE DEMOCRATS, ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BLATANTLY ATTEMPT TO DESTROY A MAN’S NAME; TO DO SO WITHOUT CONCERN FOR THE TRUTH.

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”  ~ Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” May 4, 1979 through November 28, 1990“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls:Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he that filches from me my good nameRobs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ~ William Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3On Thursday, September 27, in a U.S. Senate Hearing Room, Christine Blasey Ford, testified before Senate Democratic Party and Republican Party Judiciary Committee members; and before the American public. This 11^th Hour Senate Hearing, an “addendum,” need not have transpired; and should not have occurred; for the Senate Hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications, character, and integrity that had taken place for several days, had concluded weeks before. Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated beyond any doubt that he is eminently qualified to serve as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, though, did not like that turn of events. What could they do? They decided to play a “trump card,” against President Trump, in a last ditch effort to undercut the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court.Senate Democrats sought to demonstrate that Judge Kavanaugh had a serious flaw in his character—a flaw that made him unsuited to sit on the high Court, regardless of his many qualifications and years of judicial experience. Senate Democrats sought, ostensibly, to portray Christine Ford as a victim—the only victim. But, contrary to Democrats attempt to portray Christine Ford as the sole victim, there was a second victim: Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Senate Democrats intended to use Christine Ford’s testimony against Judge Brett Kavanaugh as a cudgel—another planned assault, along with the Mueller probe—to frustrate the policy objectives of  U.S. President, Donald Trump. To derail the President’s nominee to the high Court, Congressional Democrats brazenly used Christine Ford for their own ends, not hers. The result was to turn a seemingly solemn endeavor into a Grand Inquisition, produced and directed by Senate Democrats.

SENATE DEMOCRATS DISPENSE WITH THE NATION’S BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AS SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND UNDER OUR PROCEDURAL LAWS.

Turning due process on its head, the accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, was presumed guilty, not innocent, of sexual assault. Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford, simply had to disclose in public matters that she had thought and hoped would remain private—allegations of sexual assault committed by Brett Kavanaugh, when they both were in their teens. The testimony of Christine Ford would be used, so it was anticipated by Senate Democrats, to support the inference that Brett Kavanaugh did in fact sexually assault Christine Ford, thirty-six years ago. Senate Democrats made clear that it wasn’t necessary for Christine Ford’s testimony to actually cohere with or correspond to the facts of the matter. It would be enough, so Senate Democrats assumed and argued that she merely appear to be honest, credible. But, due process requires more from an accuser than an accuser’s mere conviction; due process requires more than the accuser’s honest belief in the truth of her own allegations. And due process requires more than the mere perception, of the observer, that the accuser is, after all, really telling the truth. From both a logical and legal perspective belief does not ipso facto equate with truth.Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the testimony of an accuser is not sufficient to convict or condemn a man. Evidence to support a naked accusation is required, such as independent forensic evidence and corroboration of witnesses to the event—none of which Christine Ford had produced. So, regardless of Christine Ford’s personal conviction as to her certainty that the events she speaks of—that took place, thirty-six years ago—and however adamant her remarks, fact remains that, bare allegations, ostensibly based on recollections, in the absence of more, do not substantiate truth for the trier of fact. Under our system of laws and justice—a system built on over two centuries of jurisprudence—an accuser’s barefaced accusation of wrongdoing is constitutionally insufficient to convict one of a crime or, as in this case, simply constitutionally insufficient to condemn.Here, the accuser’s testimony came up short on critical details, painfully short. No matter. Senate Democrats had, before the fact, accepted the accuser’s testimony, on its face, as factually true. They accepted on faith alone the veracity of the allegations because, as they have said, in public, even before the hearing, they had found Christine Ford’s barefaced allegations of a crime to be credible and compelling; and, for them, that was enough, and they insisted that Christine Ford’s barefaced allegations of a crime should be considered credible and compelling for everyone else, too. That is patently ridiculous!Imagine if you will that an accusation were sufficient, of itself, to sustain punishment or public condemnation, irrespective of even a scintilla of independent corroborating evidence. What would that mean for someone; what would that mean for you if someone came forth with a damning accusation against you? What it means is that, you, the accused do not  have the right to face your accuser. You don’t have the right to test the sufficiency of the accusation through direct examination of the accuser. The presumption of innocence does not attach. Thus, the barefaced allegations of an accuser are presumed sufficient to convict or to condemn you and off to prison you go or otherwise, if not to prison, then, perhaps, you, the accused lose a benefit to which you ought otherwise be entitled; or you lose an opportunity you sought to obtain. Moreover, you will find your reputation, your honor, your integrity, your character are all irrevocably besmirched and stained, forever. This inversion of our basic principles of due process can happen to you. Don’t think it can’t! This inversion of our basic principles of justice is precisely what we see happening here in the case of Brett Kavanaugh. We see a planned coordinated, systematic, reprehensible attack to destroy a man’s character and reputation. Senate Democrats, who sit on the Judiciary Committee, along with the Congressional Democratic Party leadership, have connived, conspired and implemented a last minute plan in an unconscionable attempt to discredit the honor, character, and reputation of a man. They could not and cannot destroy the man’s judicial record, his jurisprudential philosophy, and his keen, analytical mind. So, they attempt to debase him. They resort to the last tactic available—a tactic of those in the throes of desperation. They resort to an attack on the man himself.Their plan is nothing more than a well-orchestrated, coordinated contrivance, utilizing their echo chamber, the mainstream media, to cherry pick details of the man’s history. They do this with the aim to come up with something, anything that might be used to cast aspersions on the man’s character. They take whatever they find, and then exaggerate the claim, blowing it up out of all proportion to reason and sensibility. Did the man ever drink alcohol in high school or college? If so, then the public must conclude that the man is a drunkard. A few women come forward with the most outrageous claims of moral turpitude. So, then, the public must believe their damning allegations and must conclude that the man is guilty of moral turpitude because of course these women are telling the truth; and because of course these women wouldn’t lie; and, because of course their memories of the events, if such events occurred at all, didn’t fade with time; and because of course a personal animus toward this man—toward all “white men”—doesn’t motivate them to attack the man. Democrats provide their echo chamber, the mainstream media, with tantalizing bits of garbage to rouse to rally and to rouse their base, the #MeToo movement, and the results are as expected: the lizard brain takes over; all reason goes out-the-door. The  #MeToo sorority becomes ever more indignant; and, then they lose all control. They shout, scream, rant, foam at the mouth, convulse with rage. The lizard brain completely takes over; eats away at them; consumes them. They know what they want. It is as clear as a bell. “Down with White Men! Down with Trump! Down with America!” The entire performance, the entire charade, the entire farce, has nothing, really to do with Brett Kavanaugh; nothing at all. It is, rather what, Kavanaugh represents to these people, who, one can reasonably infer, has not read the man’s legal opinions. They know nothing of his love and devotion and of his years of service to his Country. They know nothing of his love and of his devotion to his wife, to his children, and to his Church. They don’t want to know. They don’t need to know. For what it is they think they know is enough for them. It is what they hear from Democrats, and from the newspapers and from MSNBC and CNN and NPR and PBS. They know everything they have to know about him, which is what they think they know, and what they think they know is wrong. What they think they know has been planted in their lizard brain, and what has been planted there is enough: Brett Kavanaugh is President Trump’s nominee; Brett Kavanaugh is just a privileged “white man.” Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t respect women. Brett Kavanaugh is just plain “evil.” So, Down with Kavanaugh! Down with Trump! Down with white men! Okay—Let us now get back to some semblance of reality, as we consider the Confirmation process.Where, then, does that leave the accused, Brett Kavanaugh? Senate Democrats placed the accused in the legally dubious position of having to bear the burden of proving his innocence. They patently surrendered a presumption of innocence afforded an accused—a presumption that is not mere platitude, but the very cornerstone of our system of justice. Application of the presumption requires that accuser, in the first instance, sustain the burden of proof. But Senate Democrats insist on a presumption of guilt. They insist that Brett Kavanaugh rebut Christine Ford’s testimony even though Christine Ford’s evidence, consisting of her testimony alone, had met no recognized legal standard—not even the lowest standard—preponderance of the evidence that might otherwise, if satisfied, shift the burden of proof onto the accused. Be that as it may, Brett Kavanaugh did proffer his testimony willingly; insisting, in fact, that he be permitted to do so; and Judge Kavanaugh did so, professing his innocence through his own equally compelling, credible testimony. Judge Kavanaugh denied—clearly, succinctly, emphatically, categorically, and unequivocally—ever sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford, or anyone. By placing the initial burden of proof on the accused, as Senate Democrats did, though, it became clear even to a lay observer, that the entire hearing was nothing more than a shameless charade, a sham, a circus, complete with clowns; and the clowns in that circus turn out to be Senate Democrats. But, there was nothing for Americans to be amused about.Senate Democrats, looked on dispassionately as the man spoke eloquently, honestly, from the heart. Even so, the attack against him continued. Senate Democrats castigated Brett Kavanaugh and derided him, for they had cast judgment on him even before they heard him speak. And, what do these Democrats, these seemingly honorable people, themselves, really find Brett Kavanaugh guilty of? Just this: the hubris of daring to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court; for doing so wrecks the Democratic Party’s political, social, and economic agenda. The man must be taken down!

WHY DID CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AGREE TO TESTIFY IN PUBLIC?

As to the matter of Christine Ford’s public testimony, she didn’t really have a choice in the matter. Senate Democrats, dispensing with due process, had urged Christine Ford to testify. This was necessary if they were to delay or derail the Confirmation process. They knew this. They had to attach a face, an identity to a bare accusation against a man. They knew that much. So, even though the accuser sought to remain anonymous, clearly her identity had to be brought out. Only a few Democrats were aware of the accuser’s identity, and her identity was leaked to the Press. A reasonable person would conclude that the accuser did leak the matter since she made clear her wish to remain unknown. Congressional Republicans could not have leaked her name to the Press, for Congressional Republicans had no knowledge of the accusation. Democrats didn’t inform Congressional Republicans of the identity of the accused until the 11^th Hour, when they sprung the accusation on Republicans and on the public. So, a reasonable person would conclude that someone within the Democratic leadership or within the Senate Judiciary Committee had leaked the information. So, much, then for respecting Christine Ford’s wish to remain anonymous.But, whoever it was in the Democratic Party who leaked Christine Ford’s identity, this is what the public learned: The accuser is a middle-aged woman, Christine Ford, a year younger than Brett Kavanaugh; she is a College Professor and holds a Ph.D degree in psychology. Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford, made a conscious decision to attack the character of the man, even though she could not remember critical details, sufficient to support a criminal charge against Judge Kavanaugh; and, who, for whatever reason, never reported the matter she claims occurred, to the police, or to her friends, or even to her family, but who deemed the matter important enough to bring up now, thirty-six years after the alleged event occurred. She says she is 100% certain that it was Judge Kavanaugh who had attacked her, who had sexually assaulted her. Despite the many gaps as to when and where the matter in question occurred, and as to exactly what had occurred—if the matter had indeed occurred at all—she accuses Judge Kavanaugh, explicitly, of sexual assault.Christine Ford’s representative thereupon passed the information to Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking Democratic Party member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now Senator Feinstein, for her part, was ethically bound to share that information immediately with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley. If she had done so, the Senate Judiciary Committee could then have undertaken a discrete inquiry into Christine Ford’s allegations. But Senator Feinstein didn’t share the contents of the letter with Chairman Grassley. Senator Feinstein held onto the letter, for several weeks, albeit conceivably sharing the contents of the letter with her Democratic Party colleagues on the Committee and with Democratic Party leadership. Congressional Democrats apparently made a decision to spring the information onto Senate Republicans and the American public, days before the Judiciary Committee was set to vote on submitting the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the floor of the Senate, for a full Roll-Call vote. Possibly fearing that Judge Kavanaugh would be confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate, they sprung their trap on Senate Republicans and brought Christine Ford’s bare accusation of sexual misconduct to the attention of Chairman Grassley and other Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Clearly, they did this with the intention to derail, altogether, or, at least, to delay the Confirmation process.The failure to share critical information immediately with Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee—holding onto the information secretly, surreptitiously, to be used as a weapon to delay or to derail the Senate Confirmation process—is unethical, even reprehensible behavior. And everything that followed, from the point in time that Christine Ford’s damning and unsupported allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh became public up to and including the sham hearing that followed, illustrates the extent to which Democrats will go to get their way.Ranking Democratic Party Senate Judiciary member Dianne Feinstein and the other Senate Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, were, though, taking a gamble. Senator Feinstein and Senate Democrats knows that a barefaced accusation of sexual misconduct, especially an accusation going back decades, is, in the absence of supporting forensic evidence or, at least, corroborating witnesses, patently insufficient to convict or to condemn, under our system of justice. And there was none. That constitutes the crack, a chink in the Democrats’ armor, and Democrats, some of whom are attorneys at law, certainly know this. But, they played the game out, victim (the accuser) versus attacker (the accused), anyway.

ACCUSER AND ACCUSED ARE BOTH VICTIMS HERE.

Christine Blasey Ford had presented Democrats with a gift, a dangerous weapon, a barefaced allegation of wrongdoing. The Party, bereft of common decency, would be only too tempted, too willing to use the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, against Senate Republicans, against the President of the United States, and against the Nation to achieve their ends. Senator Feinstein knew that a barefaced allegation of sexual misconduct against another individual was patently unfair. But, Democrats didn’t hold back. They didn’t care. They gambled that this gambit would serve to derail the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court or, at least, delay a Senate Confirmation vote until after the 2018 Midterm elections. It is the hope of Democrats that they can gain control of the U.S. Senate after the Midterms. A cascading sequence of events thus unfolded, as deeply sensitive allegations came to the public’s attention—embarrassing and humiliating to both accuser and accused. These barefaced allegations would forever sully the reputation and character of an honorable man, a man with a distinguished record of judicial service, and would, at once, leave the accuser all alone, with her own reputation and honor tainted. Thus, along with the victim that Democrats played to the public—their “ace in the hole,” Christine Ford—there was another victim. This was a victim whom they failed to consider, whom they had no wish of considering as it was a victim whom they are responsible for creating, the victim whom in fact they made: Judge Brett Kavanaugh.Both Congressional Republicans, and conceivably even some Congressional Democrats, along with the American public, have learned that Democrats and Leftist groups will do anything to frustrate President Trump’s policy objectives. No scheme is too outrageous for them; no scheme too outlandish; no scheme too reprehensible if they can accomplish their agenda; their end goals. They intend to secure power for themselves and to proceed once again with accomplishing their own policy objectives—objectives at odds with the core values of most Americans people. With Judge Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, their plans to hijack this Country from the American people will be all that more difficult, if not impossible. They therefore had no pangs of conscience, no reservation as to what they would do; what they felt they must do to protect their plans, their agenda. They would be willing to destroy a man’s character and reputation, along with his very life, well-being, and personal safety, and that of his family. They would know and be willing to accept, at one and the same time, that their actions might very well endanger, too, the life, well-being, and personal safety of the human being they claimed to be concerned about, Christine Blasey Ford. This would be the price they would be willing to pay in order to regain power and to be able to proceed with the items on their agenda.The accuser, Christine Ford should be perceived as much a tool, here, as victim—a tool to be used and eventually to be discarded, when no longer useful. And Democrats used their tool, Christine Ford, to play her as victim in need of justice, albeit justice coming decades late. Christine Ford’s accusation became the highlight of the #MeToo movement; trumpeted by the mainstream media in the newspapers; hailed by Leftist pundits on the airwaves; a rallying point for Hillary Clinton supporters, thunderstruck and enraged at the Presidential hopeful’s seemingly implausible defeat in the 2016 general election; and the predicate for mass demonstrations.

THE AGENDA OF DEMOCRATS AND LEFTIST GROUPS

The Democratic Party has been, in great part, coopted by Progressive elements. But, progressives lack basic common-sense. Still, the aims of Progressive elements have gained support from the mainstream media—an institution also responsible for undermining our Constitution and for undermining the foundation of a free Republic. These elements promote an agenda that most Americans do not agree with and which can, if implemented, deleteriously impact our Constitution and the preservation of a Free Republic. The items on the Progressives’ agenda include, among other things, placing specific impediments on a citizen’s exercise of sacred rights and liberties: the right of free speech, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, for turning our system of laws and justice on its head; and for placing considerable limits on, and eventually eliminating altogether, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They know that it is only by curtailing the citizenry’s basic, fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties that the citizenry be effectively controlled. Most Americans, though, do not agree with these objectives. And, most Americans do not take kindly at attempts to manipulate them, urging them, cajoling them, to take action against their own best interests, which they well see. Most Americans abhor pretense; false preening; glib, self-assured proselytizing; and they particularly loathe hypocrisy which is abundantly in evidence.Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee did not realize the extent to which the most Americans would be appalled at Democrats’ attempt to reduce an honorable man, a distinguished jurist, to the point of tears. Americans’ felt the man’s pain; and they realized that this man could be themselves—a man accused of commission of a heinous act and condemned through mere accusation. The result: a man’s reputation is in tatters; his honor forever tarnished; his sincerity forever doubted.Brett Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, and honor were being directly and systematically attacked. Is it any wonder, then, that he would turn his righteous anger and indignation back on those Senate Democrats, who, curiously, showed surprise that an even-tempered man could exhibit anger. They must have felt: "How can this person, this nominee who sits before us, have the audacity to dare speak so rudely to us? Who does he think he is?" Who Brett Kavanaugh is, if these Senators would only stop to consider the matter, is a man with a sense of honor, pride, character, and integrity, well-deserved, who has served his Country well, in a distinguished career, spanning decades, having worked in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and subsequently working as a distinguished judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A man who graduated at the top of his Class at one of the premier Universities in our Country, Yale University, and then went on to distinguish himself at Yale Law School. That is who Judge Kavanaugh is. So, then, let us turn the question around on these Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Who do these Senators think they are to toy with a good man's reputation, honor, and character? Who are these Senators who would dare do those things that place the life, safety and well-being of my own family at risk?Apparently, these people, these Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have so little character, honor, and integrity themselves and so full of their own bravado, they could not understand how it was that a man, sitting before them, would dare remonstrate against them; perhaps Democrats thought, in part, that the personal attack on Brett Kavanaugh’s character should not be taken personally; for, after all, they simply don’t want to see him on the U.S. Supreme Court. And, didn’t they say as much? Didn’t minority leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and other Democrats say as much? Didn’t they ask him, plead with him, to withdraw the nomination, to step aside? If so, they had no idea of the fortitude of the man, for they, themselves have none. Could they truly believe Brett Kavanaugh would not take the attack on his reputation, on his character, on his integrity, and on his personal sense of simple human dignity, personally? Really? Of course he would “dig in his heels” and defend his honor, and his reputation, and his character, and his integrity, and his dignity, too, as a human being--all of which Senate Democrats dared to besmirch.Thus, they concocted an outrageous and outlandish plan to take down an honorable man. And, this all plays out oddly in the Press, as agitators in the #MeToo movement, and their allies, claim that the nominee’s anger, indignation, and, at times, loss of composure, somehow, oddly, bespeak guilt, and lack of proper respect for the Senate? Are they kidding? After what Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have done to this man? And, still, this outrageous, despicable attack against Brett Kavanaugh continues, unabated. Leftists, along with many Democrats, have lost touch with reality and have lost, as well, any sense of human decency.It is strange, indeed, that Progressive elements in society, along with many Democrats, tend to perceive the average American as wrongly attached to the past: wrongly attached to nationalism, patriotism, American history, pride in self and Country, morality as conceived through a Christian ethos; and wrongly attached to the plain meaning of the Constitution as conceived by the founders of the Republic. Progressive elements, many Democrats, the mainstream Press, and Leftists of all stripes, intend to eradicate this, all of it. They intend to destroy all that defines us; all that has defined us since the creation of a free Republic and since the ratification of our Constitution. And they intend to destroy the very conception of fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties, as codified in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.Those elements in our society—and what is becoming increasingly clear, Globalist interests abroad—intend to bring Americans, “kicking and screaming” if need be, into a new world as they conceive it, a new international world order. The world that Progressives, in particular, seek, is one wholly disconnected from our Nation’s past. It is one marked by multiculturalism; subordination of our Nation’s interests to those of a world community; subordination of the Nation’s Constitution and laws to international laws and norms; and the application of a conception of liberal democracy as played out in the EU. It is a view that, as we have seen, mandates the subjugation of whole nations and people; suppression of basic rights and liberties; submission of the populace of independent nations to solitary autocratic rule, emanating from one place: Brussels.Democrats realize that President Trump’s nominee to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, will, given the Judge's high regard for the plain meaning of Statutes, and for the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, neutralize the goals of Democrats and their allies both here and abroad. They tried to defeat Judge Kavanaugh through several days of Confirmation Hearing, attacking the jurist’s legal reasoning, his jurisprudential philosophy. But, they could not defeat the cogency and brilliance and intensity of Judge Kavanaugh’s legal mind, and of his singular regard to uphold the sacred precepts of the U.S. Constitution, consistent with the understanding and intentions of the framers of it. So, when the initial attempt to tear down his jurisprudential philosophy and methodology failed, and they could see confirmation as imminent, they resorted to more extreme and drastic measures. They attacked Judge Kavanaugh on a deeply personal level. They played their “ace card in the hole”—they brought up a matter that they should have brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, weeks ago, and that they should have done so discretely; a matter that they deviously, deceptively, secretly kept to themselves, to be used as a tactical device to defeat the Confirmation of a man who well merits a seat on our Nation’s highest Court of law. And, when they brought the matter up to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, they did so, at the 11th Hour, just before the Committee was set to vote on recommending confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the full Senate for a Roll-Call vote. They brought up a sensitive matter at the last minute and with great fanfare, so the public would become aware of a damning accusation before neither they, the Democrats, nor Republicans, had an opportunity, to investigate the matter privately, quietly, and thus protect the identities of both accuser and accused. But they didn't. They unleashed, at the last possible minute, a barefaced, unproven accusation to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the public before Republicans on the Committee had a chance to privately look at the accusation and to discretely investigate the matter. And, even after the fact, Democrats on the Committee refused to work with Republicans on the investigation. But, it is clear that Democrats don't really care to verify the truth of the accusation--especially if there exists no one to corroborate the accusation. Indeed, to date no one, whom the accuser named as witness to her damning accusation, sexual assault, has corroborated it--either asserting that they had not witnessed the event or, if at the scene, refuting that any such assault took place. But, that didn't stop Senate Democrats from attacking Brett Kavanaugh's character anyway. Democrats don't care. All they do care about is the fact of the accusation, not the truth of it. Thus, it is sensible to conclude that Democrats' attack on Brett Kavanaugh’s character is logically fallacious, legally faulty, and morally reprehensible. They directed a massive frontal assault on Judge Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, integrity and bearing, anyway. What took place in a Senate Hearing Room, on September 28, 2018, will go down in American history as one the most sordid, outrageous, abjectly shameless, and disgusting episodes in U.S. Senate history.Americans bear witness to nothing less than wholesale character assassination: the attempted murder of a person’s very self by Congressional Democrats. They have engaged in character assassination for what it is that Brett Kavanaugh represents to them--defeat of their Agenda for this Nation--rather than for who Brett Kavanaugh is. But, did these Democrats honestly think that this last minute gambit would actually work? Apparently so, since they made sure it would play out if Judge Kavanaugh would not step aside, as Senate Minority Leader, Schumer, pugnaciously, sanctimoniously insisted he do. One may well ask: would Chuck Schumer and other Democrats have stepped aside had the same attempt at character assassination been directed at them? Do they have the fortitude, the stamina to withstand such an attack. some of them, surely, do have serious character flaws—beyond any reasonable doubt. That, the public knows full well.Consider the flawed character of Senator Richard Blumenthal, for example. As one of the most vehemently, outspoken of Senate Democrats, he is, perhaps not surprisingly, also one of the most sanctimonious. It seems that Senator Blumenthal tends to project onto Judge Kavanaugh the Senator’s own moral failings, his own character flaws.Recall that Senator Blumenthal claimed to have served in Vietnam during the War. He didn’t. When called on the carpet for his blatant lie, Senator Blumenthal didn’t apologize. He didn’t show remorse. That isn’t in his nature. That isn’t in his character. Instead, Richard Blumenthal deflected the matter. He did so in order to salvage the lie. He sought to “clarify” his false remarks, rather than owning up to them. By failing to own up to his lie, Blumenthal merely compounded the lie; demonstrated to the public that here was a man who has a flawed character and is blind to his own flaws; and that he so contemptuously views the public, that he arrogantly assumes the public will be blind to those character flaws. What the public sees in this man, and in other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, though, are diehard hypocrites. The American public sees, in these Senate Democrats who sit on the Judiciary Committee, and the American public sees in the Democratic Party leadership, people so obsessed with their own sense of self-worth and so enamored with their own smug self-importance, and so dazzled by pretensions of personal grandeur that they truly believe Americans believe in the lies and delusions these Congressional Democrats created for themselves. But they are wrong. Americans, most Americans, at least, are not taken in by the air of pompous self-regard these Democrats have for themselves; nor do most Americans wish for the kind of America that these Democrats seek to create--the kind of America that President Obama had pushed the Country toward; and a kind of America that Hillary Clinton would have continued to work toward had she won the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.Could Senator Blumenthal and could other Democrats, who have a flawed character such as that of Blumenthal, withstand Senate inquiry and serious scrutiny into his character and reputation were he to have been nominated by a President—perhaps by Barack Obama—to sit as an Associate Justice on the high Court? One wonders.

BRETT KAVANAUGH DOES NOT OWE AN APOLOGY TO CHRISTINE FORD; NOR TO SENATE DEMOCRATS, NOR TO ANYONE. IF ANYTHING, CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS OWE AN APOLOGY TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH.

Senate Republican, Lindsay Graham, appropriately and rightfully excoriated Senate Democrats. And then speaking directly to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in an attempt to assist a man whose pain Senator Graham felt, as the man’s character was being improperly impugned before the entire Nation. Senator Graham told Judge Kavanaugh that he, Judge Kavanaugh, has done nothing wrong and does not need to apologize to anyone.Congressional Democrats obviously did not count on the courage and fortitude of Brett Kavanaugh—his tenacity to defend his honor, reputation, character, and good name; nor did they count on the American public’s own sense of fair play and human decency, as Americans have stood by Judge Kavanaugh.Democrats are so blinded by their own misguided sense of moral superiority that they have come to believe the deception they, and their allies, Progressives and Leftist agitators, dared play out on the American citizenry. But, “means do not justify the ends”—certainly not in this Age of Reason, and certainly not here, in the United States. Americans were justifiably appalled at Democrats’ chicanery; even more so once it became apparent that Senate Democrats had urged Judge Kavanaugh—plaintively, as a last ignominious and clearly futile attempt to delay a Senate Roll-Call vote on Confirmation—to ask President Trump to authorize the FBI to investigate Christine Ford’s allegations against the Judge. This was absurd.Senate Democrats, on the Judiciary Committee, know full well that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the nominee, cannot authorize FBI investigations into himself or anyone else; nor should he. The claim put forward by Senate Democrats that, if Judge Kavanaugh were truly innocent, he would authorize an investigation into the allegations was merely a red herring. How was Judge Kavanaugh expected to respond to that. Was he expected to capitulate? That would only serve to delay a Confirmation vote, which, of course, was what Senate Democrats hoped to accomplish. Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh would appear weak, having capitulated to the will of Senate Democrats. That would serve their own end; not his; nor ours, the American people.For all that, the FBI, as with any police agency, undertakes investigations on its own initiative when deemed necessary and has done so, many times, in the course of Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive work for the Nation. Nothing remotely came up, during seven thorough FBI investigations into Judge Kavanaugh’s background. That, in itself is telling. Also, the Senate itself can authorize an investigation; and the Senate itself can conduct its own investigation. In fact, Senate Republicans did undertake their own investigation into the barefaced allegations of Christine Ford, contacting individuals whom Christine Ford mentions as supporting her allegations. None of them did support Christine Ford’s allegations. Moreover, and oddly too, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, refrained from taking part in the Senate investigation, conducted by Republicans.Why is that? Could it be that the Democrats did not wish to know whether Christine Ford’s allegations could not be corroborated? For, if Senate Democrats learned that the accuser’s allegations could not be corroborated that would undercut the claim that Christine Ford’s allegations were true and that would have effectively ended the matter, as the accuser’s allegations would appear to the Nation to be less credible and Senate Democrats would have been compelled to acknowledge as much. But Senate Democrats would have none of that. Lastly, as Judge Kavanaugh pointed out, this latest hearing was itself an investigation. What more would actually be accomplished through an FBI investigation as the investigators would be doing no more than what Senate Republicans had already done: namely talk to those individuals whom Christine Ford had mentioned as people who could corroborate her story. They did not corroborate her story when interviewed by Senate Republicans, under pain of criminal penalty if they were caught in a lie. These individuals would not have corroborated the accuser’s story to FBI investigators as well. So, then what would be gained from an FBI investigation into the accuser’s allegations? Nothing. A call for a seventh FBI investigation at this time would serve nothing but make clear to the American public that Senate Democrats sought merely to delay a Roll-Call vote.*When one feels compelled to resort to chicanery, that chicanery comes back to bite them. And it has done so, here. The chicanery has come to bite Senate Democrats.

AMERICANS HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF DEMOCRATS’ DECEITFUL AND REPREHENSIBLE TACTICS.

Many members of the Democratic Party—certainly those members who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee—thought they could win over the public and, too, those few holdout Senators on the Republican Party. They apparently didn’t realize that, far from persuading Senate Republicans to turn against President’s Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, they have likely persuaded those Senate Republican holdouts to vote in favor of Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, and, perhaps, may have persuaded a few Senate Democrats to do so as well.Americans have now become increasingly aware that those Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Democratic Party Leadership and, many other Congressional Democrats, are “little people.” They have little empathy for human beings even as they claim empathy and concern for people. Their only concern is accumulation of power for themselves and to enable them to continue working toward completing the items on their agenda. They are people who have no integrity, no sense of human decency or character themselves, and therefore assume, wrongly, that no one else does either. Since they are flawed people, they are blind to their own flaws; and that will doom them and will doom the ignoble causes they seek to force upon our Nation and upon the American people. What they seek is massive social change and political upheaval, in order to remake this Country in a way far removed from a conception of a free Republic and a free people, propounded by the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution.A quotation from the 1951 Cary Grant film, “People Will Talk,” aptly describes what befalls those people who are so consumed with hate and vindictiveness and so convinced of their own moral superiority that they fail to see the flaws in their own character. Cary Grant, star in the film. He plays the protagonist, an idealistic medical professional, named Dr. Noah Praetorius. The antagonist in the film, Dr. Rodney Elwell, is played by the actor, Hume Cronyn. Dr. Elwell unfairly, spitefully, and ruthlessly attempts to destroy the character and reputation of Dr. Praetorius. Toward the end of the film, when Dr. Elwell’s attempt to destroy the character and reputation of  the man fails, he finds himself literally and figuratively, alone. As Dr. Elwell and Mr. Shunderson, Dr. Praetorius’ mysterious friend and personal servant, remain alone in a conference room at a college where Dr. Praetorius teaches, Mr. Shunderson privately scolds Dr. Elwell. Mr. Shunderson does so, not loudly and proudly like a victor might who had fought and won a brutal contest, but quietly, thoughtfully—and, curiously, in a way, that may be described as soothing, even melancholy—as he contemplates now a broken man, a disgraced man, a shallow man, sitting at the conference table. Here was a man who had been smugly self-assured, seemingly pious, but no longer.Dr. Elwell is now truly alone, a ruined man, and wholly irrelevant, as he has failed utterly to bring over others to his side in what was clearly found to be an unfair attack on Dr. Praetorius, a man for whom, it became clear, Dr. Elwell was deeply envious, and whose character and reputation he had, therefore, sought to ruin. But, those whom he had hoped to convince had heard more than enough. No one wished to listen to Dr. Elwell anymore. Dr. Praetorius character and reputation was vindicated and it was Dr. Elwell whose character and reputation now lay in tatters.Mr. Shunderson tells Mr. Elwell, this: “Professor Elwell, you're a little man. It's not that you're short. You're. . . little, in the mind and in the heart. Tonight, you tried to make a man little whose boots you couldn't touch if you stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. And as it turned out . . . you're even littler than you were before.”Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are, together, “Dr. Elwell,” and we would add the Democratic Party leadership, too, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Representative, Nancy Pelosi. They are attempting to take down Brett Kavanaugh, whose boots these Democrats couldn’t touch if they stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. These Democrats are, themselves, little people, and always have been even if that fact had been lost on many Americans; but no longer. And, after the disgusting sham hearing they put on to cut down an honorable man, a sham hearing they put on for the entire Nation to see—after behind the scenes machinating, conspiring—it isn’t Brett Kavanaugh who appears “little” to the Nation, whom they sought to make little. Rather, it is these Democrats who are “little, in the mind and in the heart.” Americans should seriously think about the matter witnessed in the spectacle they see played out before them. If they do so, and are not taken in by false rhetoric, they will become fully aware of what is really going on here: a ruthless attempt to destroy a man’s honor, character, and reputation, not because of some perceived flaw in the man—as there is none—but because Brett Kavanaugh stands in the way of their own lust for power; he stands in the way of their own quest for personal aggrandizement. And, through all that they have done and all that they continue to do to ruthlessly cut down the honor, character, and reputation of a man, they now appear, like Dr. Elwell, even littler than they were before.If there was any doubt whether Judge Kavanaugh merits ascendancy to Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Democrats have now, themselves put that doubt to rest. But they have done so not in the manner they thought; not in the manner they planned for; not in the manner they have hoped and expected. And, perhaps worst of all, for them, the public sees them now as disgraceful actors, as circus clowns, yet still bearing animosity, still bearing grudges, despite being found out for the buffoons they are. They hold high rank in Government, yes, but they have been thoroughly exposed for the hypocrites they were; for the hypocrites they are, and for the hypocrites they will, unfortunately, always remain. They are worthy of no American’s respect and should expect none.We implore our fellow Americans to contact their U.S. Senator immediately, telling their Senator they should do nothing to dignify the Democrats’ despicable last minute attempt to sabotage confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh through their outlandish scheme to impugn Judge Kavanaugh's character, reputation and honor. Tell your U.S. Senator to vote in favor of confirming the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. As is abundantly clear, the American people need Judge Kavanaugh as he will help preserve the integrity of our Constitution, and our  system of laws and justice as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court; and that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will do so in a manner consistent with the will and wishes of the founders of our Republic. We can ask for no more of Judge Kavanaugh; and would expect nothing less from him. You will find the name and contact number of your Senator at this link: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm._____________________________________________*As of the date of the posting of this article, President Trump, on his own initiative, has authorized a limited FBI investigation. The FBI is limited to investigating the specific allegations of sexual misconduct made against Brett Kavanaugh, however implausible the allegations are. Ostensibly, President Trump felt compelled to take this action because Jeff Flake, who had agreed to refer, along with other Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the full Senate, had, literally, at the last minute, reneged on that referral. Further, Senate Republicans, Collins and Murkowski, taking their cue from Senator Flake, have now made clear that they wish for the FBI to investigate the allegations of sexual misconduct, too, before they are willing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, apart from delaying a full Senate Roll-Call vote for another week, this places the FBI in an unenviable position. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, the FBI’s report will be deemed political. This, the FBI doesn’t need, given that the American public has been apprised that, both prior to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereafter, high ranking DOJ and FBI officials have operated as functionaries of the Democratic Party and not as independent police investigators and attorneys. Moreover, since Senate Republicans have, as they made clear during the last Hearing, already undertaken an investigation of individuals whom Christine Ford named as witnesses who might corroborate her allegations, and as none of those individuals had corroborated Christine Ford’s allegations, nothing would be gained through an FBI interview of those same people. Now, two other individuals, Debra Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, have come forward with their own allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. However, the allegations of sexual misconduct that these two new accusers have brought against Judge Kavanaugh are so patently ludicrous, that any time spent and taxpayer monies expended by FBI personnel to interview these women would serve only to turn what has already become a circus into a full-fledged farce. But that is where we, the American people, are, no thanks to Senator Feinstein’s unethical, and truly despicable 11^th Hour bombshell release of Christine Blasey Ford’s barefaced accusation against Judge Kavanaugh._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATS TRY AN ELEVENTH HOUR ATTACK ON JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH’S CONFIRMATION TO THE HIGH COURT.

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls:Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he that filches from me my good nameRobs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ~ William Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3_____________________________“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”  ~ Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” May 4, 1979 through November 28, 1990_____________________________

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAKE A MOCKERY OF A SOLEMN PROCESS FOR CONFIRMING A PERSON TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND, WORST OF ALL, DARE ATTEMPT DESTRUCTION OF A MAN'S GOOD NAME--FOR NO PURPOSE BUT THEIR OWN MISBEGOTTEN AND SELFISH POLITICAL END.

The American public’s patience with the Democratic Party and with the Democratic Party’s echo chamber, the mainstream news media, must be wearing thin, and rightly so. In a disgraceful, 11^th Hour attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democratic Party member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, brought to the attention of Chairman Grassley and to other Republicans sitting on the Committee, uncorroborated accusations impugning the Judge’s character.The accusations against Judge Kavanaugh came to Senator Feinstein, last July. No explanation has been, to date, forthcoming from the Senator, as to her reason or reasons for holding onto the contents of the letter for over two months, but we can reasonably surmise that one major reason Senator Feinstein held onto the contents of the letter has to do with the political usefulness of it in attempting to derail or, at least, holding up a Senate vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the 2018 Midterm elections, when the Democrats hope to gain control of the House and even the Senate. Senator Feinstein, and other Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee knew, full well, of the difficulty, if not the empirical impossibility, of holding up the confirmation of a person admirably qualified to sit on the high Court Justice unless she had a card, an “Ace,” up her sleeve that would rally Leftists in this Country. And, apparently, she did have an “Ace” up her sleeve. In a last minute attempt to throw a wrench into the entire Confirmation process, Senator Feinstein dropped a bomb shell on Chairman Grassley and on other Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee. The bomb shell took the form of an allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, ostensibly referring to an event that, if it occurred at all and if it involved Judge Kavanaugh, happened literally decades ago, when both the Brett Kavanaugh and the accuser were teenagers, in high school.The accusation came to the Senator in a letter she received from a person who, apparently, and not surprisingly, made clear to the Senator, at the time she contacted the Senator, last July, that the accuser wished to remain anonymous. From details of the letter that Senator Feinstein only made known to Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee just days before a Roll-Call vote of the Senate was planned, Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser cast a pernicious and potentially libelous accusation on Judge Kavanaugh. One can surmise the accuser’s motives and she should explain them to the American public. But, assuredly, the accuser, and Senate Democrats, sought to create doubt upon and to impugn the Judge’s good name, character, and reputation, and that is certainly the impact Democrats, through their echo chamber, the mainstream media, are attempting to invoke in the psyche of the American public. If their campaign of deception to cast doubt on the character of Judge Kavanaugh is successful, Senate Democrats will prevent confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh as the new Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is what they want and that is the reason Senate Democrats have implemented an last minute smear campaign. They have nothing else. Thus, they engage in the most despicable act of all: an attempt at character assassination. It is for this reason that Senate Republicans must remain firm in their own commitment to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and without delay, and not allow a false flag smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh to gain traction. Now, it isn't clear whether Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and other Congressional Democrats really aware of the content of the letter in Senator Feinstein's possession before releasing it to Chairman Grassley and to other Senate Republicans. Were other Senate Democrats aware of the contents of the damning letter? And, if so, who, and when did they learn about the contents of the letter? Did they know of the contents before the Confirmation Hearing even took place. After all, Senator Feinstein had the letter in her possession for several weeks, prior to the Hearing. Senator Feinstein could certainly have questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the letter's contents, discretely, when she met with him privately; or she could have brought the matter up at the Hearing, albeit, an attack on a person's character is hardly a matter that should be the subject of a Senate Hearing on the Confirmation of a Judge to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the subject of one's character and integrity and reputation should not even be in question. Judge Kavanaugh has served admirably as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for several years. Impugning a Judge's character serves only to degrade the entire Confirmation process and denigrates, too, the dignity of everyone present, Senators as well as the nominee himself.But, we have to ask: Were other Congressional Democrats—especially Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Senators Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar, Christopher Coons, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Mazie Hirono—also aware, last July, of the contents of the letter that had landed on Senator Feinstein’s desk? If so, they aren’t saying, and no one in the mainstream media seems to be interested in asking. But, they have lent their voices to impugning the character and good name of Judge Kavanaugh merely on the basis of an uncorroborated, unsupported damning barefaced, written accusation.*As Senator Feinstein certainly intended, Congressional Democrats, along with the assistance of the  mainstream media, launched an immediate, vigorous, aggressive attack against Judge Kavanaugh, shamelessly smearing and besmirching his name and character across the National landscape.Obviously, Democrats intend to squash the confirmation of the President’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court by whatever means available, however dubious and shameful those means may be.

THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO HAS ATTACKED JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CHARACTER, COMES TO LIGHT.

Eventually the identity of the accuser came to light—by whom it is not clear.  Conceivably, Democrats, themselves, leaked the name of the accuser. Democrats had certainly become aware that a damning, barefaced anonymous accusation would not delay a Senate Confirmation vote; nor should it. They had to attach a name and face to the accuser, and that would have been their motive, then, for releasing the identity of Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser to the public.The letter to Senator Feinstein, the Nation has learned, came from a middle-aged lady by the name of Christine Blasey Ford, a resident of California, and a Psychology Professor at Palo Alta University. Of note: Fox News reports that, “Ford is a registered Democrat who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington Post.” As a registered Democrat, that fact would certainly supply a motive for the Professor having contacted Senator Feinstein.Christine Blasey Ford alleges, in her letter, as relayed to the mass media by Senator Feinstein, that the U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, assaulted—or attempted to assault the woman (it isn’t clear which, nor is it even clear if the assault or attempted assault was in fact of a sexual nature)—when the two were in high school, an event that would have occurred, if it occurred at all, well over thirty ago. Notably, the accuser is short on critical details, such as when the alleged assault occurred, where the assault occurred, and, for that matter, what it is, exactly, the accuser claims, had occurred, but which, the American public is to believe, has festered in the mind of Christine Blasey Ford for decades.The problem, of course, is that there does not appear to be anyone around who is able to corroborate the accusation. Senate Republican Committee members attempted to find someone, anyone, who might be able to corroborate Judge Kavanaugh's accuser's story. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, for his part, categorically denies the accusation. No matter, Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, have presented the accusation, and continue to present the accusation to the public as gospel, however sketchy the details. Other, more reasonable, rational individuals, including Republican members, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, are not so obliging; nor should they be; no one should.

A WOMAN LODGES A BAREFACED, UNSUPPORTED, SERIOUS, HEINOUS, IF NOT ALTOGETHER SPURIOUS, ALLEGATION AGAINST A RESPECTED AND RESPECTABLE JURIST DESCRIBING AN EVENT THAT, IF THERE IS ANYTHING TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT AT ALL, REFERS TO A MATTER OCCURRING DECADES AGO; AND THE ACCUSER HONESTLY BELIEVES DOING SO WOULD NOT LEAD TO PERSONAL REPERCUSSIONS FOR HERSELF, HAVING PROFFERED IT? HOW CAN A MIDDLE-AGED, PRESUMABLY RESPONSIBLE, RATIONAL ADULT—REMEMBER WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A CHILD HERE—WHO HAS HAD MANY LIFE EXPERIENCES, AND WHO HAS EARNED A DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY, WHO TEACHES PSYCHOLOGY AT AN ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY IN CALIFORNIA, AND WHO IS, THEN, OBVIOUSLY INTELLIGENT, BE SO CALLOUS, SO HEARTLESS, SO SELF-CENTERED, AND, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, SO NAÏVE AS TO BRING UP A PERSONAL MATTER THAT DOES LITTLE, IF ANYTHING--CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME MAY BELIEVE--TO BUTTRESS HER OWN NAME, CHARACTER, AND REPUTATION?

A serious allegation has been lodged against a man whom dozens of other individuals, male and female professionals, know well. Individuals have come forward, pointing to a sensitive, caring person, with impeccable character and reputation; a person having a brilliant legal mind, honed through many years of service to the Nation as a Judge sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. So, if one person’s deprecating comments against Judge Kavanaugh are to be given honest consideration, as both the accuser and Democrats hope—as there are, to date, no negative remarks from those individuals who know Judge Kavanaugh either personally or professionally—then it stands to reason this person must come forward and explain herself to the Nation.We know, however, that Christine Blasey Ford, did not wish to come forward, and does not wish to come forward and that, through her attorney, Debra Katz,** she has made and continues to make many outrageous demands, frustrating, and, obviously, deliberately so, the patience of Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee.One of Christine Blasey Ford’s demands are that Judge Kavanaugh testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, before, Blasey Ford testifies. That is a ludicrous demand to make and it is one contrary to our system of justice and legal procedure.An accuser bears the burden of proof, and must present evidence in support of the accusation so that the accused has an opportunity to hear and view the evidence and has an opportunity to respond to it. It is patently unfair and contrary to our Nation’s judicial practice and procedure and, for that matter, illogical to demand that the accused testify before the accused has had an opportunity to know just what it is the accused is being accused of and has had no opportunity to rebut the accusation made against him or her.The accuser is also demanding that a Senate Confirmation vote be delayed so that she has time to prepare her testimony. But, does Christine Blasey Ford truly require time to prepare? She presented her letter to Senator Feinstein in July. She should have known, ultimately, that she could not simply present a damning accusation, attacking the reputation, character, integrity, and good-name of the man without personally testifying and presenting independent corroborating evidence, to support her accusation, if she has any, that is to say.Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney, probably working closely with Senate Democrats in the shadows, is  attempting to create unnecessary delay when there is no tenable reason to do so. She, and Senate Democrats working with her, are doing this, not because the attorney really needs to prepare her client's testimony before the Senate Committee, even as she says there exists a need to do so, but because they both want to delay a Senate vote on Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the  2016 Midterm Elections in the hope, once again, that Democrats gain control of both the House and Senate and can then prevent a majority vote in the Senate, in favor of confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Senate Democratic Party majority will effectively block Judge Kavanaugh from being confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, thereby frustrating the President, and also frustrating the people who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States, and who had every reason to expect that the President would nominate a person to the high Court who would preserve the Constitution and the rights and liberties of American citizens, in strict accordance to the plain meaning of the Constitution, as drafted by the framers of it. And, Donald Trump has kept his word. We, who support the President, seek to defend the U.S. Constitution, our legal system, the supremacy of our laws and the continued sovereignty of our Nation. And the best way to do so is to secure jurists on the U.S. Supreme Court and on the lower Courts who would do the same. Activist jurists who legislate from the Bench are precisely what supporters of the U.S. President do not want. That is what Barack Obama has given to the American people, and the American people have seen what that has wrought for Nation, and Americans have had enough of that. Is not the derailing of the Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, then, the central reason that Christine Blasey Ford, a supporter of Hillary Clinton, contacted Senator Feinstein? And, isn't the presentation of Christine Blasey Ford's barefaced damning allegation, to Senate Republicans and to the Nation--an isolated, solitary, ludicrous allegation attacking a good man's honor, character, good name, and reputation--the purpose of this smear, this attempt at character assassination? Isn't this what Congressional Democrats had planned all along: to deny Judge Kavanaugh a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of his ability and brilliance as a jurist and regardless of his integrity, character, reputation, sensitivity, and decency as a person and American citizen? Isn't this what a last ditch attempt to disrupt the assured confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh is really all about? Of course it is. And, Democrats have nothing else to use in their attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court. They can come up with nothing else. So, then, this is what Senate Democrats have allowed themselves to be reduced to, ghoulish wretchedness. They utilize the most despicable of tactics in a last ditch attempt to prevent confirmation of a man eminently suited to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. They resort to character assassination. And, they don't care whether the claims impugning Judge Kavanaugh's character are true or not. Indeed, they are reduced to lauding the truth of barefaced damning, unsupported, and vacuous allegation before the accuser has even testified, turning reason, and logic, and common-sense, and proper due process and procedure and judicial fairness; and simple, plain common decency our the door. Indeed, they claim that Judge Kavanaugh must prove his innocence. And, how in law or logic would he even do that, even assuming, for purpose of argument that the onus is on him to prove his innocence? How does one, anyone, go about proving a negative?For purpose of delay, Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney has also demanded that the FBI conduct an investigation of the charge her client has made against her client. That demand is equally absurd. No individual can demand as a matter of right—and, for that matter, it is even wrong to ask—a police department or agency to conduct a criminal investigation. It is the prerogative of a police agency, whether local, County, State, or Federal, to conduct an investigation if, in the first instance, proper jurisdiction exists and it appears worthwhile to do so, which means that forensic evidence likely exists that a crime actually occurred.In this instance it is particularly absurd for the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation. First, the FBI has no jurisdiction to conduct a criminal investigation. The matter would have been within the jurisdiction of the State where the alleged matter purportedly occurred, as the matter is a State matter, not a federal one. No federal law has been violated. So, jurisdictionally, the FBI cannot investigate the matter as a crime, even if it wanted to. Second, as a possible State crime, the State’s Statute of Limitations on assault, sexual or otherwise, may have expired if a Statute of Limitation exists in the jurisdiction where the alleged assault took place. And, even if a Statute of Limitations does not exist, still, in the absence of forensic evidence and in the absence of witnesses who can corroborate the allegation--both of which are highly unlikely--given the fact that the allegation refers to a matter occurring if it occurred at all, literally decades ago, no competent prosecutor would ever attempt to prosecute such a case, as there would be little, if any, chance of obtaining a conviction.If, third, the accuser is demanding that the FBI investigate the allegation not as a crime, but as an investigation into Judge Kavanaugh’s character, then that demand is pointless if not altogether absurd as well because the FBI has already conducted numerous extremely extensive background investigations on Judge Kavanaugh as he has worked for both the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and for the Judicial Branch of Government, the Federal Judiciary, where he presently serves as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.There is nothing further to be gained from use of taxpayer funds for the FBI to do another background investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as he has gone through thorough background investigations already, the last one of which would have been required in the Judge’s capacity as President Trump’s nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. If the FBI had come up with anything concrete to cast doubt on the Judge Kavanaugh’s character, to prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the high Court, the Confirmation process would have been short-circuited, at the inception. There would never have been Hearing. FBI background investigations are extremely thorough, and especially so for those individuals who are being considered to hold powerful positions in the Federal Government, as is true here.It strains credulity to believe the FBI would have been unable to obtain evidence of criminal wrongdoing or evidence of anything suggesting a person has character flaws if any such evidence truly exists.  We should not be looking at Judge Kavanaugh at all. Americans, should, rather, be looking at the accuser, Christine Basely Ford; for if her accusation were true, it is difficult to believe that she would not have mentioned the matter to someone, if not the police, then, perhaps, to a friend, or to her pastor, or, if not to one or more of them, then certainly to her parents who themselves would have contacted the police. In this era of the hysterical "Me Too" movement (or #MeToo) with women coming out of the woodwork, many with the most outrageous of claims, reason dictates that a reasonable person be skeptical of claims of moral impropriety or criminal wrongdoing when all that exists is a bare bones allegation.In the instant case, a decades old claim of assault (sexual or not)--and one, at that, coming from a person holding political views antithetical to Republicans, a person who is certainly no supporter of President Trump, and a person who is represented by an attorney who is, herself, a known hard-core left-wing activist--smacks of an orchestrated scheme, a design, a plan, concocted by Democrats and Left-wing agitators to undermine the President at every turn. The American public has certainly seen substantial evidence of that to date. A direct, concerted attack on the President's nominees to sit on Federal Courts, especially the President's nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, when that nominee would create a clear conservative-wing majority on the Court, is something that Democrats and Leftists cannot, it is evident, abide. Indeed, since a Supreme Court Justice holds a lifetime appointment, the power of the high Court, with Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, would provide the best means possible to preserve: the U.S. Constitution and a free Republic; the supremacy of our laws, and the sovereignty of our Nation; the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry, and an  appreciation for the continued autonomy and sanctity of the individual--all of which exists within the framework of our Constitution and system of laws, as established by the founders of our Nation. None of this, Democrats and Leftist groups want to preserve. Their aims and goals require a tortuous reading of the Constitution. They see our Constitution and fallible and malleable. They do not accept the supremacy of our Constitution and laws, but rather as contained within a broader spectrum of international law and pacts and treaties and foreign tribunals, all impacting our Nation and its people. They do not believe in the conception of natural law--that the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen exist beyond their lawful power to curtail or eliminate. They believe that all laws, even our natural unalienable rights, codified in our Bill of Rights are merely man-made constructs, and, as such, they see rights and liberties as subject to constant reconfiguration, refinement, regulation, even elimination; and they seek to create new substantive rights that nowhere exist in the Constitution, such as a right to an abortion on demand. These Leftists would destroy our Country, as originally constituted: an independent Sovereign Nation. They would accomplish this by opening up our borders to virtually anyone who wishes to reside within our borders, and they would provide these individuals, these aliens, with all the rights, liberties and privileges attendant to citizens, thereby destroying the very concept of 'citizen,' along with the concept of our Country as an 'independent, Sovereign Nation' in the process. These Leftists would destroy our Nation and its Constitution as assuredly as would a foreign military invasion. In fact, it would be worse, as destruction of our Nation and its Constitution would be completed, quietly, insidiously, from within. We have seen this playing out before, through the actions of the previous President of the United States, Barack Obama. We see this playing out now, even more clearly, only because Donald Trump, rather than Hillary Clinton, secured the Presidency in 2016. And Americans now know, cannot reasonably deny, that Barack Obama, when he held Office, was busy at work, not doing the work of the American people, but, rather, busy at work quietly creating within the federal bureaucracy and within the Judiciary, mechanisms to weaken our Constitution, and our rights and liberties and dismantling our Nation, a free Republic. Much of his disassembling, consisted in part of the placement of individuals in key positions, thousands of them--Leftist ideologues, who have, it is fair to conclude, no love for our Nation, for its Constitution, or for its system of laws--certainly no love for our Nation, for its Constitution, or for its system of laws, as conceived by our founders. President Trump has begun to rectify this. He has attempted and is attempting to reconstitute our Nation in the manner envisioned and implemented by our founders. Democrats and Leftist groups and agitators, and mainstream media newspapers and organizations, perceive what is happening; they see the turnaround, and they are unhappy with it; want none of it. And, we see them fighting back; and they are doing so through means that illustrate their contempt for our Constitution, for our laws, for our jurisprudence, as their methods and actions are patently unlawful. Again, they don't care, as it is their design to dismantle this Nation and to rewrite our Constitution anyway. They have an agenda; it is one that Barack Obama has been following. It is one that Hillary Clinton--had she gained the Office of U.S. President--would have continued. It calls for control of the massive federal bureaucracy. It calls for control of the Press. It calls for control of the Judiciary; it calls for the very destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry. This process was well underway during Barack Obama's terms in Office; and it is still underway, even as President Trump attempts methodically, albeit with great difficulty, to set things right; to set things back to the way they were; to the way they ought to be; to the way our founders intended. And, we see the Press, an organ of this vast bureaucratic and judicial conspiracy--publishers, editors, reporters, commentators, editorialists, commentators--working assiduously, aggressively, ceaselessly  against our Nation, against our Nation's Constitution, and against the best interests of the Nation's citizenry. They strive to force the United States into a trans-nationalist, globalist, world order. That do not deny this. They do not disagree with our assessment. They embrace it, talk lovingly about it. They argue that President Trump has a view of this Nation and its laws that are archaic, that our Nation must enter a new age; that it must become part of a larger community of nations, politically as well as economically. They argue that we must not be insular. That we must embrace multiculturalism, alien ideas, extreme diversity. They argue that we must be willing to relinquish our old jurisprudential standards, along with those  parts of our Constitution that reflect a history, a conception of our Nation and its people, that is no longer,as they see it, useful and relevant, and that is, in fact dangerous to a new conceptual schema, a new political, legal, economic, social, and cultural framework, a new paradigm, as the old ways--the Constitution as originally articulated, the Nation State as originally conceived--all of it is no longer consistent with conception of and aims of a new international world order. The Press is, in fact, correct in its assessment of President Trump of what President Trump is attempting to do. But, the Press is wrong in one critical respect. It is this: the conception of our Nation and of our Nation's laws, and of our Nation's Constitution, as conceived by our founders, is precisely what the American people do wish to preserve. The Press, as the mouthpiece of those elements both in our Nation and abroad that wish to reconfigure our Nation to cohere with the model of the EU, see the design of our Constitution, and see the notion of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State as old and archaic--reminiscent of  an Order conceived by our founders, that is no longer relevant and, so, no longer worth preserving, no longer worth even remembering. They see our Constitution, as drafted by its framers, and as ratified by the States, as anachronistic. They see our centuries of law and jurisprudence, and of the citizenry's rights and liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution as reflecting ideas that are no longer relevant or useful. They see the notion of the sanctity of the autonomy of the individual as altogether incompatible--which it is--with the utilitarian concept of "the good" achievable only when people are conceived as and ruled over as "a collective." All that, which the American public sees as timeless and which has preceded us and which the American public sees is worth preserving, and worth remembering, and worthy of adulation, these Democrats and Leftists, see as unimportant, and, in fact, destructive to their goal of incorporating our Nation into a new international, globalist world order, one where our citizens are perceived as no different than the citizens of any other nation of the world--where, in fact, the very notion of 'citizen,' so long pervasive in our society, is now perceived as detrimental to their goal of a one world government, requiring our citizenry to be shoehorned into the populations of the world, reduced to abject servitude. Those things that we see as timeless, permanent, worthy of preserving and, in fact necessary and vital, Democrats and Leftists have been altogether dismissive of. They have quietly, but, of late, vociferously, sought to undermine, our history, our culture, our pride of Nation, our system of laws and jurisprudence, our fundamental rights and liberties. There is a war proceeding now, a war for the soul of our People; for the soul of our Nation; for the soul of our Constitution and four our system of laws. Donald Trump was elected precisely because enough Americans realized--could see--the destruction of a Nation occurring before their very eyes and therefore sought a person to hold high Office who would prevent this, would turn the destructive tendencies, impulses, as well, as design for a new conception of our Nation, for a new conception of our laws and a new conception of our Constitution, completely around. There is a war brewing in this Country. It is a war fought, not, at the moment at least, with bombs, and guns and swords, but with words. But the winds of violence, of strife and turmoil are brewing, ominously on the horizon, as we see Leftist agitators, using violence, more and more: rapidly, incessantly, with more severity; and Democrats and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, the Press, do not condemn this violence. Far from it. They condone it, even encourage it. Democrats and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, the Press, are, therefore, complicit in the incitement of it.The Leftists in this Nation and abroad, who control the media--seek to control the mind, the psyche of the public. They are losing, nonetheless. Thus, they resort to the use of agitators; and they besmirch the character and reputation of those individuals who are not on board with their game plan. This much is clear; this much is obvious; this cannot be denied. As the Democrats and Leftist radicals lose control of the discourse, they become more discouraged, and then disgruntled. By degrees, they become agitated, then enraged, and ever more determined. They thrash about, making ever more ridiculous assertions, devising ever more noxious, disreputable schemes for fighting back. In so doing, they no longer appear like human beings. They take on the wild-eyed look of animals, of beasts. And, the more obstreperous they become, the more the public turns against them, in repugnance, in loathing, as well we should; for, these people, these Democrats, these Leftists, are not the voice of restraint. How can they be? They cannot even restrain themselves. And, so the public turns against them, enraging them even more; and they devise ever more outlandish schemes and make ever more outlandish pronouncements. They are not the voice of reason. Their claims of concern for the health, safety, and welfare of others are empty, vacuous, as the public knows their words are not heartfelt. It is no more than pretense; and not subtle pretense. Their moral tone is a charade, and so it appears to the public, as their outrageous actions belie their words. These Democrats, these Leftists, are not the voice of sanity; they are not the voice of morality, despite their claims to the contrary. They are not the voice of reason. How can they be? Their pronouncements are reduced to gibberish, mere sanctimonious patter, endlessly repeated, by one and then others of them. And, the American public has contempt for them and for good reason, as they are not sincere. The public is disgusted with their empty rhetoric, their bombastic retorts; their bald faced arrogance.These Democrats and Leftists, seeming liberal in outlook as they wish to appear, as they think they appear to others, become more and more radical in bearing, as their tone becomes more strident and either childishly simplistic, or completely incomprehensible. They resort to ever more alarming, ever more irrational assertions, remonstrations, and actions. As  more and more Americans turn against them, as they see the tide of the public turning against them in disgust, these Democrats, these Leftists, become ever more agitated, ever more desperate. They resort to ever more ridiculous, outrageous, and reprehensible assertions and actions; devise ever more insidious, outlandish, and illegal schemes in an attempt to turn the tide--to return to their program, their agenda. They cannot help themselves. They are on a runaway train. They don't even know how ludicrous they look; how clownish they appear; how irrational their actions are; how irrelevant they have become. As conservatives, we American conservatives--conservatives , indeed, in our very restraint, and in our thought and in our behavior and in our deeds, and in our outlook on life--hold more securely to our Constitution, to our Nation as a free Republic, to our system of laws and jurisprudence, to our great history, and to our core values, and to our pride. We see that Democrats in Congress, and Leftist radicals, become ever more radical in presentment of their schemes, and in their protestations, and in their aims; and in their attitudes and behavior toward others. They cannot and will not countenance any view but their own. They will not debate. For, they would lose. Their aims, and goals, and philosophy are nonsensical, completely at odds with our National character. They have lost their sense of balance; of reason. They have lost all semblance of self-control. They are completely forsaken. And, that fact has not been lost anyone.

THE AIMS OF DEMOCRATS AND LEFTIST RADICALS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY CLEAR, SELF-EVIDENT: THEY SEEK TO STRIP THIS NATION CLEAN OF ITS HISTORY, ITS HERITAGE, ITS DIGNITY, ITS UNIQUENESS, OF EVERYTHING THAT HOLDS US TOGETHER--EVERYTHING THAT HAS, SINCE OUR NATION'S INCEPTION, BOUND US TOGETHER, AS ONE NATION UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND CARE OF OUR CREATOR.

A Congress controlled by Democrats and Leftists of all stripes, would strip bare the framework of our Nation and reconstruct it as merely a unit within the structure of the European Union. Our Nation would become part of an international world order, unconstrained by traditions or history. Multiculturalism would dominate. Our Nation would become a heterogenous conglomeration of unassimilable people, holding alien ideas to whom our core values, our traditions, our Bill of Rights is simply indecipherable, meaningless. As our societal fabric becomes more tenuous, we will see our Nation, our Constitution, our system of laws fragment. The Nation will be ripe for a takeover by powerful international forces. This new "modern" America would no longer be recognizable. Democrats and leftist groups welcome the change; indeed, they are working for that change; they are working for that very transformation of our Country. And they think that is a good thing; that such transformation is proper; that the old Nation, conceived and established by our founders, no longer adequately "works;" that it no longer represents the values of the modern age; that the founder's "construct" no longer reflects the new age that exists. They see, President Trump's slogan, "America First" as representative of an archaic notion; that it is  anachronistic and, worse, that it is arrogantly defiant. Democrats and Leftist groups argue for a new conception of the way Americans should see themselves, namely that they should see themselves not as citizens of a Nation, the United States, but, rather, that they should see themselves as "citizens of the world,"--an empty concept really, as we, citizens of a new world would be reduced to serfdom, as we fit into a new world feudalistic order, as the European Union is degenerating into.Our Supreme Court, though, our third Branch of Government, that in previous years, the public has been little cognizant of, can prevent this. The public is certainly cognizant of and sees the importance of our high Court now. And, what is it that we want and expect from our Justices? Americans should want and expect Justices who test the lawfulness of Congressional and State action through the Constitution, as it is written, as the framers of it understood it. Such Justices would be a mighty force to be reckoned with even if Democrats to take control of the House after the 2016 Midterm elections. For, a conservative-wing majority on the high Court can withstand a Congress run amok. But, Conservative-wing jurists who defer to and respect the Constitution, who do not legislate from the Bench, will then protect our history; our heritage; our fundamental rights and liberties; the supremacy of our laws; and the sovereignty of our Nation. All that we hold dear would be undone if Democrats are able to prevent competent jurists, such as Judge Kavanaugh, from gaining a seat on the high Court. Yet, the Democrats' tool for thwarting the Confirmation process would be laughable in the contemplation if we did not see it unfolding in practice: a malcontented middle-age woman, holding a decades old grudge. That is what Senate Democrats are using to derail the Senate Confirmation process.One decades old barefaced allegation of wrongdoing, short on details, in the absence of forensic evidence and corroborating witnesses, is hardly a legitimate, rational basis for the FBI to seriously consider launching another background investigation even if they had the authorization to do so.Of course the U.S. President could ask the FBI to undertake an investigation (the seventh?); but one would hardly expect the President to authorize yet another investigation into Judge Kavanaugh's past, as Judge Kavanaugh, after all, is the President’s nominee to serve on the high Court. It would be against the President’ interest to request such an investigation, and there is no suggestion that Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee feel that a further FBI investigation is necessary, anyway.If Senate Republicans wish undertake an investigation of the allegation, let them do so. They have the prerogative to do so; and, likely, they have already quietly undertaken an investigation. For all that, there is nothing to suggest, from one solitary allegation of purported wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh--as brought to the attention of Chairman Grassley, at the 11^th Hour by Senator Feinstein--to support an FBI investigation were the President, in fact, inclined to authorize the FBI to do so. The fact of the matter is that any further background investigation would simply delay a Senate confirmation vote and delay a confirmation vote indefinitely—which, of course, is really the point. An investigation into the allegation would be interminable; it would and could never be completed because there is nothing to be undertaken. So, if one considers the entire matter rationally, another FBI background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh's past, would be futile, redundant, and silly, making a mockery of the entire Senate Confirmation process. But, Democrats don't care. They  want to prevent a confirmation vote of Judge Kavanaugh from ever occurring. That is their goal. And, even now, Democrats must be operating in the dark to devise ever more outrageous schemes to prevent Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, if the present "tool" doesn't work. And, they will undoubtedly pull out another"Me Too" tool to use against any person President Trump nominates to the high Court. They will do everything they can to prevent a Conservative-wing Majority on the high Court.

IS JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CREDIBILITY AND CHARACTER REALLY IN QUESTION HERE? IS IT NOT, REALLY, THE CREDIBILITY, CHARACTER, AND MOTIVATION OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S ACCUSER THAT ARE IN QUESTION?

It is not Judge Kavanaugh's credibility and character that are really in question, here, but those of Christine Blasey Ford. Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser’s recollection of the allegation she has lodged against Judge Kavanaugh demands she personally come forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee to offer testimony to support her allegation if she intends for it to be taken seriously.The Judiciary Committee should also question Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser as to her motivations for having brought a damning accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, pertaining to a matter that, if there is anything to it at all, references an event occurring well over thirty years ago. The Judiciary Committee might ask Christine Blasey Ford about the possibility of her having had an hysterical reaction to something unrelated to assault or attempted assault, and the nature of the alleged assault or attempted assault—whether of a sexual nature or not. There is a possibility, perhaps a probability, that Christine Blasey Ford is misremembering critical facts. There are certainly gaps in her account, as the accusation, as presented to the public, as reported in the news, is short on critical details. The Judiciary Committee might ultimately and reasonably infer that the event, in any critical particular, had not really transpired at all.Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser may simply be recalling a bad dream she had as a child or as a teenager, mistakenly, albeit honestly, believing the dream to constitute reality; or if the event described actually happened, she may be mistaken as to the identity of the individual she believes had assaulted her or attempted to assault her. The entire accusation, from what the public has seen, to date, is altogether murky, but Democrats expect the public and Senate Republicans to accept the account as given, as true on its face. That is decidedly irrational.The Judiciary Committee should question Christine Blasey Ford as to her political leanings, as the  motivation for bringing up the matter is definitely relevant. In that regard, would Christine Blasey Ford have sent her damning letter to Senator Feinstein, if the allegation in the letter pointed to a nominee of the U.S. President who happened to be favored by Democrats? If not, would not that mean that the purpose of the letter is not to preclude an individual from being confirmed as a Justice on the high Court because of purported character flaws, but to preclude an individual from serving on the high Court that the accuser, along with Democrats, doesn’t like because of his jurisprudential philosophy and approach to case analysis? And if the accuser and Senate Democrats do not like Judge Kavanaugh, not because of any doubt as to his professional qualifications, but because of negative and baseless presumptions about how, they believe, that Judge Kavanaugh might happen to decide a case; and based on their personal biases toward the Judge, totally apart from and irrespective of his qualifications to decide cases before the Court in a well-reasoned, sensitive manner, consistent with the import of Judicial precedent and with due regard to the plain meaning of words as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and in Statute. If, then, Senate Democrats--with assistance from a compliant Press sympathetic to Democrats' goals, and philosophy, and desires to rewrite the Constitution and to change the very fabric of American society to correspond to a "modern" world, as exemplified in the social and political and legal framework we see in the Nations comprising the European Union--have orchestrated a scheme, have hatched a devious plan, have devised a plot to undermine the Kavanaugh Confirmation process as part and parcel of a greater plan to contain the U.S. President and his policy goals and objectives as he promised, consistent with the will of the American people, to preserve the U.S. Constitution and a free Republic, as the founders of our Nation had intended, then Democrat's  attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court has nothing to do with and has never had anything to do with getting to the truth; it has nothing to do with and never had anything to do with the vindication of a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who claims to have been wronged by Judge Kavanaugh, and who brings up a decades old claim of  wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh; for that is nothing but pretext. No! The real reason Senate Democrats seek to delay a Senate Roll Call vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court is to frustrate President Trump; to frustrate the will of the people. And the attack on Judge Kavanaugh's character and reputation is merely one more tactic, like the Mueller probe. Simply, Judge Kavanaugh is in the way of the agenda that Democrats intend for this Country once they resume power. A conservative wing majority in the high Court would be capable of continuing to frustrate Democrats and Leftists groups in this Country from reconfiguring the Constitution and the institutions and laws of society to conform to their new world view. Hence, they are pulling out all the stops to prevent Judge Kavanaugh from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in spite of his good character, solid reputation, impeccable judicial work, intellectual brilliance, and love and respect for our Constitution and system of laws. If, then, the delay in holding a confirmation vote is politically motivated, and not rationally related to the qualifications or character of the President's nominee, as is obvious, Senate Republicans must stand firm, and make clear to their counterparts, Senate Democrats, and to the American people, that they support Judge Kavanaugh fully and that they will not allow Senate Democrats to take control of the Confirmation process, which, unfortunately, as is becoming increasingly obvious, is happening. Senate Republicans are allowing Democrats to do just that.Of course the American public knows this to be the case, but these facts are not supposed to be obvious. Increasingly, though, it is becoming glaringly obvious to the American people that the accusation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is nothing more than yet one more weapon in the toolbox of Democrats and extreme leftists in this Country, pulled out with no legitimate aim but only to frustrate the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States, in anticipation that, one day, they will regain control of the reins of Government.Judge Kavanaugh for his part is perfectly willing to come forward, once again, before the Committee, to respond to the accusations, to get this matter behind him. He has already categorically denied the truth of Blasey’s accusations. Christine Blasey Ford, an American citizen, has made a damning accusation against another American citizen; and there must be a public accounting for it. After all she made a conscious decision to contact Senator Feinstein, accusing Judge Kavanaugh of a heinous act. Christine Blasey Ford, and her attorney, and Senate Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee apparently believing it unnecessary for Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser to make a personal appearance before the entire Nation, despite smearing Judge Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, and good name before the Nation, and, in the process, potentially, psychologically harming Judge Kavanaugh’s wife, children, and parents. Many on the political left don’t seem to care, including those in the mainstream media. Nonetheless, as of this writing, Christine Blasey Ford, through her attorney has agreed to testify, albeit reluctantly, although the conditions under which and the manner in which Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser testifies, whether openly before the Nation, as she should, or secretly, behind closed doors, as she might, are, apparently, still being hammered out, by the accuser’s attorney and Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, along with other conditions, to be hammered out, patently ridiculous though they be.Chairman Grassley and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have made clear that, if they are compelled to play the game Democrats demand they play, then, Democrats are not going to make up all the rules as they go, changing them at will. His patience must be running thin, and with good reason. But, one thing is clear. Whatever the facts happen to be, surrounding the allegation that Christine Blasey Ford has brought against Judge Kavanaugh, and whatever her motivations for bringing it, Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser must come forward and testify. She must explain herself. Christine Blasey Ford, her attorney, and Senate Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee had thought that Christine Blasey Ford need not testify. They are all profoundly mistaken.

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS OPENED A PANDORA’S BOX WITH HER BAREFACED ALLEGATION, WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, SUPPORTING THE ALLEGATION, IS VACUOUS. NOW SHE MUST DEAL WITH THE TROUBLES SHE HAS UNLEASHED AND THAT SHE AND SHE ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.

Media accounts refer to the psychological toll the entire matter has had on Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, with little, if any, regard, shown for the psychological toll this matter has had on Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Why is that? Media accounts proclaim how courageous Christine Blasey Ford is to come forward with her allegation. Really? How much courage does it take to write a letter, attacking and impugning a person’s character, and demanding that and believing that one’s identity remain obscured, hidden in the shadows, and that the accuser’s identity will forever remain anonymous? Christine Blasey Ford is an adult, not a child; and no longer a teenager. She should have known that an intelligent person, as she undoubtedly is, cannot reasonably expect to smear the name of another, publically, especially a highly respected person—presently serving as a Judge on a federal Circuit Court, nominated by the U.S. President to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court—and, yet, expect no personal repercussions to emanate from that smear. Indeed, if the accusation is false, that amounts to the commission of a serious tort. What is clear enough is that this matter has political overtones—political overtones that cannot be denied. Christine Blasey Ford, along with her attorney, and along with Congressional Democrats, seek retribution against Donald Trump for having prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. They seek retribution against the President’s nominees to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. But, it is retribution on their own heads that they deserve and that they will receive from the American public.It must need be reiterated that no person has come forward, to date, to corroborate Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation. So, who can defend the repugnant claim, apart from the accuser, herself? Apparently they include only those people who would like to believe Christine Blasey Ford and who have become inappropriate stand-ins, in the absence of a witness to the purported event. One stand-in is Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand, a Democrat sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has her own agenda, which likely includes a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2020. This is what the Senator had to say about the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, as reported by the National Review:“‘I believe Dr. Blasey Ford because she’s telling the truth. You know it by her story. You know it by the fact that she told her therapist five years ago. She told her husband. This is a trauma she’s been dealing with her whole life. She doesn’t want to be in a bedroom that doesn’t have two doors. People knew that about her a long time ago,’ Gillibrand said.”“‘These are the hallmarks of truth, these are the hallmarks of someone who wants to be believed. I believe her because she’s telling the truth. She’s asking the FBI to investigate her claims,’ the senator added. ‘She’s asking for that kind of review, that investigative work, that oversight, that accountability. Someone who is lying doesn’t ask the FBI to investigate their claims.’” From these remarks, a reasonable person can come to two diametrically opposed inferences about Senator Gillibrand: one, either she is omniscient; or, two, she is a moron. It is unlikely that Senator Gillibrand is omniscient. Other Democrats have proclaimed similar ludicrous and imbecilic remarks.Curiously, though, Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself—the Democrat who tactically, but untactfully and disgracefully released Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation, inopportunely, on Chairman Grassley and on other Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, without, at the very least, attempting to investigate the veracity of the accusation before releasing it at all, and then having decided to release the barefaced accusation on the Judiciary Committee, as well as on the Nation, only days before a Senate Roll Call vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was planned even though Senator Feinstein had received the accusation, in the form of a letter, months earlier—pointed out, as reported by the Washington Times, that: “Ms. Blasey Ford has been ‘profoundly impacted,’ but [Senator Feinstein] added, ‘I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.’”  Those remarks were the most neutral and most reasonable of remarks that any Democrat has said to date on the matter, coming from any Congressional Democrat. But, perhaps, not unexpectedly, Senator Feinstein backpedaled—no doubt at the urgent behest of other Congressional Democrats as Feinstein had essentially contradicted Senator Gillibrand; for, Senator Feinstein had created a new narrative, with her account of Christine Blasey Ford's accusation--an account not synchronized with the narrative Democrats and the mainstream media had orchestrated for the American public and have been playing incessantly to the public to encourage public support in Democrats' attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Democrats and the mainstream media always operate in lockstep with each other, often reciting verbatim, ad nauseum, the same trite talking points.So, then, as reported in the same article by the Washington Times, “Ms. Feinstein . . . later clarified her statement on Twitter. ‘During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable. She knew this would have a huge effect on her life and she was incredibly brave to come forward.’” But, note: Dianne Feinstein’s “clarification” still falls noticeably short on one critical point, and this certainly wasn't accidental. While saying she believed Christine Blasey Ford’s “information” to be “eminently credible, sincere and believable,” the Senator still refrained from asserting a belief that the information is in fact true. Thus, to her credit—and Dianne Feinstein owes the American public that much since it was the Senator who, after all, brought the barefaced allegation, directly impugning the character of an honorable man, to the public’s attention in the first place—Senator Feinstein knows that, however “credible, sincere and believable” the allegation is, it may still be false. Displaying such obvious concern for precision in her remarks--something, by the way, that we do not see from Senator Gillibrand--and from many other Congressional Democrats, who have exhibit no inclination toward the importance of personal integrity and who have no sense of personal honor but only demonstrate concern for results and for the amassing of personal power--it is odd that Senator Feinstein released the accusation prior to undertaking a quiet vetting process, herself, before the fact. Perhaps, though, Senator Feinstein did attempt to conduct a quiet, secretive investigation into the veracity of Christine Basely Ford's allegation against Judge Kavanaugh when the Senator first received the Professor's letter; and, perhaps, Senator Feinstein was unable to obtain independent evidence to corroborate the barefaced allegation. This would not be surprising given the passage of so many years and given the extensive gaps pertaining to the account as related in the accuser's letter, as related to the public by the Press. Conceivably, as we speculate, Senator Feinstein may very well have fretted over all of this, but felt, ultimately, inevitably, calculatedly, and, perhaps, even resignedly, that, if Democrats were to have any appreciable chance at all of derailing, or, at least, delaying the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court--and despite realizing the damage that could and undoubtedly would be done to the Senator's own professional reputation by unilaterally releasing a barefaced, heinous accusation--Senator Feinstein would take the risk of damaging her own reputation anyway; and, so, she released a barefaced, unsupported, uncorroborated, damning allegation, that she knew or had every reason to presume would unfairly impugn the character and integrity of an honorable man and highly respected jurist, as well as doing psychological harm to Judge Kavanaugh's wife and young, impressionable daughters. Having taken this action, probably at the urging of other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein has done irreparable damage to her own personal and professional reputation, and deservedly so. Perhaps, then, Senator Feinstein’s “clarification” was meant to inform Congressional Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee that she bears some animosity toward those Democrats by having been urged by them to release Christine Blasey Ford's allegation to the Senator Grassley and to other Senate  Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, and to the Nation. That would certainly explain why Senator Feinstein's "clarification" still manages to conflict with Senator Gillibrand’s remark—and the remarks of other Democrats--who exclaimed, unabashedly, that they accept the veracity of the allegation on its face, even though there is no reasonable, rational basis at all to do so.

BELIEFS ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TO KNOWLEDGE

Senator Feinstein acknowledges, subtly, but more than merely impliedly, that one’s belief that a statement is true does not, of itself, make a statement true even if, as with Senator Gillibrand's comment and that of other Congressional Democrats, as a group,  for political reasons, the claim is made that beliefs about truth and factual truth amount to the same thing. Senator Feinstein is correct. They aren't the same thing. She knows that it is ridiculous  to say that because someone believes a statement to be true that that the statement is true.  So, it appears, on some level, at least, that Senator Feinstein continues to insist that she simply doesn’t know if Christine Basely Ford's allegation against Judge Kavanaugh is true. But, as she brought this mess to the attention of the public, Senator Feinstein, more than anyone else, is responsible for the mess she created.No one needs to take courses in formal or informal logic, or in epistemology, to know that beliefs, however sincere do not ipso facto equate with truth. Beliefs that such and such is the case may be false, and often are. Centuries ago most people believed the Earth was flat. They sincerely believed that and, given the number of people who believed that the Earth was flat and that if one travels too far on a flat Earth, one would fall off the Earth, were held to true and credible beliefs, insofar as the majority of the people believed this to be the case. But, scientists, of course have proved, conclusively—indeed Christopher Columbus has shown through his voyage to the "New World"—that the Earth is indeed round. The Earth is a sphere, not a flat disc or plate. The point is that bare beliefs, in the absence of evidence, do not equate with truth. They never did. There is, then, no reason to raise Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s asserted belief in the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation to the level of truth, however sincerely felt that belief may be, if, in fact, Senator Gillibrand does in fact sincerely believe the accusation and is not simply pulling a political stunt. Senator Gillibrand, as with many Democrats, are conjurers, sleight-of-hand artists, who attempt to control the public's perceptions, no less so than an actual stage illusionist, doing seemingly wondrous things, but merely playing tricks, controlling the audience's perceptions. Democrats are doing the same thing, and the mainstream media is merely one of the assistants of the Democrats. The mainstream media is not interested any longer in imparting truth to the public, passively, The mainstream media is, as well, attempting to shape public opinion.As to the matter at hand, we simply don’t know whether the accuser's “information” is true, rather than false. And, contrary to Senator Gillibrand’s remark, the Senator doesn’t know either. She may profess a belief in the truth of the accusation, but, once again, one's belief in the truth of a proposition does not make that belief, true. Beliefs can be and often turn out to be mistaken. Indeed, given the span of time, Christine Blasey Ford’s recollection of the event amounting to an assault may be wholly or partially false. Her recollection may certainly be false or fallible given the passage of time, even if she sincerely believes the account to be true. We simply don’t know in the absence corroborating reports, and forensic evidence—difficult things to collect now, from a decades old allegation. But, always keep in mind: it is not necessary for Judge Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s account. This matter does not boil down to a “He said; She said” debate, as some have argued, with due allowance, as some give it, but improperly, to the accuser, for presumptively assuming the truth of the accuser’s claim.In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is always on the accuser, as it should be, as it must be, and, as, under our system of laws and procedure, always is. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, never on the defendant. The defendant may remain silent and need not present any evidence to support or contradict the accusation. If the accuser’s evidence is insufficient or lacking in all or any important detail, then the prosecution’s case falls flat. The accused therefore has the presumption of innocence, not guilt, as that presumption must be given to the accused, if fairness is to prevail. Now, we are not, of course, faced with a criminal trial here. Still, the methodology of presumption of innocence persists and other important judicial presumptions, consistent with our legal procedure, still hold. If Christine Blasey Ford fails to testify and fails to provide credible evidence to support a bald allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh, then the allegation falls flat, and must be given no force or effect.

SO, WE ASK:

Do those individuals who believe in the veracity of the accusation that Christine Blasey Ford has lodged against Judge Kavanaugh—belief in the accuser’s account, without reservation and without need to hear her testimony, under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee and before the American public, and without need to see, and, indeed, to insist on seeing independent evidence that supports the bare allegation—believe the accuser because they happen to know the accuser personally and have, through their own observations, never known the accuser to fabricate a story or to have been subject to a delusion or hallucination, or do they elicit confidence in the truth of the accusation simply because it serves an agenda: namely keeping Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, and in the process, frustrating the U.S. President, and frustrating the will of the American people, who, in full accord with the Constitution, legitimately elected Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States. If the latter is the case, then these people—Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and in their echo chamber, the mainstream media; and Leftists, supporters of “Planned Parenthood” and the “Me Too” movement and supporters of other Left-wing radicals, among others—evince belief in the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation because they have a political and ideological reason to do so, they have items on a political agenda to see through to fruition. Now, these people and members of left-wing groups may convince themselves, albeit irrationally, that they really do believe the accusation of Judge Kavanaugh's accuser to be true, when, however, in a contemplative, self-reflective moment, they may admit to themselves, that they really do not know, as they have no basis in logic to do so. But, whether they do honestly, sincerely believe the accusation, or not, the belief is not equivalent to truth. Perhaps, as appears likely, they really don't care in the truth. They only care in the spectacle and if the spectacle operates well, according to plan, to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and others may, then, choose to believe whatever they wish to believe, whether sincerely felt or merely presented for political expediency. Whatever the case, that is no reason why anyone else should accept as true what it is that the Senator or others believe to be true and happen to say is true, however fervently and loudly they proclaim their belief to accord with the truth. And, the public must be mindful of an intricate illusion--a magical trick being played upon it.

THERE IS MUCH AT STAKE HERE.

For the sake of preservation of our system of laws and justice, Americans should not accept and should not be expected to accept an uncorroborated accusation as true simply because they would like to believe the accusation to be true. But that is likely what we are seeing here. Our Constitution and our system of laws require that one be circumspect, rational, and diligent.One should not be headstrong, emotional, haphazard, gullible, in accepting as gospel things that one would, perhaps, like to believe are true simply because they fit a particular paradigm of one’s personal reality, of the way one would like things to be, irrespective of rational reflection. Americans should expect no less from a jurist. Americans should want a jurist to be competent and capable, to dispose of cases, carefully, in accordance with law, as it is written, as it is. This is why, after all, Americans should want to see confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. They should not want a jurist sitting on the high Court who disposes of cases the way a jurist happens to believe the law ought to be. Unfortunately, we see the latter among jurists, at all levels. Judge Kavanaugh, though, is not that kind of jurist.Judge Kavanaugh has the temperament as well as the intelligence to serve on the high Court. He is careful to render decisions that comply clearly, carefully, and narrowly with the original intent of the Constitution, and does not go off half-cocked, as all to many jurists, unfortunately do, rendering decisions that comply with a personal ideological perspective, irrespective of the plain words of the Constitution, of Statute and of high Court precedent. Too many jurists render legal opinions that operate more like personal, rhetorical political tracts than as true legal opinions, demonstrating less the idea of cogent and clear and articulate knowledge and application of  and adherence of the law to the facts, and more like polemics, asserting the jurist's desire for the way he or she would like the world to be, fitfully forcing law to fit a particular factual paradigm. This explains why Democrats are afraid of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and why they have made a spectacle of the entire confirmation process. They do not want to see calmness, intelligence, rationality on the high Court; quite the opposite. They want to see someone sitting on the high Court who renders decisions on the basis of emotion, and sentiment, and sentimentality, those things that the Left ascribes to, devoid of sound reason, exhibiting little if any respect for the plain meaning of the Constitution and of our laws, as written. Indeed, haven’t we seen, during the Confirmation Hearing, Democrats exhibiting themselves those very attributes in a jurist that no American should want to see in a jurist: someone who renders opinions emotionally, irrespective of what the law and Constitution say? Haven’t Democrats shown the American people that they want jurists who render decisions beyond the scope of case precedent, beyond the plain meaning of Constitution and Statute? Hasn’t it become clear to all Americans that Democrats want jurists on the high Court who are not afraid to rewrite the Constitution and laws to reflect their view of what they think the law should be, to reflect a Country the way they think the Country ought to look, rather than what the law and the Constitution demand; what the law and the Constitution dictate? Don't Americans, rather, seek to maintain a Country operating coherently and cohesively and consistently as the founders of our free Republic prescribed; as the framers of the Constitution intended?

WHAT IS CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S BAREFACED ALLEGATION AGAINST JUDGE KAVANAUGH REALLY, THEN, ALL ABOUT?

The hysteria that is being displayed, deliberately whipped up by the mainstream media, exemplifies the character of the kind of jurist the Left in this Country would like to see sitting on the high Court: a person that mirrors themselves; their personal view of what a “modern” America should look like, completely at odds with the framework the Founders of our Republic established as set forth clearly, categorically, and meticulously, in the U.S. Constitution.Mainstream media newspapers, such as The New York Times, lost little time in posting numerous articles on Christine Blasey Ford, supporting the veracity and efficacy of her remarks in both news articles and editorials, lending a sympathetic voice to the accuser’s concern for her dignity and character and for her safety and that of her family. But, why is there no complementary statements made in the mainstream media for the well-being of Brett Kavanaugh and his family? After all, Judge Kavanaugh’s character has been seriously impugned by bald, sketchy, uncorroborated allegations of one person, purporting to recall an event going back literally decades. Judge Kavanaugh has a family, too, and that family includes a loving, devoted wife, and two young, impressionable daughters. The mainstream media expresses nothing that we have seen to suggest concern for Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Apparently, in the age of the “Me Too” movement, we are to throw out concerns for the harm that this heinous accusation has had on Judge Kavanaugh and his family, for the unstated but obvious purpose of political expediency.

THERE IS MUCH AT STAKE HERE.

Ultimately, Democrats and the mainstream media are not really concerned about the health, safety, and well-being of either Christine Blasey Ford or Judge Brett Kavanaugh. For Democrats, an accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, however weak, constitutes a last ditch effort to prevent the installation of a fifth originalist on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats know full well that the high Court has the last word on the constitutionality of State and Federal legislation. Democrats have an agenda and a policy that they seek to implement. It is one that essentially rewrites the U.S. Constitution. Democrats seek to create new “rights” out of whole cloth that don’t exist in the Bill of Rights, and never did. Contrariwise, they seek to constrain fundamental, natural rights, like free speech, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms--rights that are clearly and succinctly etched in stone. They know that any legislation that they enact that fails to comply with the Constitution of this Nation as originally conceived, as plainly set forth in text, will not withstand Constitutional scrutiny and will be struck down, as well it should. Thus, the idea of a jurist who applies rigor and restraint to legal opinions, with proper deference to the written word of the Constitution is not to their liking. The idea of a fifth originalist sitting on the high Court drives those on the political Left to apoplexy, as they see their agenda for a new kind of Country--one envisioned by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a Country uncontained by and unrestrained by the Nation's Constitution, laws, and jurisprudential history--completely undone.Democrats, both moderates and far left progressives, know that, once Judge Kavanaugh sits on the high Court, as the fifth and decisive conservative voice, Constitutional questions will be analyzed and decided utilizing the jurisprudential approaches and methodology championed by the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia’s approach serves to preserve and strengthen the Constitution, consistent with the intentions of the framers of it. The Constitution that we have that has served our Country well for over two centuries would be fractured, severing forever the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights, and severing the tenuous checks and balances that the framers carefully put in place as set forth in the Articles of the Constitution, if Democrats are able to sit activists on the high Court, as they would like to do, as Barack Obama has done and would have continued to do had Judge Merrick Garland been confirmed to sit on the high Court, and as Hillary Clinton would certainly have done had she prevailed in the 2016 general election for U.S. President.Leftists in this Country want to see high Court decisions that reflect radical narratives; that display a novel and disjointed view of our Nation; a view that is completely at odds with the Nation, conceived by the founders. The rights and liberties the founders codified in the Bill of Rights and the careful attention they paid to the separation of powers as exemplified in the Articles of the Constitution are in peril if Leftists have their way; for they do not see the Constitution as demonstrative of fundamental, core values, concrete and timeless. They see the U.S. Constitution as something equivocal, temporary, even archaic—subject to the whims of the moment, and to ideas that, if expressed in high Court law, would result in the disruption of our Nation’s core values, the diminution of our natural rights and liberties, and the fracturing of the fragile concept of “separation of powers” that, together with the Bill of Rights, comprise the mainstay of a free Republic. The late Justice Scalia, and the conservative wing of the high Court is careful, in their analyses of cases that come before them, to render opinions, consistent with the plain meaning of our Constitution and laws—opinions designed to preserve and strengthen our core rights and liberties and to maintain a free Republic, as the founders of our Nation intended. Do not expect anything like that from the opinions of the liberal-wing of the high Court, who tend to read the Constitution and laws expansively, to reflect ideas that go far beyond the parameters of text, and who, using their own methodologies, at odds with the methodology of the Conservative wing of the high Court, would, in so doing, destroy the very fabric of the Republic, given the chance if they ever secure a majority.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Take the matter of the fundamental and natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. Liberal Jurists sitting on the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have chiselled away at the holdings in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010). The reasoning of the majority in the Heller and McDonald cases has been patently ignored, thereby weakening State Court precedent and destroying jurisprudential history.Second Amendment cases that have, to date, wended their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, to challenge outrageous State gun laws, have failed to secure a fourth vote necessary for a case to be heard. Firearms that are in common use, including many, and eventually, most semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns, are in danger of being banned outright in many states.Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and the late Justice Scalia have made clear, in their dissenting comments, in cases that failed to secure a fourth vote necessary to have the cases heard by the Court, their frustration at the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear lower Court cases that directly confront and blatantly attack the import and purport of Heller and McDonald. With Judge Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, though, those cases will definitely secure the fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case, negatively impacting the core of the right, to be heard. Those lower Court cases that permit Government to subvert the rights and liberties of the American citizen, will be overturned. Once overturned, the Supreme Court will assert once and for all, through cases consistent with and building on Heller and McDonald, that which we know: semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment. States cannot ban such firearms outright under the guise of calling them illegal “assault weapons.” Democrats know this would happen. That worries them. That is why they do not want Judge Kavanaugh sitting on the high Court.Senate Democrats devoted substantial time directing questions to Judge Kavanaugh, during the Confirmation Hearing, concerning the legality of certain firearms. They are aware that Judge Kavanaugh understands and appreciates the precedential import of the Heller and McDonald cases—precedential import and value of cases they don’t share. Democrats want an activist on the Court. They want someone who shares their ideological imperatives; a jurist who does not defer to the plain written word of the Constitution; a jurist who is not afraid to legislate from the Bench. They won’t get that from Judge Kavanaugh or from any Judge that President Trump is likely to nominate. That disturbs Democrats deeply. That is why they have pulled out all the stops in a reprehensible attempt to disrupt the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh.Democrats succeeded in derailing the confirmation of the late Judge Robert Bork to the high Court, and they attempted, fortunately unsuccessfully, to do the same during the Confirmation Hearing of Justice Thomas. They are using the same strategy here. They are attempting to impugn the character of a great man, devoted father, and brilliant Judge who would serve this Nation well once he sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. They will not abide this. They intend to disrupt the confirmation process, as they have done during the Hearing itself. They intend to deny confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. They may try, but they will not succeed even as they, at the moment, attempt nonetheless to delay a vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the high Court until after the 2018 Midterm elections. Democrats hope they can obtain a majority in the Senate. If that happens, Judge Kavanaugh would not, of course, be confirmed to sit on the high Court. And that is the Party’s wish. That is their goal. That is their fervent desire. Of that, there can be no doubt; but—as to that end—these Democrats, moderates and  Progressives; Socialists and Communists, and Billionaire Globalists and Transnationalists, too, will certainly fail. As their wishes, their goals, their desires, are all immodest and impure; and as their wishes, their goals, their desires are antithetical to the needs, wishes, will, and welfare of the American people; and as their wishes, their goals, their desires, are completely contrary to the application of the laws of our Nation, they will fail. They will fail utterly.There exist forces in this Country that wish to recreate a reality that suits their personal preconceptions of what our Country should look like, based on a personal conviction and certitude that they know what is best for the rest of us. That is a very dangerous attitude to have and one, were it to prevail, absolutely destructive to the continued existence of the U.S. Constitution; altogether inconsistent with and contrary to the rights, liberties, dignity, and continued autonomy of the individual American citizen; altogether incompatible with the continued maintenance of a Constitutional Republic; and wholly inconsistent with the manner in which both our legal and political systems work. Even as these left-wing power brokers claim to follow basic precepts, namely the “rule of law” and “a Nation ruled by laws, not by men,” they mean, in practice, no such thing. These people are the implacable foes of a truly free people and they have silently declared war on the very concept of a free Republic, a Republic and Nation ruled by law, not by men, in accord with the Constitution, as written.To those on the political Left our fundamental legal precepts and, indeed, the words of the Constitution itself are nothing, mere platitudes—things that at the moment are seen as convenient, perhaps, merely to mention; but, in actuality, such lofty legal precepts, to the political Left, are no more than pretext, mere rhetorical verbiage, to be discarded, eventually, like old clothes. To these left-wing power brokers who claim to speak for all Americans, concepts such as ‘Sovereign Nation,’ ‘One Nation under God,’ ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ ‘Bill of Rights,’ ‘Rule of Law,’ ‘Individual Worth and Dignity,’ ‘Individual Liberty,’ ‘U.S. Constitution,’ ‘U.S. Law,’ and ‘U.S. Citizen,’ will simply be discarded when deemed no longer necessary; when the very meaning and purport of these great concepts grow dim in the American psyche, in the Nation’s memory; lost to history, as these left-wing power brokers intend to happen once their vision for a new Country, unconstrained by the U.S. Constitution, unconstrained by our system of laws, and by our core values and history has been realized.These people hold contempt for the President of the United States. They refuse to recognize him as our President and their President, too, duly elected by the people of the United States, in accordance with the Laws of the United States. They are so beset by rage and raw hatred, so motivated and mesmerized by personal lust for power and grandeur, so enamored with themselves and with their personal vision, so convinced of the righteousness and certitude of their personal beliefs, and so assured of their own infallibility, that they do not see themselves as the buffoons they are; the buffoons they demonstrate themselves to be to the American people. These people are blind to their own conceits and pride—to those things that comprise their passions; those things that drive their actions. They reproach, demean, lecture, and scold the American people they pretend to represent—the American people they no longer even pretend to care about; unaware that the public is aware of their deceit; of their feigned concern for the needs of the American people, of the needs of the citizenry of the Country. These left-wing power brokers are oblivious to how sordid and ridiculous they look; and how patently obvious it is, the drivel they spew out.Those forces in this Nation who seek to dismantle the Bill of Rights, to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, and who seek to weaken our Sovereign Nation State and free Republic must not succeed in their endeavor. The American people must not let them. Americans must vote in the 2018 midterm elections to maintain Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. It is all up to “We, the People” to protect our Sovereign Nation, our Constitution, our sacred Rights and Liberties from the forces that would, if given the chance crush this Nation and its citizenry into submission.________________________________________________________*The New York Times has provided a forum for those who wish to attack the honor and integrity of Judge Kavanaugh, merely on the basis of one bald-faced allegation, referencing an uncorroborated extraordinarily sketchy event that purportedly occurred over three decades ago—an event that Judge Kavanaugh categorically denies ever took place. But it is an event that those on the political “Left” take as self-evident true, nonetheless.In an Op-Ed, published in the NY Times, Saturday, September 22, 2018, titled, “The Case for Impeaching Kavanaugh,” written by a Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., Professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, Professor Krotoszynski lays out his argument for impeaching Judge Kavanaugh even before the Judge has been confirmed to sit on the high Court. What is this law Professor’s “case” for impeaching Judge Kavanaugh? In his article, Professor Krotoszynski’s argument for impeachment boils down to: (1) a single bald-faced, decades old allegation of sexual misconduct, brought to the attention of Senator Dianne Feinstein, by a middle-aged Professor of Psychology, Christine Blasey Ford, albeit in the absence of any corroborating evidence or independent forensic evidence; and (2) two claims that Judge Kavanaugh committed perjury in giving testimony to the Senate, predicated on “subsequently released emails [that] suggest [Judge Kavanaugh’s] answers were at best misleading and at worst false.” What? Does this make sense?Has Professor Krotosznski made out a decipherable, compelling basis for impeachment of Judge Kavanaugh? We do not think so. Let’s take a close look at the Professor’s stated grounds for impeachment.Professor Krotoszynski argues that impeachment of Judge Kavanaugh is warranted on two grounds, both of which are extraordinarily tenuous. One ground consists of a solitary, bald-faced allegation, extremely short on details, referring to a purported event that, if the accuser is to be believed at all, involved a matter that occurred over one-third of a Century ago. Judge Brett Kavanaugh categorically denies the allegation. Moreover the allegation, apart from the accuser’s recitation of the allegation itself, cannot and is not buttressed by any supporting evidence or argument. Whatever forensic evidence that existed, if any such evidence existed at all, has long since been lost to time; and no one else to date—after Senate Republicans did in fact conduct an investigation of the accusation, although neither Democrats nor the mainstream news media acknowledge as much—offer independent support for accepting the allegation as true. At the very least, the Senate certainly has the right to demand the accuser testify and respond to questions. At the moment, it is not clear, though, when and how exactly the accuser, herself, will proffer testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, if at all. And Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, some of whom are trained attorneys, are asserting, bizarrely, that Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser, should not be required to testify. Imagine what this means. It turns our system of law and justice on its head. For, if all that a person need do is simply accuse another person of a crime without any requirement that the accuser face the accused, testify in the open, in public, present independent evidence to support the accusation, bear the burden of proof, and be subject to cross-examination, then what does that do to the very notion of “due process” in this Country? Yet, Democrats claim the barefaced accusation can and should speak for itself.Granted, the matter here does not involve a formal criminal proceeding. Judge Kavanaugh does not face criminal charges and cannot. Nonetheless, his character has been impugned, and his fate—whether a Senate Roll-Call vote for Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court is to take place—is placed in jeopardy, at least if Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are to have their way in the Confirmation process. Apparently our system of laws and procedure are to be perceived as infinitely flexible, subject to the whims, and desires, and predilections of those powerful people who seek a predetermined outcome. That would mean reducing our system of laws to nothing more than ad hoc, rules of expediency, never concrete, ever changing; and that would mean no tenable system of laws and judicial procedure would exist in this Country that anyone could rely on. Thus, the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments would have no real effect. Any person could lose his or her life, liberty, or property by the decree of whomever it is that wields power. This is the Country that Democrats would bequeath to the American people; and we see this in the manner in which Democrats seek to use an unsupported allegation of a middle-aged college Professor, purportedly referencing an event that cannot be reasonably proved. Professor Krotoszynski, though, sees this allegation as sufficiently credible that it warrants a full Senate investigation—evidently one that would not be complete until after the 2016 midterm elections. That would be convenient! Obviously, the lack of forensic evidence and the motivations of Christine Blasey Ford are seen as inconsequential factors to Professor Krotoszynski.The second ground amounts, as Professor Krotoszynski acknowledges,—if a person wishes to give the law Professor even that much leeway—to emails that “suggest” perjury. Mere suggestions of perjury though—suggestions that a person would like to believe are true—hardly rise to the level of essential irrefutable, undeniable proof. There is, then, neither a cogent legal nor logical basis upon which to impeach Judge Kavanaugh, were he to be confirmed as Associate Justice to the high Court. But, Professor Krotoszynski would relax standards to allow impeachment to proceed on the flimsiest of reasons, and this what we see.So, then, what is really going on here? Just this: as with the election of Donald Trump to the Office of President of the United States, we see that Democrats and other elements in society—and, as it is becoming increasingly obvious, elements abroad as well—who resist political results they did not expect and cannot and will not abide—have taken it upon themselves to manipulate our Constitution and system of laws to support a reality that they personally want and had, as they felt, every reason to expect, the American public be damned. And, so, they attempt, through an abhorrent, illegal, unjustifiable misapplication of law and irrespective of the import and purport of the Constitution, to reset the clock to a time prior to the 2016 election—to a world they would like to imagine exists and imagine must exist: a world where Hillary Clinton prevailed and who would have, then, appointed two activist jurists to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. One such jurist whom Hillary Clinton would have been likely to nominate to the high Court would have been Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to sit on the high Court, or someone like him, a person who has no qualms about legislating from the Bench. A second activist jurist who Hillary Clinton would nominate to sit on the high Court would no doubt share the same non-orthodox philosophy and jurisprudential methodology of Merrick Garland and of other liberal-wing Justices who presently sit on the high Court. Consider the jurisprudence of retired Justice John Paul Stevens who would, as he has pointed out, rewrite the Bill of Rights to reflect his personal philosophical whims and who believes, as does Justice Breyer, that American Constitutional analysis and decision-making can and should take into account the laws of other Nations, including so-called international law. This jurisprudential methodological approach to case analysis is altogether anathema to that of Justice Thomas, of Justice Alito, of Justice Gorsuch, and to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The liberal-wing jurisprudential approach to case analysis that admits of judicial activism and to legislation from the Bench is, as we know, anathema to that approach utilized by Judge Kavanaugh in his judicial opinions, as well. Democrats don’t want jurists sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, or, for that matter, sitting on U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who do not share their philosophical perspective, requiring, then, that they wish to sit jurists on the high Court who read the U.S. Constitution and Statute expansively, and who would be willing to create new rights that nowhere exist in the Constitution, such as the “right” of a woman to abortion on demand, and who would be just as willing to curtail those fundamental, natural rights that do exist in the Constitution, as clearly codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, the free exercise of  of religion, and the right of free speech, among other fundamental, natural rights.The mainstream media continues to deluge the public with spurious reports and opinions concerning Christine Blasey Ford's accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. It does so with the clear aim of preventing confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court. In the New York Times, we see news reports and accounts written like opinion pieces. Reporters claim that Judge Kavanaugh will not be confirmed. How do they know this? The newspaper also claims that Democrats will secure a majority in the House, and conceivably the Senate; and news accounts of the Christine Blasey Ford spectacle readily assert that the Christine Blasey Ford accusation against Judge Kavanaugh will help Democrats to retake control of Congress. These are odd comments to make in news reports, as they are written as future forecasts--purportedly telling the public what will happen, rather than what has occurred or is presently occurring. They are also laying out the strategy of Democrats and of Leftist groups in this Country for retaking control power. The aim of the mainstream media seems to be to compel the public to believe the forecasts are true, so that Americans will lose faith and hope and acquiesce to the will of Leftists in this Country. Americans should not fall for that. They didn't fall for that by believing prognostications related to the outcome of the 2016 General Election, and they shouldn't for that now. Yet, the mainstream media intends to control the public discourse.It is clear that the wrench Democrats have thrown into the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court has utility for Leftists beyond the Confirmation process. Democrats, with the help of the mainstream media, do intend to take control of both Houses of Congress. If they succeed, they will be able, as is also their aim, to contain the President and to frustrate him at every turn. That means, as well, that Democrats, Leftist groups in this Country, "Deep State Bureaucrats" and the mainstream media--all of them, working in lockstep--intend to frustrate the will of the American people too. We must not allow these Left-wing elements to succeed.Americans should make clear they will not permit Democrats and their Leftist compatriots to control the Confirmation process. They must tell Republicans to hold firm. Republicans must not capitulate to Democrats as seems to be happening. Democrats do not now control the Legislative Branch, and "Deep State" Bureaucrats do not control the Executive Branch and the public should not allow Democrats and Deep State Bureaucrats to act like they do. The Judicial Branch, in particular, must remain pure and above the fray. Democrats know that, in terms of long range social policies and goals, the Judicial Branch of Government is the most important Branch. They seek jurists who read the Constitution and federal statute expansively, without concern with the literal word and without proper deference to the Constitution and our laws. What they don't want is the seating of jurists on the federal Courts who would preserve the Constitution as crafted by the framers of it. They seek to place jurists in the Federal Courts--from the U.S. District Court level, through the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, up to the U.S. Supreme Court--with activist jurists who have no reservation in rewriting the Constitution, as they view the Constitution expansively, interpreting the Constitution and laws in a manner that fits personal ideology, not hindered by precedent and demonstrating little if any deference to the plain words of the Constitution and federal statute. Barack Obama has done tremendous damage to the high Court with his placement of two left-wing activists on the high Court. Fortunately, the U.S. Senate was able to prevent Obama from placing a third activist jurist on the high Court, Merrick Garland. So, we know that Republicans can work successfully on the part of the American people to preserve our Nation, our core values, our Constitution if they set their minds to do so. Still, Barack Obama has done extraordinary damage through numerous appointments of left-wing activist jurists to the lower federal Courts--the U.S. District Courts and in U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. We have seen what this has wrought as activist jurists have frustrated the U.S. President's efforts to protect our Nation by enjoining the President from implementing his temporary travel bans. Only through a U.S. Supreme Court decision, secured by the Conservative wing of the high Court, as we have seen, has the President been able to salvage, if temporarily, some vestige of his policy to protect this Country from Mideastern terrorists. Democrats are determined to frustrate the President and the American people at every turn. Nothing less is at stake than the preservation of our Constitution, our core values, even our history, and, as well, the Sovereignty of our Nation, and the supremacy of our laws. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, on the high Court, as Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh can help, immensely, in preserving our Nation, its values, its history, and the rights and liberties of the American people, as the founders of our free Republic intended. Democrats and other Leftists--many on the extreme, radical Left--intend to dismantle our free Republic, curtail or end, altogether, our fundamental rights and liberties, subvert our core values, rewrite our history, and denigrate our Nation, subjecting it to a new Globalist world order where our Nation becomes subordinated to the will of an internationalist body--merely one more spoke in a massive wheel. Simply take a look at the EU, and you can see what Leftists have in store for our Nation and for our citizenry. We must not allow this to happen. It is imperative that Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed to a seat on the High Court. Failure of Republicans to confirm Judge Kavanaugh will serve both to encourage Democrats to continue in their destructive practices of frustrating the President and denying the public the exercise of their Will, and likely preclude a Conservative-wing majority in the U.S. Supreme Court from emerging, thereby endangering our Constitution, endangering our fundamental rights and liberties, and enabling Leftists to dictate the future of our Country, one countenancing a new paradigm, one completely at odds with the framework created by our founders. There is no doubt of this.___________________________________**Debra Katz is a left-wing activist attorney, who was also a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton. Please be advised that, Roger Katz, one of the authors of this AQ article, is not at all related to Debra Katz. We happen to share a common surname, nothing more. The New York Times reports that Judge Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has added two more attorneys to her legal team: Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich. Likely, Senate Democrats, with the assistance of Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, have had a hand in this and are, behind the scenes, controlling the Confirmation process. Judge Kavanaugh has retained counsel too, as the Daily Caller reports that Judge Kavanaugh "has retained . . . Beth Wilkinson, to advise and represent him." Recent news accounts mention that Christine Blasey Ford has agreed to testify in open, before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. It isn't clear whether she will be questioned by members of the Judiciary Committee or by an attorney appointed by Republicans on the Committee to question Ford. It does appear, though, that her testimony will be heard prior to the testimony of Judge Kavanaugh, as would be appropriate and consistent with criminal legal procedure. The question we have is why Republicans should allow the charade to go this far. It could only mean that Republicans do not believe that they can be assured of the votes they need to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. The Senate majority is a razor thin. They can survive through no defections. Politico points to several Republicans whose vote in favor of Confirmation is in doubt and who have, apparently, demanded to hear Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. It is these Republican Senators, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and a couple of others who have, unfortunately played directly into the hands of Democrats. Democrats, for their part, are cohesive. Republicans are not. This would explain why Senator Grassley has agreed to delay a Confirmation vote. It is unfortunate and deeply disturbing that some Republicans can allow themselves to be the instrument of Democrats and Leftists in this Country. The Christine Blasey Ford matter is a trap. Apparently, Democrats, with the aid of Republican Senators Flake and Corker, and with the complicity of a couple of other Republican Senators, are using this "Me Too" movement nonsense to destroy our Constitution. If the Supreme Court secures a liberal-wing majority, all is lost for the preservation of our Constitution, our  natural, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, and the continued maintenance of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic. Why would Senators Flake and Corker fall for this? Is their hatred of President Trump so pronounced that they would jeopardize the preservation of our sacred Constitution and the preservation of our cherished history; the preservation of our core rights and liberties; the supremacy of our laws and jurisprudence; and the continued independence and Sovereignty of our Nation, and its continued existence as a free Republic because they happen, simply, personally to abhor the present President of the United States. Apparently so. Their behavior is childish, churlish, disgraceful, altogether unredeemable. No American should expect this kind of behavior from any other American, least of all from a United States Senator. These individuals are not worthy of the status they have. They are not worthy of their station. Americans should well remember them for this if Judge Kavanaugh fails to be confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, for these people, these Republican Senators, have allowed a charade, a travesty, an illusionist's trick concocted by Democrats and Leftist groups to play out, to hijack our Nation and its Constitution--one so lovingly, carefully created by our founders--our Birthright. They wish to dictate a new Constitution, reflecting ideas alien to those of the framers of it. They will destroy our Constitution, and for what? Personal animosity? A private agenda? And, by what means? Well, we know of one, and we see it playing out in the matter of the Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.Here we see a disgruntled middle-aged woman, whom, it would seem, has a personal bone to pick with a man, as she tells us, having done harm to her. But did he? This woman concocts a story out of whole-cloth or dredges a story up--if one is to give any credence to this woman's story at all--relating an event that occurred, if "memory" serves her, literally one-third of a Century ago, when the two of them were teenagers. And, because this woman, who is a Leftist whose agenda coheres with that of other Leftists in this Country and with that of Democrats, she allows herself to be used for political purposes, truly unrelated to a matter, long-dead, trivial--one that no prosecutor who has any sense at all would ever dream of prosecuting, and a matter that no police department would ever investigate (how would a police investigator begin to investigate this matter, anyway, with no forensic evidence whatsoever available, the account itself extraordinarily sketchy, with no one at all able to corroborate it, and the accused, the true victim, adamantly denying it). And, why would this woman wait, at this juncture, 30+ years later to smear the reputation of a man she has not seen, or known--assuming that she ever knew him--for over thirty years. Bringing up such a matter in a reprehensible attempt to destroy a brilliant jurist, a devoted husband, and loving father, does nothing to serve  justice, or fairness; nor can it even provide "closure," for this woman. This is a matter of pure vindictiveness, brought to the attention of the entire Country to serve a political end, unrelated to justice or fairness. Christine Blasey Ford is merely a "tool," of ruthless forces that have not her well-being at heart, but a political goal to achieve. She is not even the real victim here. But, there is a victim. It is not the accuser, but the accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh; and the sad thing here is that Christine Blasely Ford, a college Professor and psychologist, no less, does not seem to realize that she is being used as a tool. She is simply a pawn in an elaborate chess game that Democrats and Leftist groups in this Country are playing and intend to win. Democrats and the Leftist interests they represent have lost power and they want it back; and they intend to get it back by any means, however reprehensible. They have goals for this Country that they intend to implement; that they began to implement with Barack Obama in Office, and which they thought they would continue to implement with Hillary Clinton in Office--Clinton, a felon no less, who only escaped prosecution and assured conviction because she, too, serves those forces that seek to destroy this Nation, its Constitution and the fundamental rights and liberties of its people; but she is a willing pawn too, who sold her soul for money, and influence and power. She is a wretched creature. But, a great switcheroo occurred. Hillary Clinton, lost the U.S. Presidential election.  Her election to the highest Office in the Land was seemingly assured. Horror of Horrors! What went wrong. The public did not play along? They didn't listen to the soundbites; the news accounts; the cajoling. So, what do Democrats and Leftist Groups both here and abroad that sought a Clinton Presidency to do now? Their game plan is not on track. So they plan, they theorize, they brainstorm, they conspire to come up with something, anything, however ridiculous, to contain and restrain the will of the American people who saw what was coming and who fought back. They work behind the scenes in an attempt to destroy the President whom the American people elected, in full and proper accordance with the Constitution. They see in the moronic, so-called "Me Too" sex harassment movement, a useful mechanism to bring low every man, any man who doesn't tow the Leftist line, who presents a danger to their agenda; to the Leftist Internationalist agenda. And, so, we see here an 11th Hour clown's act, entertainment for children and idiots, produced by and directed by Congressional Democrats with the avid assistance and complicity of the Press, and with the connivance of a few, wayward, unthinking Republicans, who have fallen for the spectacle, totally unaware, it would seem to them, what is clear enough to others: that they have been taken for fools. Stupidity of the Highest Order! Truly Incredible. Senate Democrats must be having a quiet chuckle over their successful manipulation of the public and of their brethren on the other side of the political aisle, during their private Happy Hour. Toasts for everyone! The Grand Game continues, as they see themselves as winning._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRETT KAVANAUGH SENATE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING: DEMOCRATS GRILL TRUMP NOMINEE ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”

DO NOT FOR ONE INSTANCE BE TAKEN IN BY FALSE CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS THAT "OF COURSE" THEY DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THAT THEY ONLY SEEK TO ENACT SO-CALLED SENSIBLE, COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS. THAT IS PURE, NAKED DECEPTION. THE KEY GOAL OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS IS AND, FOR DECADES, HAS BEEN THE REINING IN OF THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND THEY WILL NOT STOP THERE. CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ALONG WITH OTHER LEFT-WING ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING THEIR ECHO CHAMBER, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SEEK NOTHING LESS THAN THE UTTER, TOTAL DISSOLUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE DUBIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THOSE WHO SEEK DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REFERS TO A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, ASCRIBED ONLY TO ONE'S CONNECTION WITH OR ASSOCIATION WITH A MILITIA. WERE THIS TRUE, THE SACRED, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WOULD BE TRIVIALIZED AS WOULD THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES BE TRIVIALIZED. IF SUCH WERE IN FACT THE CASE, AMERICANS WOULD WITNESS THE FALL OF A ONCE GREAT NATION AND FREE REPUBLIC.

BUT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT HOLD TO A FALSE  NOTION OF THE IMPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. FOR, THEIR NOTION THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' THAT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY IN A "COLLECTIVE" CAPACITY OR SENSE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED. IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' AS IT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY OF THIS NATION IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR SENSE. AND THE RIGHT THEREFORE RESIDES, INTRINSICALLY IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NOT IN AN AMORPHOUS COLLECTIVE MILITIA.  AS SUCH, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS FUNDAMENTAL, AND MUST BE RESPECTED. THE RIGHT REFERRED TO IS NOT INCIDENTAL, AND, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT IS NOT TO BE PERFUNCTORILY DENIED, AS THOSE WHO DETEST THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE YOU, FALSELY, TO BELIEVE.

“The first salient feature of the operative clause [in the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Three provisions of the Constitution refer to ‘the people’ in a context other than ‘rights’—the famous preamble (‘We the people’), § 2 of Article I (providing that ‘the people’ will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with ‘the States’ or ‘the people’). Those provisions arguably refer to ‘the people’ acting collectively—but  they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.  Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . .This contrasts markedly with the phrase ‘the militia’ in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’We start therefore  with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. We move now from the holder of the right—‘the people’—to the substance of the right: ‘to keep and bear Arms.’”~ (A portion of the Opinion of the Majority, penned by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia), in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 578-581 passim (2008) Well before the Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings, the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out that Congressional Democrats’ assault on and goal of elimination of the right of the natural, sacred, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as succinctly codified in the Second Amendment, was and always has been a central plank of the antigun Democratic Party agenda. See "the United States Safe Act in the Making: Penned and Penciled by Andrew Cuomo."This was so even though in the weeks and months leading up to the Hearing. Democrats and their liberal media echo chamber talked incessantly about Democrats’ Party’s other goals. These goals included: one, open borders; two, expansion of personal federal income taxes; three, the complete elimination of ICE, and the hamstringing of other law enforcement agencies across the Country; four, the clamping down of all investigations into subversive activities of high ranking Governmental Bureaucrats of the Deep State; and five, the removal of Donald Trump from Office.

DEMOCRATS CONSISTENTLY REMONSTRATE AGAINST THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY SEE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS OUTMODED, DRAFTED AND RATIFIED TO REFLECT THE NEEDS OF AN ANCIENT TIME AND, SO, IN NEED OF DRASTIC REVISION. THUS, THEY SEEK TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENT TO REFLECT A MODERN WORLD. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, A NOTION  NOTION HELD NOT JUST BY POLITICIANS AND LAY PERSONS, BUT  BY JURISTS AS WELL. IN FACT, RETIRED LIBERAL-WING JUSTICE, JOHN PAUL STEVENS WISHES TO REWRITE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. HE SAYS SO IN A BOOK HE HAS PUBLISHED. AND, IN THE WORDS OF THE LIBERAL-WING U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, OUR CONSTITUTION IS, AFTER ALL, “A RATHER OLD CONSTITUTION” MEANING THAT GINSBURG, TOO, APPARENTLY THINKS OUR CONSTITUTION IS IN NEED OF RADICAL REVISION.

The Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on the President’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, that took place for several days, laid bare the Democrats contempt for our Constitution and, especially, their misconception of the Bill of Rights as framed by the founders of our Republic. Spending a good part of three days of the Senate Confirmation Hearing process, by turns pontificating, chastising, and even excoriating Judge Kavanaugh, it became clear to all Americans that those Democrats, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have succumbed to the will and wishes of Americans on the far left of the political spectrum, or otherwise always held to extreme left-wing views concerning the Constitution. Americans who believe that the Constitution, and especially that part of it--the Bill of Rights--that sets forth the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen, proclaim that the Bill of Rights can mean essentially whatever it is they choose it, or wish for it, to mean. They do not look at the plain meaning of the text, but read into the sacred Document what they wish for the words of the Document to mean; not what the framers of it meant, as clearly articulated in it.But, application of such an erroneous belief concerning the Constitution, destroys the very efficacy of it. Revisionists take the U.S. Constitution to be infinitely malleable, flexible, bendable. This is what they mean by the Constitution as a "living document"--that it can be changed to reflect changes in society, changes they seek to impose on the Nation. Thus, they would twist the Constitution and contort it to a degree that essentially destroys its import and purport, as conceived by the framers of it. These leftist revisionists don’t care, and they do not care for a jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, who does not share their view of a Constitution they perceive to be easily malleable, like a lump of clay that one might knead into any convenient shape.Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to Constitutional case analysis is in line with that of Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. These eminent jurists do not read into the Constitution what they may happen to wish to see. They take the Constitution for its literal word. That doesn’t sit well with Americans who hold to a Socialist philosophy; who have drafted a new plan, a new design for our Nation; who have a Socialist Agenda and who seek to implement radical Socialist policies for our Country--policies destructive to a free Republic and destructive of a free market Capitalist economic society; policies inconsistent with the Constitution of this Nation as ratified by the founders of our Nation. Hence, progressive forces in our Nation do not want Judge Kavanaugh—brilliant and thoughtful a jurist though he be—to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THEIR IDEAS AND GOALS PATENTLY CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee made no attempt to hide their distaste of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known. Even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly set down in stone in the Bill of Rights, these Congressional Democrats would like to see the Second Amendment weakened, disassembled, abandoned, and eventually, even obliterated from historical records and memory.Yet, curiously, wrongly, and even weirdly, Congressional Democrats believe it to be perfectly permissible to expand the domain of what they presume to be fundamental rights, worthy of protection, such as a right to abortion on demand, and equal protection rights expanded to include individuals exhibiting gender dysphoria—an expansion of purported rights, nowhere explicitly mentioned or even alluded to in the Bill of Rights. All the while, Congressional Democrats seem to be under no similar compunction to retain those fundamental rights that are expressly codified in the Bill of Rights.For example, Democrats see no legal or moral compunction against constraining Americans’ free exercise of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech—to proscribe what they, alone, perceive as permitting ideas anathema to their own—and they see no legal or moral issue with doing away with the Second Amendment altogether. That is their goal, clearly inferred through three days of Senate Hearing on Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and as further evidenced in antigun legislation Congressional Democrats have proposed in the last twenty plus years.Democrats argue, as they made pointedly clear during the Confirmation Hearing that, in matters pertaining to the citizen ownership and possession of firearms, State orchestrated cries for “public safety,” as the ground for curtailing the exercise of a fundamental and natural right should, and, indeed, must, invariably outweigh the personal right of self-defense. Moreover, Congressional Democrats consistently and continuously convey at best a blasé attitude toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a natural and fundamental right that the framers of the Constitution saw need enough to codify in the Bill of Rights, and did so to preserve a free Republic and to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the American citizen.From the questions posed by Senate Democrats to Judge Kavanaugh, and by the comments they made, these Democrats do not perceive the Second Amendment to be worth protecting and strengthening, or, otherwise they simply don’t care that, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution well knew, it is only through an armed citizenry that tyranny in Government can be ultimately, successfully, forestalled. The need for the free exercise of that right has not diminished with the passing years, decades, and centuries. Rather, contrary to the pronouncements of those who seek to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the need to preserve and to strengthen this sacred right has actually, increased, many-fold, as the power of the Nation's Federal Government with the assistance of technology has itself increased exponentially in the centuries since both the formation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic, and since the ratification of our Constitution.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ALWAYS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ CROSSHAIRS.

While expressing concern for the survival of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)* which was certainly a central point of discussion manifested through three days of Confirmation Hearings, Democrats made abundantly clear, on the flipside, their disgust for the salient holding in Heller vs. District of Columbia, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Indeed, at times, Democrats’ expression of their disdain for Heller eclipsed their concern for the preservation of Roe vs. Wade. In fact, as Senator Diane Feinstein began her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh, during the first day of the Confirmation Hearing, the first set of questions that she directed to Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee did not involve the issue of female reproductive rights, but were aimed squarely at the Second Amendment—namely and most notably at so-called “assault weapons”—which, as one of a plethora of antigun measures that antigun zealots would love to impose on the Nation as a whole, this one, in particular, has been, for decades, the especial target of Congressional Democrats. Wallowing in the abyss of fallacious reasoning and seeming self-pity, they plead with Judge Kavanaugh to forsake centuries of case law and jurisprudential history, ostensibly to ensure the safety of children, but oblivious to the fact that it is not the firearm, an inanimate object--their singular target for annihilation--that is the cause of violence, but, rather, a weakness of heart and will that prevents them from actively and avidly enforcing the hundreds of laws that Congress has enacted to forestall aggressive acts of those who would wreak violence on innocent lives: the lives of innocent adults as well as children.

WOULD DEMOCRATS BE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN 2019 IF THEY WERE TO CEMENT MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?

To be sure, it is by no means certain that Democrats will take control of the House in November, after the midterm elections. Less likely, but of greater concern, is the prospect of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate. If Democrats do take control of both Houses of Congress, what is certain is that they intend to muscle through Congress a new “assault weapons” ban, modeled on the New York Safe Act of 2013.Democrats would get substantial assistance from progressive State Governors, led by the virulently anti-Second Amendment Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo—assuming, which is likely, albeit depressing to contemplate, that Cuomo does prevail in the coming New York Gubernatorial election, in November, to secure a third term in Office.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN’S RAISON D’ETRE IS TO PROHIBIT CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ANY FIREARM THAT SHE PROCLAIMS TO BE AN “ASSAULT WEAPON.”

If you recall, Feinstein attempted to ram through an “assault weapons” bill in 2013. That bill was even more draconian than the original restrictive U.S. Senate Legislation, “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994.” In Subtitle A of Title XI of the 1994 Act, Senator Feinstein laid out a comprehensive nation-wide ban on an “assault weapons.”  Subtitle A of Title XI severely restricted the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.” The “assault weapons” provision included a sunset provision and, in 2004, the “assault weapons” provision of the 1994 Act did expire. It was not reauthorized by Congress.Feinstein wasn’t done. On the heels of enactment of, and in lockstep with, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s New York Safe Act, signed into law by Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, sought to generate public interest in a new and incredibly ambitious federal “assault weapons” ban, modeled in substantial part on the “assault weapons” provisions of the NY Safe Act. The Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy provided the pretext for this.Feinstein’s bill, used much of the language of Cuomo’s NY Safe Act, but to emphasize her personal distaste for firearms, the federal bill included over 110 specifically named firearms and categories of firearms. This categorization of specifically named firearms was unnecessary as the list was redundant. No matter, Subtitle A of Title XI “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994” included the list anyway. Feinstein’s “assault weapon”, bill, if successful, would have caused the entire Nation to suffer the constraints on a weapon in common use by the American citizenry that Cuomo’s New York assault weapons ban has imposed on residents of New York.Fortunately for American citizens, Feinstein’s federal bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, went nowhere because the Senate Democratic Party Majority Leader at the time--Harry Reid--stripped Feinstein’s assault weapon ban out of a broader gun control bill that Democrats sought to pass. Senator Reid evidently believed that doing so would make the restrictive gun control measures more palatable to reluctant members of the Senate. Feinstein was furious, but Reid remained undeterred. The bill, sans Feinstein's “assault weapons” ban provision, was still soundly defeated on Roll Call vote of the Senate held on April 17, 2013.

IF BRETT  KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BILL THAT BECOMES LAW IS LIKELY TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know full well that, even if they were to secure majorities in both Houses of Congress, any “assault weapons” bill they happen, in 2019, to enact into law would be immediately challenged on the ground that a ban on an entire category of weapons in common use is contrary to the core of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller decision and as reiterated by the high Court in the 2010 McDonald decision (561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Unlike the unhappy present situation with core Second Amendment cases that wend there way to the high Court, that are invariably not taken up for high Court review, this is likely to change with Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court as a petition for a Writ of Certiorari would likely be granted. Brett Kavanaugh would provide the crucial fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case (subsequent to the seminal Heller and McDonald cases) implicating the core of the Second Amendment, to finally be heard.** Once granted, and the case heard, a Conservative-wing majority, properly employing sound judicial and logical and jurisprudential reasoning, would likely determine that an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of a substantial number of semiautomatic firearms—including handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as well as non-semiautomatic weapons, such as  revolving cylinder shotguns, along with so-called large capacity magazines, that are all in common use in this Nation—would be and must be struck down as inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the high Court’s Majority in the U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald cases. And this explains why Senate Democrats are particularly worried over the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court—enough so that they devoted substantial time to questioning Judge Kavanaugh over his methodology for resolving cases involving the Second Amendment. And this explains why the American people must suffer through a delay on a confirmation vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, due to the 11th hour political stunt pulled by Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself. Feinstein has raised an issue concerning a naked, uncorroborated allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, of a purported event allegedly occurring decades ago, that the Senator learned about through a letter she received in July of this year, and which she had sat on all this time, obviously to bring up at an inopportune time as it serves purely as a convenient political delaying tactic. Chairman Grassley and Senate Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, should not allow Democrats to turn the Confirmation process into a circus act. Unfortunately, Democrats are not acting alone. Senate Republican, Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he wishes to hear from Judge Kavanaugh's accuser before he will vote to allow the Confirmation process to proceed. It is no secret, though, that Senator Flake, who will be stepping down from the Senate, anyway, has no love for President Trump, and apparently takes delight in constantly admonishing him to the Press. It therefore stands to reason why Senator Jeff Flake would jump ship and play with Democrats in opposing the President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court even though a brilliant jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, sitting on the highest Court in the Land would help preserve our free Republic and strengthen our Bill of Rights. Does Jeff Flake think so little of the President that he would be willing to sacrifice the well-being of both the Nation and the American citizenry by placing obstacles in the President's path. Apparently this is so. For our part, we believe that Jeff Flake cannot leave Congress soon enough. That is the best thing he can do for this Nation and its people.

IN OUR UPCOMING ARTICLE:

The methodology which Judge Kavanaugh utilizes to analyze and resolve Second Amendment cases, which Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Panel, scarcely touched upon, but denigrated nonetheless, will be discussed in detail in our next article on the Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing. We look specifically at Judge Kavanaugh's critical important dissenting opinion in the case popularly styled, Heller II (Heller vs. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 ; 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130).___________________________________________*Associate Justice Byron White and Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the Majority Opinion, penned by then Chief Justice Warren Burger. Note: Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been appointed to the high Court at the time Roe was decided. Justice Scalia was confirmed to the high Court in 1986, the same year that then U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist to serve as the new Chief Justice to replace retiring Chief Justice Burger, and whom the Senate subsequently confirmed as the new Chief Justice.Six years later, in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992), the high Court essentially reaffirmed the holdings in Roe, namely that a Constitutional right to elective abortion exists, but only until viability as the State “has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting . . . the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 846. The majority in Casey held that an elective abortion is a fundamental right but the Casey Majority loosened the standard for determination of whether a State regulation unduly burdens a woman’s right to elective abortion. The Court replaced the stringent strict scrutiny approach, that favors a State’s interest in protecting an unborn child, to a lesser standard that would operate in favor of a woman’s decision for an elective abortion. Note: Justice Scalia who dissented from the Majority made clear that nothing in the Constitution elevates a woman’s decision to have an abortion to the that of a fundamental right. His dissenting opinion is critical to the methodology of textualism and originalism. Justice Scalia opined: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 978. Further, Justice Scalia opined:“That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. . . . A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example—with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree—intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially ‘protected’ by the Constitution.The [majority on the high] Court destroys the proposition, evidently meant to represent my position [which they in fact misrepresent, namely] that ‘liberty’ includes ‘only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847 (citing Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 127, n.6, 105 L. Ed. 2d 91, 109 S. Ct. 2333 (1989). That is not, however, what Michael H. says; it merely observes that, in defining ‘liberty,’ we may not disregard a specific, ‘relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right,’ ibid. But the Court does not wish to be fettered by any such limitations on its preferences. The Court’s statement that it is ‘tempting’ to acknowledge the authoritativeness of tradition in order to ‘curb the discretion of federal judges,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847, is of course rhetoric rather than reality; no government official is ‘tempted’ to place restraints upon his own freedom of action. . . . The Court’s temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction—towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 979-981. Justice Scalia’s remarks are directed against a jurist’s wrong, albeit, natural tendency, as is the case with anyone who wields power, but particularly jurists, who--specifically invoking the force of law in their decisions--operate without restraint, when they ought to be circumspect. As a result, such jurists tend to create an ever expansive array of dubious substantive rights. Not surprisingly, we see these same jurists irreverently curtailing fundamental rights and liberties that do exist and have existed since ratification of the Bill of Rights, namely and particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which they happen to be personally philosophically opposed to.AQ’s Note: The liberal wing of the Supreme Court—and the liberal wing of U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well—sees fit to play with standards of review whenever it suits the result it wants. Thus, liberal wing judges and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court tend to revert to “interest-balancing” approaches to judicial review as that approach invariably serves to support the results they want, that is to say, tends to support predetermined decisions. Thus, in Second Amendment cases, liberal-wing Judges of the lower Courts and liberal-wing Justices of the high Court employ “interest-balancing” to support restrictive, draconian firearms’ regulations even where Government enactments clearly and blatantly impinge upon and infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right succinctly codified in the Bill of Rights. These same jurists also resort to “interest-balancing” in abortion cases, but, in those cases, rather than using “interest balancing” to support legitimate actions of Government that seeks to preserve the life of the unborn child, these jurists conclude that “balancing” the interests of Government, on the one-hand, and the interests of the individual on the other hand—the interests of the individual seeking abortion ought prevail over that of Government that seeks to protect the unborn child. With little wonder, then, Justice Scalia was leery of invoking a traditional, "interest-balancing" standard of review in Heller that might, after the fact, ostensibly, give judicial cover to a liberal-wing Judge who happens to detest the very existence of the Second Amendment.It is clear enough that some regulations, such as the District of Columbia law banning, altogether, citizen ownership and possession of handguns within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, are clearly, categorically unlawful. Thus, the majority in Heller saw no need to revert to an "interest-balancing" standard of review, when it rendered its opinion that the D.C. handgun ban is de jure unconstitutional; for, application of any traditional standard of review would amount to mere legal pretense—an empty, redundant exercise, devoid of import. Although Justice Scalia was circumspect in penning the Majority’s Opinion, one finds, clearly enough, when perusing the opinion, that the Majority in Heller knew full well that the D.C. handgun ban was audacious in its conception and abjectly ludicrous--a bald-faced "slap-in-the-face" at the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban therefore deserved no serious judicial consideration.If the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were to have any meaning and purpose at all, the D.C. restriction had, properly speaking, to be struck down, and struck down unceremoniously; and so it was. The Heller majority, though, used the case to exemplify once and for all, beyond any further need for clarification, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to one’s service in a militia. With that point now clearly articulated, it was the fervent hope of the Heller Court’s majority, that Government action that fails to give proper deference to the right as codified in the Second Amendment would at once be struck down; and that it would be unnecessary for courts to go through tortuous gyrations to strike down firearms’ laws and regulations that are facially unlawful.Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the tenacity of governments and courts that abhor the Second Amendment, to find lawful governmental action that is facially and categorically unlawful. The philosophical disposition of jurists who personally abhor the Second Amendment, as we have seen, leads them to patently ignore the principal holdings of, and of the Majority's reasoning in Heller and McDonald, even as they perfunctorily mention those cases in their opinions to which they give no more than lip-service. Unfortunately, too, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the reluctance of moderates on the high Court--now the lone Chief Justice, John Roberts, now that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired--to take up cases that blatantly ignore Heller and McDonald. This means of course that this Nation requires the swift confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Judge Kavanaugh would hold the crucial fourth vote, that would allow cases that infringe the core of the Second Amendment to receive high Court review that they deserve.The 11^th Hour attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to throw a wrench into confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh must not be allowed to gain traction. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and who, according to news reports, indicated they may refrain from allowing the vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh by the full Senate to proceed, then that would send a clear message to the American citizenry, that elected Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, that elements exist, both among Republicans and Democrats, who do not wish for the U.S. President to fulfill his promises to the American people. President Trump has promised to nominate people to the U.S. Supreme Court who believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights as ratified. A confirmation vote of the full Senate, on President Trump's nomination of John Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court, must proceed forthwith**See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, a Second Amendment case implicating the very core of the Second Amendment that failed to receive a critical fourth Supreme Court Justice vote, necessary for review. This case, as with others decided by liberal judges of the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who take a very dim view of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deals directly with the issue as to whether so-called "assault weapons" fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Jurists deciding these cases use methodologies at odds with the reasoning of the majority in Heller and McDonald. Not surprisingly, these Courts invariably find for the government and against the American citizen in holding that firearms defined as "assault weapons" in l0cal regulations or State law, are not protected by the Second Amendment.  That was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Friedman case. These are the pertinent facts of the case: The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans the manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic  firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons,” which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a. The City’s ordinances were challenged by an American citizen and resident of Illinois. The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the City. The Petitioner appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that routinely upholds such bans, affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied as the case did not receive a fourth critical vote from the Justices, necessary for the case to be heard. When cases are not decided for high Court review, the reasons for refusing to take up a case are not generally stated. The high Court simply asserts that a Petitioner's Writ is denied, and the Court leaves the matter at that. The nature of the votes cast by each Justice is never given, either. In the Friedman case, it is clear that the Seventh Circuit blatantly ignored the reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. The Writ for Certiorari should have been granted. It wasn't. It is clear enough that the liberal-wing of the Court and two members of the conservative wing, likely the so-called swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recently retired, along with Chief Justice Roberts, did not want the case to be heard, and they did not want the case heard for a specific reason. They obviously feared that application of the holdings of Heller and McDonald, together with the reasoning of the majority in those cases, would dictate the overturning of the Seventh Circuit Court's decision in Friedman, and that, in turn, would result in a cascading effect, across the Country, where assault weapon bans would be overturned in every jurisdiction that presently ban or severely restrict the ownership and possession of a large category of semiautomatic weapons, including firearms that are not semiautomatic in operation, namely, revolving cylinder shotguns. Understandably, Justices Thomas and Scalia were livid that Heller and McDonald could and would dare be blithely ignored by jurists for ideological reasons, predicated on personal biases, mandating results that are contrary to law. Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissenting comment in response to the high Court's failure to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Friedman. The late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller decision for the Majority, joined Justice Thomas in the Associate Justice’s dissenting comment. We can reasonably infer that Justice Alito, who penned the majority opinion in McDonald, also voted in favor of reviewing the Friedman case, even though he did not join with Justice Scalia in Justice Thomas' dissenting comment. Even so, that meant that, at best, only three votes--one short, of the required minimum, four--were cast for high Court review of the Friedman case.Justice Thomas wrote in salient part:“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 903; id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3058, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 938 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below — have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410-412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. . . . Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald.The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Had Judge Kavanaugh been sitting on the high Court, instead of Justice Kennedy, at the time the Court was considering Petitioner’s Writ in Friedman, it is highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh would have provided the critical fourth vote necessary for the Friedman case to be heard, along with one vote each cast in favor of review from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. Were the Friedman case heard, then consistent with the Heller and McDonald holdings—and this is a point that bears repeating—it is also highly likely the majority on the high Court would hold that so-called “assault weapons,” which include many popular semiautomatic weapons, and other kinds of weapons, including shotguns that operate through revolving cylinders, do in fact fall within the core of the Second Amendment. That would put to effective rest all the media fanfare and ridiculous uproar over this matter. Thus, any legislation that bans the civilian citizenry of our Nation from owning and possessing such weapons would be struck down as unconstitutional. This, then, easily explains, in great part, the apoplectic reaction by progressives, and by other left-wing radical elements in our society, toward Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to sit as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. These left-wing elements know that unlawful legislation, which includes much of what it is they want, and what they would have obtained had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Presidential election--and had she appointed non-originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she would certainly have done--will not withstand judicial scrutiny at the level of the Supreme Court, with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to sit on the high Court, that will put a damper on the efficacy of a Socialist agenda, ever coming to fruition, long after Donald Trump’s Presidency has ended. Thus, Donald Trump's legacy and, indeed, the jurisprudential legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, will be preserved. Thus, the blood spilled by those who sought to create a free Republic, and the blood spilled by Americans, since--in all the wars and conflicts fought to maintain our free Republic--will not have been in vain._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO SAYS: "AMERICA IS NOT GREAT."

CUOMO DEMEANS THE NATION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH INSULTING, OUTRAGEOUS, VINDICTIVE REMARKS.

Ever pandering for votes in his bid for a third term as Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo shamelessly blurts out increasingly incendiary, outrageous, and shameful remarks.During a speech on Monday, August 13, 2018, at an event hosted for women and girls, this so-called “leader” of New York, who might harbor greater ambitions—U.S. President perhaps?—slammed, denigrated, and insulted the United States and its people. Yet, strangely, he evidently believes he is the best person to represent and to lead this Country and its people even though he has such a low regard for both. In pertinent part, he said this, as reported by one source, the Daily News:"We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great. We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.” Without going into the nuances and expansive exposition of the meaning of the word, ‘great,’ suffice it to say that the common understanding of the word when applied either to a person or to a Country is that such a person or country is great if perceived as eminent, honorable, or worthy of respect, reverence, and veneration.By exclaiming that America “was never that great,” and that the Nation “has not reached greatness,” Cuomo has denigrated the Country he resides in; the Country he would deign to lead. And he has denigrated, too, the people whom he believes he can, in good conscience, represent and lead.Cuomo’s half-hearted attempt to walk back his explosive, inane diatribe—after the fallout that, not surprisingly, ensued—cannot reasonably be, and should not honestly be, considered heartfelt. But, were it so, still, Americans should not forgive Cuomo’s use of reprehensible insults leveled at the Country and its people. Some words, by their nature, cannot be taken back. Cuomo’s insolent words fall into that category. Like a bullet from a spent cartridge of a gun, once a shot has been fired, the bullet, like Cuomo’s abhorrent remarks, cannot be taken back.The defeated Democratic Party Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, learned this hard lesson when, at a fund raising event on September 9, 2016, she insulted Trump supporters, saying that half of them are a “basket of deplorables.” Americans don’t take kindly to politicians that scoff at them; nor should they.What this man blurted out to his audience that Monday night—a group of people on the far left of the political spectrum, whom Cuomo felt, would, apparently, be receptive to anything this left-wing politician had to say, even the most hateful, spiteful, disgusting, disparaging anti-American rhetoric he could muster—shocked the conscience, as it turned out, as well it should have, of many, even in that audience. The depths of depravity to which Cuomo could and would wallow, as illustrated in his abhorrent rhetoric, amply reflects what this man is and always has been: a petty, yet pompous  politician—a man surrounded by sycophants; a megalomaniac, bloated with delusions of grandeur and feelings of smug self-aggrandizement; a man who will do or say anything, no matter how ludicrous, or outrageous, or abhorrent the pronouncements or actions may be, as long as they happen to serve the particular moment and the serve the man’s copious and ruthless, power hungry ambitions. But, some assertions fall well beyond the pale. Some words cannot be convincingly retracted.

EVEN THE LEFTIST LATE-NIGHT SHOW HOST, STEPHEN COLBERT, WAS SURPRISED BY CUOMO’S VITUPERATIVE REMARKS, AND SAW FIT TO ADMONISH CUOMO.

As reported by The New York Times, Stephen Colbert exclaimed on hearing Cuomo’s bizarre remarks: “That is the dumbest thing you can say as a politician.” One may wonder whether Colbert, hardly one averse to taking cheap shots at his favorite target—Republicans and Conservatives—was, as an American, himself, really put off by Cuomo’s loathsome remarks, or felt, rather, that Cuomo, along with the despicable messaging, and antics, and violent tactics of extremist socialist, communist, and anarchist groups, active in this Country, was harming Democrats’ chances to retake the House in the 2016 Midterm Elections.

CUOMO’S DIABRIBE OPERATES AS A PERSONAL VITUPERATIVE, VINDICTIVE INDICTMENT OF THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE.

Americans need only consider what Andrew Cuomo’s damning pronouncements mean. In pertinent part Cuomo has, through his disrespectful, insulting, damning words, vehemently denounced this Nation’s history, its culture, its values, its laws and legal system, its institutions, and its people.This, then, is, in part, the import of Cuomo’s words:1)  In pandering to the progressive far left, Cuomo apparently cares not at all of the work and effort of those men who founded our Nation and wrote its Constitution. For Cuomo, the founders of the Nation, who had the courage to stand up to the might of Great Britain— a despotic Monarchy and the most powerful Nation on Earth at that time—who placed their good names and their lives on the line, and, who, having done so successfully, established a free Republic, where sovereignty resides in the people, not in the State, are not, according to Andrew Cuomo, worthy of emulation. For Andrew Cuomo, neither these men, nor the Republic they established, nor the natural, unalienable rights and liberties they codified in a Constitution that has stood the test of time, are worthy of emulation, or respect, or reverence. They are not deemed to be great; they were not engaged; and this Nation has not, for Cuomo, achieved greatness.2)  Americans who fought and, for many, who died in foreign lands to secure this Nation’s safety and security and the safety and security of many other Nations, from the threat and scourge of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, are not, in Cuomo’s estimate, to be considered great, and are not to be considered to have achieved greatness either for themselves or for their Country.3)  This Nation and its people that stood up to and that defeated the threat posed to the security of the World by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—the old USSR—and the economic doctrine this despotic empire espoused for the entire world—communism—are not to be considered worthy of respect, or reverence, or emulation. This Nation and its people are not, then, to be considered, great, according to Cuomo. And, these Americans according to Cuomo, were not to be considered, “fully engaged.” Really? What, for Cuomo, amounts to the full engagement of the American people?4)  This Nation that provided economic opportunity for its people, creating more wealth for more people, through the operation of free market principles, and through the principle reflected in the private ownership of property—a Nation that has become the envy of the World—is not considered worthy of reverence and veneration. This Nation and its people are not to be considered, great, for Cuomo; they have not reached greatness; and they have not been fully engaged.5)  This Nation and its people that provided incredible innovations in science, technology, nuclear physics, medicine, aerospace, are not to be considered worthy of respect, and awe, and reverence. This Nation and its people are not to be considered, great; have not reached greatness; and were not fully engaged.6)  This Nation that realizes the importance of diversity of thought and of expression and that understands that this Nation’s strength and fortitude rests first and foremost in its armed citizenry, composed of the common man—and not in such power of arms that a small group of elite noblemen and royalty might bear for themselves—is not to be considered worthy of respect. This Nation and its citizenry are not to be considered great, according to Cuomo; are not to be considered to have reached greatness; and are not to be considered fully engaged.

IF THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE ARE UNREMARKABLE, OF WHAT, THEN, DOES "GREATNESS" REALLY CONSIST?

We must ask Andrew Cuomo, if this Nation and its people are not great, have never been that great, and have never achieved greatness, and have not been fully engaged—are, in a word, ‘unremarkable,’—then:1)  Why do tens of millions of foreigners seek, nonetheless, to come to this Country?2)  How is it that this Nation is the wealthiest, per capita, in the World?3)  How is it that this Nation has become the most powerful Nation, militarily?4)  Why is it that many Nations espouse to adopt our Nation’s democratic principles?5)  Why is it that in no other Nation but our own do we see the sanctity of the individual held to such great esteem?

IF OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED GREAT, WE HAVE A MODEST SUGGESTION FOR ANDREW CUOMO.

If you, Andrew, have such a low opinion of this Nation, we think it best that you renounce your citizenship, and, simply, leave.Select a Country that meets your personal standard of greatness, whatever that standard happens to be; however it is that you define, ‘greatness,’ in a Nation and however it is that you define ‘greatness’ in a Nation’s people. For, obviously, your standard for "greatness" has not been met in the United States, nor has it been met by any of its people, either now in the present; in the recent or more distant past; or at the founding of our Nation.Clearly, you do not deem this Nation and its people to be worthy of your talents, of your own greatness of spirit and of your piety. That being so, we think it best for all concerned, that you take "your own “greatness” somewhere else, to a land where the populace can truly appreciate "your greatness" and where the people are truly worthy of "your greatness." There, perhaps, in some other land, among another group of people, where "greatness," as you understand it, as you define it in your own private dictionary--where "greatness as you see it, already exists, in that land and in its people--"your own greatness" can, perhaps, shine and flourish. But that, obviously, isn't here, in the United States, among the American people. Clearly, "your own greatness" will not be able to shine and flourish in a Nation and in a people whom, as you say, are not and never have been great, and likely never will be great._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

UNITED STATES SAFE ACT IN THE MAKING: PENNED AND PENCILED BY ANDREW CUOMO

GUN RIGHTS STAY CENTER STAGE

With the midterm Congressional and Gubernatorial elections just around the corner, those Americans who support a strong Second Amendment must not sit idle, but must vote for Congressional candidates and State Governors who will not only support the right of the people to keep and bear arms but who will actively defend that right against those who dare to destroy it. The gun rights issue is of paramount importance and will take center stage if Cuomo Democrats win control of the House and Senate and if they take control of the States.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT REMAINS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST FOR CUOMO DEMOCRATS.

The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out in our article, posted on August 1, 2018, that, although the immigration issue has been hyped by the mainstream media and by leftist politicians, in recent weeks and months, it is the Second Amendment that remains first and foremost, firmly in the crosshairs of those who seek to undermine our sacred Bill of Rights. And, sure enough, the exercise of gun rights is once again in the antigun zealots’ crosshairs.In recent days, as the Governor of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo, gears up for a third term bid, he has taken direct aim at the oldest Civil Rights Organization in the Country, the NRA. NRA exists to defend the single, most important right of the American people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right critical to the safeguarding of a free Republic, and critical to guaranteeing the autonomy and sanctity of the individual citizen, as the true sovereign authority in and of the United States.The New York Times has taken the lead in shepherding New York residents to elect Cuomo to a third term in Office, making the point of telling the public, in an August 5, 2018 article, titled, “A New Brawl With the N.R.A.? Cuomo Seizes an Opportunity as a Primary Looms”— that “Mr. Cuomo has had a longstanding ideological commitment to gun control. . . [and that] in 2013, Mr. Cuomo successfully fought for passage of the Safe Act, making New York the first state to enact more stringent gun regulations after the Sandy Hook massacre. He has proudly touted his ‘F’ rating from the N.R.A.” Lest there be any doubt where Cuomo’s ultimate ambition lies, the New York Times adds, in that same article, that “he [Cuomo] has also made no secret of his belief that his actions on gun control have made his state a model for the nation—a handy argument for a politician who has garnered some mention as a possible 2020 candidate. ‘Use New York as a test case,’ Mr. Cuomo said in an interview of his gun control measures, including the Safe Act. ‘The state is a laboratory of democracy where I can say: We passed the law five years ago. Come look at our state.’”Come look at New York, indeed! Imagine, if you will, a Nation, where the model for gun control, the New York Safe Act, becomes federal law—thrust on every State in the Union.De Facto, if not outright de jure, repeal of the Second Amendment has been the goal of the Democratic Party for decades. And, Andrew Cuomo will lead the charge on eviscerating the Second Amendment. Long before Democrats changed their position on illegal immigration—calling at an earlier time for curbs on such immigration, but now extolling an open borders policy that would essentially open the floodgates, letting flow, like an angry river into this Country, tens, perhaps even hundreds, of millions of low-skilled migrants, along with a large contingent of criminal gangs and refugees from failed states of the Middle East—Democrats have never wavered but have consistently attacked the sacred, natural right codified in the Second Amendment. They have done so incessantly, unceasingly, vehemently. That single issue is what defines them. That single issue is what motivates them, like no other. For, they know that: once the right of the people to keep and bear arms is destroyed, they--these Cuomo Democrats and other leftists--will do away with other fundamental rights and liberties. In so doing, they contrive and machinate to contort our Nation into a thing unrecognizable, an entity completely alien to the aims and desires of the founders of a Free Republic. These Cuomo Democrats seek to create a quagmire, a geographical "Place," no longer an Independent, Sovereign Nation--but merely a place--overrun by unassimilable alien people. These Cuomo Democrats and other leftists who seek to destroy our Nation--a Nation founded on natural rights and liberties--intend to destroy the very fabric of our Nation: its memory; its history, its values, its culture, its ethos. They intend to wipe the slate clean. And, to assist them in their detestable endeavor, they conspire to bring into our Country, such denizens of other Countries who have no understanding of, no appreciation for and, in fact, no concept, of a Nation that exists under and by the will of the people alone--a Nation whose people are endowed by their Creator with fundamental, natural rights and liberties--rights and liberties intrinsic to their very being: incorruptible, immutable, beyond the power of Government to deny, to ignore, to erase.

CUOMO DEMOCRATS DO NOT PERCEIVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS CODIFYING NATURAL RIGHTS BUT AS A CREATION OF MAN THAT CAN, THEREFORE, BE AMENDED OR DELETED AT WILL.

Not surprisingly, Cuomo Democrats and other leftists' disdain for the Second Amendment is reflected in their rebuke of the very notion that the Bill of Rights embodies and codifies a set of basic, natural rights endowed to man by the Creator, intrinsic to man's very being. As Cuomo Democrats and other leftists savagely, mindlessly, mercilessly attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment, they have also attacked the right of free speech, codified in the First Amendment, and they have attacked the very notion of private property rights codified in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They consider these rights trivial, anachronistic to, and an anathema to the "new" Socialist Order they wish to create. In their scheme, these Cuomo Democrats, and these other leftists residing in our Nation, consider the Nation's sacred rights to be merely man-made conventions, capable of excision or rescission, at the stroke of the pen.Thus, these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists belittle the Nation's Bill of Rights, and belittle, too, and especially, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. At every turn these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists contrive to undermine the sanctity of our sacred rights. In their insidious design first to trivialize the Nation's fundamental rights--natural rights, codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights by the framers of our Constitution--they seek, second, eventually, to strike these fundamental, natural rights from the Constitution, substituting for them, such man-made rights, they happen to construct for the moment; rights that happen, for the moment, to comprise their wish list, consistent with and commensurate with their plans for a new Socialist Order they intend to impose on Americans.And what are some of these new rights? Investor Business Daily wrote, presciently, in 2016, that: “They [Democrats] talk about the ‘right to affordable health care,’ the ‘right to a college education,’ the ‘right to a livable wage.’ But at the same time, many of these same Democrats have been agitating to restrict or outright repeal existing rights enshrined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.” 

CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS MUST SPEAK OUT!

Conservative commentators must speak out against the perils of a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, and they must do so continuously. They must emphasize the threat that Cuomo Democrats and other leftists pose to the continued sanctity of and continuity of the Bill of Rights and, especially, the threat they pose to the Second Amendment.Yet, conservative commentators remain, for the most part, reticent. Oddly, even the conservative commentator Sean Hannity fails to mention that Cuomo Democrats would strive to weaken the Second Amendment if they gained control of the House and the Senate. On his nightly Fox news broadcasts, Hannity rightly warns the American public about specific dangers posed by a Democratic Party takeover of Congress, including Democrats’ intention to impeach President Trump and their commitment to an open borders immigration policy, but he says nothing about Cuomo led Democrats’ devious, scurrilous plans to enact restrictive firearms measures, on the National stage, in the event they take over the House, and, possibly, the Senate as well.

IS THE WRITING ON THE WALL?

If Democrats do in fact take over Congress, after the November 2018 midterm elections, and if Andrew Cuomo is elected to a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo will be taking his plans for a National New York Safe Act to a receptive Congress, where he will lead the pack to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Of that, there can be no doubt._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CUOMO VERSUS NRA: NEW YORK GOVERNOR ATTACKS NRA AND SILENT MAJORITY IN BID FOR THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK.

“ ‘It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages.  The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great.  The  public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.’ ” New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 281; 84 S. Ct. 710, 727; 11 L. Ed. 2d  686, 707 (1964), citing, Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711, 724; 98 P. 281, 286 (Kan. 1908)(Opinion by Judge Burch, Kansas State Supreme Court).{Parenthetical Note to Our Readers: The Arbalest Quarrel took the original version of this article off the site yesterday in order to do an extensive rewrite. We apologize for any puzzlement this may have caused.}

IS CUOMO USING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR A THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK TO LAUNCH A BID FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2020?

Andrew M. Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York and present sitting Governor, seeks a third term in Office. But is Cuomo contemplating a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2020, as the Democratic Party nominee? To the casual observer, it certainly appears so, even as he leaves the option open when asked.  That would certainly be in keeping with Cuomo's character, for Andrew Cuomo is an ambitious man. It is “Andrew M. Cuomo, 46^th President of the United States,” that Cuomo  may very well see in the mirror when he looks at himself. But, if this is indeed Cuomo's desire--this ultimate prize--the Silent Majority*  cannot allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must not allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must stop Cuomo in his tracks, and that means stopping Andrew Cuomo's election to a third term as Governor of New York.  But to stop Cuomo, the Silent Majority must first understand Cuomo.

WHO IS ANDREW CUOMO, REALLY?

Andrew Cuomo is a self-complacent, ruthlessly ambitious, smugly self-assured man. He is the last of “The Three Amigos,” all three of whom, under cover of darkness, spawned and machinated to secure enactment of the oppressive and reprehensible New York Safe Act—legislation that undercuts, and in its very conception is designed to undercut, the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The New York Safe Act also negatively impacts the personal property clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as language in the Act makes it impossible for one spouse to transfer his or her firearms to the other spouse as well as to other family members.But, what became of the two close allies of Cuomo—two of the “three Amigos” that we hear so little about today? One of the two Amigos, Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the New York Assembly, resides in federal prison. The New York Post reports that a federal Court sentenced Silver to 7 years in prison, and  fined Silver $1.75 million dollars, having found Silver guilty of public corruption. In that article, the Post reports that the judge reduced an earlier sentence of 12 years imposed on Silver, apparently as an act of mercy, given Silver's advanced age.Ten days after Sheldon Silver, was sentenced, a U.S. District Court, as reported by the Daily News, sentenced Skelos, Speaker of the New York Assembly, to 5 years in prison, for bribery, extortion, and conspiracy, and ordered him to pay $500,000 in fines. Skelos presently remains free on bail, according to The New York Times, while the Court considers the former Speaker's conviction on the specific charge of graft.And what of the kingpin, himself, the third Amigo, Andrew M. Cuomo? The Governor of New York has since attempted to distance himself from his two former friends and allies. Cuomo seems to remain unscathed, while his underlings, Silver and Skelos, get hit with criminal indictments and convictions. But perceptions can be deceiving. Public corruption is systematic in, systemic of, and endemic to Cuomo’s Administration, and, in fact, to Andrew Cuomo, himself.

ANDREW CUOMO: A MAN OF THE PEOPLE? HARDLY!

Several years ago, when Cuomo first ran for Governor of New York, The New York Times wrote that Cuomo was a man of the people. But, fast forward several years to this present moment in time, it is clear that Cuomo is nothing of the sort. No doubt Cuomo would claim that, then, as now, he represents the best interests of New York residents, but, truthfully, Cuomo has done nothing to earn the trust, support and confidence of New York residents in the heartland of the State.In point of fact Cuomo is unaccountable to and dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of New York. By extension, Cuomo would be unaccountable to and would be dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of citizens of the entire Nation were he to win the Oval Office in 2020.Cuomo cannot wash the sins of public corruption away, much as he may try. Evidence of Cuomo's embrace of public corruption is legion. The New York Post's expose of Andrew Cuomo is telling. The New York Post writes, ". . . Gov. Cuomo’s political interference with his Moreland Commission panel’s investigation of public corruption pulled the veil from one of the biggest open secrets at the state Capitol: The governor is a liar and almost anything he promises will turn out to be false. Cuomo’s betrayal of major pledges is well known: the promise to cut taxes in a meaningful way, encourage job creation without government handouts, reduce local mandates, conduct public work transparently and have science — not politics — determine if fracking can be done safely.But it wasn’t until it Cuomo violated his No. 1 pledge to rid New York of the “culture of corruption’’ that has dominated Albany for decades that the full extent of his betrayal of the public became clear.People who have known Cuomo for years, including some who go back to the days he served as the thuggish chief enforcer of his father, then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, say they aren’t surprised Cuomo’s penchant for lying has finally exploded in full public view.Andrew Cuomo has surrounded himself with unsavory characters. His own disreputable character is longstanding and his ties to unsavory types deeply entrenched. A case in point: Joe Percoco, a former aide to Governor Cuomo who was sentenced for public corruption. The times union, pointing to charges brought against Percoco in a federal bribery and fraud case, in 2016—which, according to the NY Post, subsequently led to Percoco's conviction on several charges—said that:“Joe Percoco, ‘has long been a bruising political enforcer at times feared by those in the Capitol sphere.‘Trained as a lawyer, he had the guts, brains and stick-to-itiveness necessary to attack any project — hard,’ Gov. Andrew Cuomo called his longtime confidant and former aide in his 2014 memoir, ‘All Things Possible.’ Percoco [first] worked for Andrew Cuomo's father, Mario, during his time as governor, beginning political life at the age of 19, according to Cuomo's memoir. At Mario Cuomo's January 2015 funeral, Andrew Cuomo called Percoco ‘my father's third son, who sometimes I think he loved the most.” 

ANDREW CUOMO IS, DEFINED, FIRST AND FOREMOST, BY HIS OPPOSITION TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND HE IS DEFINED, SECOND—WHETHER THROUGH PERSONAL CONVICTION OR SIMPLY THROUGH POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY—WITH THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT OF THIS COUNTRY, AS HE HAS, THROUGH BOTH HIS WORDS, AND ACTIONS, CAST THE FATE OF HIS POLITICAL FUTURE WITH THAT FAR LEFT-WING POLITICAL FACTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Andrew Cuomo is known as the man who, more than anything else, detests the Second Amendment, and the NRA, and all those Americans, the silent majority who reside both in New York and in the heartland of this Nation. Nothing defines Cuomo more than his utter contempt for, and his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. His signature Legislation, the New York Safe Act, more than anything else, defines what he stands for and what his vision for America consists of. The NY Safe Act is a testament to his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.Residents of other States may scoff at Cuomo, perceiving him to be little more than a political con artist who, for political reasons, has consciously, calculatedly cast his lot with the most liberal elements of the Democratic Party, who also detest the Second Amendment and who have, of late, insinuated themselves inextricably into the web of the Democratic Party machinery. Centrists within the Democratic Party seem powerless to constrain these insurgent progressive left elements, or otherwise lack the will to do so, and have capitulated to their aims and wishes.The Democratic Party is the mechanism through which these insurgent progressive elements intend to destroy this Nation; and the centrist liberal elements within the Party, headed by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, have shown, through their clearly abject weakness, a willingness to join these progressive forces by either echoing the sentiments of their sentiments and aims or otherwise standing by placidly, ineffectively, unable or unwilling to control them.  Make no mistake about this. The Progressive Left in this Nation seeks to undermine this Nation’s sovereignty, and to undercut this Nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Ever since Donald Trump’s inauguration, as the 45th President of the United States, the Progressive Left in this Country have been systematically working toward their destructive goals—although more openly than they had wished; for, with the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, much to their surprise and consternation, they have been forced to show their hand.To accomplish their reprehensible goal, those who would destroy our Nation and who would destroy our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values have launched an all-out war—a war against the very foundation of our free Republic and of a free People: a war against the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is destruction of the Second Amendment that exists, first and foremost, in their crosshairs. It is the destruction of the Second Amendment they want. It is destruction of the Second Amendment they need.  And it is the destruction of the Second Amendment they intend to bring off, to effectuate their ultimate goal: subordination of the Country as an independent sovereign Nation State; subordination of the Nation's Constitution and the Nation's laws to international laws and international tribunals; and the erasing of our history, traditions, and values, and the subversion of the very concept of  'citizen,' paving the way for the infusion of tens of millions of unassimilable illegal aliens into the heart of our Country. To accomplish their despicable end game, Andrew Cuomo is their man.The destroyers of this Nation, no less so than the silent majority, know that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the very backbone of this Nation. Were the Second Amendment eliminated, the entirety of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, along with the autonomy and sanctity of the American citizen, and, too, the very structure of this Nation’s Government, as laid out in the Articles, as set forth in the Constitution, would topple like a house of cards. The socialists, communists, anarchists, and those that finance their operations in this Country are working tirelessly, unceasingly to see that this happens. The silent majority in this Country, for their part, must see to it that this doesn’t happen.

ANDREW CUOMO ATTACKS THE NRA

Lest there by any doubt, the National Rifle Association (NRA)—as the preeminent defender of the Nation’s singularly critical core, defining precept, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and as preeminent defender of the very bedrock of a free Republic—is the first civil rights organization. It was founded in 1871 ((incidentally, nine years before the founding of the National Association for the deaf (NAD), in 1880, and almost forty years before the founding of the NAACP, in 1909)). Left-wing progressives, becoming increasingly emboldened and radicalized, and with the backing of the mainstream media, have the audacity to call NRA a terrorist organization. Left-wing progressives seem oblivious to the fact that NRA is the first and certainly the most important civil rights organization in this Country. By calling NRA a terrorist organization, left-wing progressives are implicitly, ludicrously calling millions of NRA members, terrorists, too. And, by calling the NRA a terrorist organization, these left-wing progressives explicitly denigrate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, impugning Americans who choose to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment, and making a mockery of the Nation's Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a salient, critical part.The mainstream media does not so much as try to restrain the inane pronouncements of and the dangerous actions of these left-wing progressives elements in society but ignores—indeed, even repudiates—the sacred duty owed to all Americans, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, namely, to defend the rights and liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights—all ten of them—by seriously investigating and calling out the Un-American activities it observes through the words and actions of these left-wing progressive elements. The mainstream media unconscionably echoes the sentiments of this faction, thereby assisting in and hastening the breakdown of the institutions comprising our society; the destruction of our Constitution and its system of laws; the collapse of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation State; the extinction of our traditions, our history, our core values and our code of ethics; and the defilement of our citizenry.Of course, the silent majority of this Country can readily dismiss the vitriol and antics of these left-wing progressives who attack NRA, who attack supporters of NRA, and who seek de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. These left-wing progressives in our society have no credibility. For, the Silent Majority knows what they aim to do. They seek nothing less than to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and to subordinate our Constitution and laws to those of foreign bodies.It is one thing for individuals and for the Press to attack our Constitution, repugnant to the conscience as that is. It is quite another thing when politicians, themselves, denigrate the Second Amendment and attack NRA. For politicians—the representatives of the people—were elected to represent the citizenry. They have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the preservation, protection, and defense of the Second Amendment, as a critical, and, arguably, most critical component of the U.S. Constitution.When these politicians—these representatives of the people, themselves—voice opposition to the sanctity of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to the premier Civil Rights Organization, NRA, that exists for the sole purpose of defending that right, then, they have betrayed their oath of Office; they have betrayed the Constitution they swore to protect, preserve, and defend; and they have betrayed the American people, the Nation's citizenry, they claim to represent. At that point, the American people, the silent majority of this Nation, can no longer remain silent; must no longer remain silent. The silent majority has the duty to call these disrupters out for the evil they do.

NRA FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST ANDREW CUOMO

On May 11, 2018 NRA filed a lawsuit against the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS).** In the lawsuit, NRA sets forth: “This case is necessitated by an overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign against the NRA and the millions of law-abiding gun owners that it represents. Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal – to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment. The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign is a series of threats to financial institutions that DFS, an agency created to ensure the integrity of financial markets after the 2008 credit crisis, will exercise its extensive regulatory power against entities that fail to sever ties with the NRA.”Last month, NRA filed its Amended Complaint. Cuomo immediately fired back with a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that NRA’s lawsuit is “frivolous.” But, the appellation, ‘frivolous,’ is more aptly applied to Cuomo’s lack of regard for and respect for the Second Amendment. For, in his outrageous attack on NRA, incongruously using the mechanism of a boycott—a singularly bizarre and illegal maneuver by a Governmental entity to utilize—Andrew Cuomo has made clear that, as Governor, he intends to destroy the efficacy of the Second Amendment in New York. This should give all Americans pause. For, as President of the United States, Andrew Cuomo would do much, much more damage to the Second Amendment. He would work toward excising the Second Amendment from the Constitution of the United States, altogether. 

ANDREW CUOMO MUST BE STOPPED!

Cuomo’s malevolent ill will toward NRA is clear. Indeed, he has had the affront to call NRA--as the first and premier Civil Rights organization, defender of a sacred component of our Bill of Rights--an “extremist organization.” And, in a mocking tone,  as reported by the Daily News, denigrating NRA, and by implication, mocking the organization's members, millions of Americans, the silent majority of our Country, and mocking our Nation's sacred  Bill of Rights, Cuomo retorts: “If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers.”In making these insulting statements, Andrew Cuomo can no longer be considered a respectable leader of New York, much less of this Nation, in the event he decides to make a run for the Office of U.S. President in 2020. Cuomo has shown an utter lack of restraint and demonstrates a marked deficiency in character. He does not identify with and, obviously, he has no desire to identify with the vast number of Americans, the silent majority, both in New York and in the Nation as a whole, that reveres the great document, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution that our founders lovingly gave us and spilt their blood for, on our behalf. Cuomo identifies himself with a small, albeit vociferous, faction of society, left-wing progressives, who do not represent the vast majority of the American citizenry, who do not represent, we the silent majority. Cuomo has through both his words and deeds made himself into an outlier, even an outcast, who, has cast his lot with a small virulently Anti-American segment of the population, left-wing progressives. Cuomo is not the defender of our Nation's liberty and security that he pretends to be. He is, as with the left-wing progressives he identifies most closely with, a disruptor and destroyer of our Nation's traditions, values and history. He is openly contemptuous of the salient right of the people of this Nation to keep and bear arms as etched in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights, and therefore disdainful of all those--the silent majority of this Nation--that support NRA and that support the Bill of Rights in its entirety.Cuomo says he merely seeks to make New York and the rest of the Nation "safe" and will work with other States to make his vision of America a reality as he cannot get Congress on board with is plan for America. Yet Cuomo's vision for New York and for the rest of the Nation serves not to defend the American people but seeks to undermine our Nation and to dismantle our Constitution. Cuomo resides well beyond the pale of decency and respectability and properly merits the condemnation of the American people.

IN CONCLUSION

Andrew Cuomo has given up all pretense of representing the interests of the people of New York, and he has made abundantly clear, both through his statements and actions, that he has no desire or inclination, whatsoever, of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. He should not serve a third term as Governor of New York. That would do a disservice to the citizens who reside in New York. And, Cuomo definitely should not serve as President of the United States, if he harbors any secret inclination to do so. For, were he to do so, that would inevitably prove fatal to the Nation’s Bill of Rights; fatal to the continued existence of a free Republic; and fatal to the continued existence of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State, neither subordinate to or subservient to nor beholding to any other nation, federation of nations, or transnational authority._____________________*The expression, ‘silent majority,’—referring to the vast majority of American citizens throughout the Country whose voice is drowned out by the cacophony of noise incessantly, unceasingly, and obnoxiously generated by the mainstream media and by a vocal minority of extremists around the Country and in the halls of Congress whom the mainstream media represents and with whom the mainstream media is closely identified—is, perhaps, most closely associated with and most likely popularized by President Richard Nixon, after a speech he gave to the Nation in 1969. But, significantly, it was President John F. Kennedy, not Nixon, who earlier coined the expression. The expression appears in President Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize winning book, “Profiles in Courage,”where he wrote: “Some of them may have been representing the actual sentiments of the silent majority of their constituents in opposition to the screams of a vocal minority. . . .”  **See August 3, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in the Daily News, and the August 5, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in The New York Times. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS: FURTHER EROSION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE EMPIRE STATE, AS ENVISIONED BY GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO

While Congressional and State Democrats and Centrist Republicans fret over and complain about President Donald Trump’s lawful immigration enforcement actions, directed at tens of thousands of aliens attempting illegal entry across our Nation's Southern Border, these same members of Congress and legislators in State Government are no less busy, albeit at the moment ever so quietly, at work machinating to deprive American citizens’ of their sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It is singularly odd that Congressional and State legislators and various State and Government officials and media commentators of a liberal bent bemoan what they describe, with a rhetorical flourish, as Border Patrol agents “stripping (or ripping) children from the arms of migrant Moms and Dads” who, for all that, when one stops to consider, have dared enter our Nation illegally. And, it is equally odd that these same legislators and federal Government officials and leftist media commentators wrongly and unabashedly slur federal ICE agents for simply doing their job, for the benefit of the citizens of this Country, and at considerable risk to their own lives, arresting illegal aliens who—showing contempt for our laws, having  illicitly entered our Country and having embedded themselves in our Nation, and who having further compounded their criminal actions by failing to report to the Courts for their deportation hearing—dare argue that these criminals have a moral and legal right to remain lawfully in our Country. And, third, these leftist legislators, leftist Government officials and leftist mainstream media types attempt, outrageously, to inflame public passion over HHS handling of illegal alien children and adults. But, these illegal aliens have dared to skirt our immigration and naturalization laws by entering our Country illegally. These leftist legislators and leftist Government officials and leftist news reporters and commentators ludicrously liken HHS detention of illegal aliens to concentration camp internment, yet, at once fail to acknowledge one inescapable, indisputable fact: American Government officials have not rounded up illegal aliens, spiriting them out of their native Countries, forcing them into detention in the United States.  No! These aliens came illegally to our Country through their own volition. They are, then, by any reasonable consideration, hardly in a position to contest their less than five star hotel treatment.Yet, despite, arguing for the existence of rights and liberties these illegal aliens simply do not have, and never have had--rights and liberties they would nonetheless lavishly bestow on illegal aliens--these sanctimonious leftist Congressional and State legislators, and leftist federal Government officials, and leftist media types, surprisingly, do not demonstrate equal concern for protecting the unalienable and fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear arms. We see just the opposite to be the case. These leftist Congressional and State legislators work strenuously, tirelessly to strip or rip away a sacred right of the American people, codified clearly and succinctly in the U.S. Constitution. And, our free Press, constantly heralding the right to spout dangerous nonsense—a right, just the same, protected under the First Amendment, constantly, consistently echo the work of these leftist Congressional and State legislators, proclaiming, and arguing for, the imposition of ever more restraints on the citizen’s exercise of his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, some among the media's commentators, like the New York Times' Op-Ed Columnist, Bret Stephens, even argue, outrageously and insidiously, for outright de jure repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—even though it is only through the preservation of and through the continued force and efficacy of the fundamental, sacred, and natural right codified in the Second Amendment that the ultimate, failsafe check by the People, on a runaway autocratic Government, exists to impose accountability on a Government that might run amok.

LEFTISTS PERCEIVE THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, ACCRUING TO ALIEN PEOPLES, THAT SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST AND, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, DARE TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THE MOST SALIENT FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT CLEARLY, AND LITERALLY DOES EXIST, AS MANIFESTLY CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION.

In point of fact no non-citizen can assert, as a matter of right, a bald claim to reside in our Nation. Still, many individuals in Government, in the mainstream media, in entertainment, in liberal and socialist groups, along with “elitist” internationalists, assert that virtually anyone who seeks to reside in our Nation has the right to do so even when no such right exists either in our Constitution or in our Nation’s Statutes. At one and the same time these same leftists exclaim vociferously, incessantly, and inconsistently that parts of our Nation’s Constitution ought to be and can be patently ignored, even where the rights are etched firmly in stone.A collectivist mentality infects the airwaves. Collectivists have carefully orchestrated a campaign of propaganda, a campaign designed to divest a Nation’s people of their cultural heritage and history, of their sense of uniqueness and pride. These destroyers of the Nation State utilize a flexible sense of morality, predicated on utilitarian axioms that proceed from the notion that what is in the best interests of the world’s multitude, overrides what is in the best interests of the citizens of a Nation; and that what is deemed to be right, and fitting, and good, and fair, and just, in accordance with collectivist ideology, overrides the laws of a Nation; overrides a Nation’s Constitution; overrides the very needs, rights, personal safety, and sanctity of the individual citizen of a Nation.Collectivists do not like the fact that our Nation is an independent sovereign Nation State and that our Nation, as an independent sovereign Nation, operates through a set of concrete laws, and through a Constitution that exists as the supreme Law of the Land. The U.S. Constitution and the laws that Congress enacts are not subject to acceptance or rejection on a whim, predicated, ostensibly, on a collectivist notion of what constitutes correct action and what constitutes eggregious action. To deny the truth of this statement is to accept in its stead, a state of lawlessness, of anarchy. It is this lawlessness, this anarchy, that the destroyers of our Nation seek, even as they disingenuously and insidiously claim to defend our Constitution and the laws of the Nation. Consider, for example, the confounding, bizarre Collectivist message that proclaims a desire to destroy, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And through the softening of our Nation’s laws and of our Nation’s Constitution, we, ourselves, become weakened, malleable. In the end, a new international world order, overseeing the conduct of all Nation States, would predominate, and our own free Republic would, in fact, not merely in name, cease to exist.Contrary to those dissemblers of our Nation, our Constitution is not to be toyed with. Our Country ceases to exist but for our Constitution. The United States Supreme Court made patently clear in the seminal immigration law case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270; 110 S. Ct. 1056, 1063; 108 L. Ed. 2d 222, 236; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1175, that: “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution” “[and that] for better or worse, we live a world of nation-states in which our Government must be able to ‘function effectively in the company of [other] sovereign nations.’” 494 U.S. at 275; 110 S. Ct. at 1066; 108 L. Ed. 2d at 239. President Donald Trump understands this limitation and accepts this limitation and operates within the confines of our laws and our Constitution. And, by the same token, President Trump understands his duty, as Chief Executive of our Nation as an independent, Sovereign Nation-State, to maintain the integrity of our Nation’s Borders.Unfortunately there are all too many members of Congress and in the State Legislatures who allow raw emotion to cloud their judgment. They remonstrate against the President even as he operates within the stricture of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”Emotion must never override nor cloud reason. Collectivist notions of morality are not and never have been a justifiable reason for ignoring the authority of and stricture of Constitutional precepts. Yet, Democrats and Centrist Republicans—through the echo chamber of the mainstream media—daily denigrate our Constitution and our Statutes even as they assert, disingenuously, to operate within the confines of the rule of law.Both in the matter of immigration and naturalization matters and in the matter of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, we, Americans, are constantly beset with a fusillade of false and misleading pronouncements aimed at confusing us as to the meaning of and purport of our Statutes and of the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution.Even before the two mass shooting incidents—one at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, and the second at Santa Fe High School, in Santa Fe, Texas—State legislators contrived new ways to deprive citizens of owning any firearm, thereby directly impinging on and infringing the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. States started looking at further ways to impede the citizen’s exercise of his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms.In New York, for example, in March 2017, Democrat, Brian Kavanagh, introduced A.B. 6994, in the State Assembly. The bill is described as: “AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, the criminal procedure law and the penal law, in relation to establishing extreme risk protection orders as court-issued orders of protection prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun.” AB 6994 has already passed the Assembly—the First Chamber of the New York State Government, in Albany New York—and it now sits in the Second Chamber, the New York State Senate. AB 6994 appears, fortunately, at least at this moment in time, to have a low chance of passage, but such passage should not be ruled out, especially in light of the two fairly recent high school mass shooting incidents.Those Americans who support our Second Amendment should bear in mind that New York’s AB 6994—along with similar predecessor bills that were introduced in the New York Assembly or State Senate, and that failed—is an altogether new restriction on gun owners. If enacted, this bill amounts not merely to a change in existing restrictive New York gun laws, but to the creation of a wholly new restriction in conjunction with New York’s present, extensive, oppressive set of restrictive gun laws.If enacted into law, AB 6994 says that “the civil practice law and rules are amended by adding a new article 63-A.”What does the bill say? The bill sets forth both the rationale and requirements, in addition those presently existent in New York, for removing firearms from a New York resident’s possession, along with a detailed list of mechanisms for such removal.

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS: A NEW AND OUTRAGEOUS TWIST ON AN OLD LEGAL DEVICE--ORDERS OF PROTECTION AND RESTRAINING ORDERS

We first set forth the bill in its entirety, and then explicate the salient portions of the bill.AB 6994 [AMENDING ARTICLE 63-A OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK]:[NOTE: UPPER CASE LETTERS APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BILL; NUMBERING HAS BEEN REMOVED GIVEN EDITING DIFFICULTIES]EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERSDEFINITIONS. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE:‘EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER’ MEANS A COURT-ISSUED ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING A PERSON FROM PURCHASING, POSSESSING OR ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.‘PETITIONER’ MEANS: (A) A POLICE OFFICER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY OR CITY WHERE THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT RESIDES; OR (B) A FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER, AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE-A OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, OF THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT.‘RESPONDENT’ MEANS THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS OR MAY BE SOUGHT UNDER THIS ARTICLE.APPLICATION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, A PETITIONER MAY FILE A SWORN APPLICATION, AND ACCOMPANYING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, SETTING FORTH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. SUCH APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT RESIDES. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS SHALL ADOPT FORMS THAT MAY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH APPLICATIONS AND THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF SUCH APPLICATIONS. SUCH APPLICATION FORM SHALL INCLUDE INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE PETITIONER KNOWS, OR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, THAT THE RESPONDENT OWNS, POSSESSES OR HAS ACCESS TO A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN AND IF SO, A REQUEST THAT THE PETITIONER LIST OR DESCRIBE SUCH FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS, AND THE RESPECTIVE LOCATIONS THEREOF, WITH AS MUCH SPECIFICITY AS POSSIBLE.A STATEMENT TO THE RESPONDENT: DIRECTING THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY NOT PURCHASE, POSSESS OR ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WHILE THE ORDER IS IN EFFECT AND THAT ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN POSSESSED BY SUCH RESPONDENT SHALL BE PROMPTLY SURRENDERED TO ANY AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL;INFORMING THE RESPONDENT THAT THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING NO SOONER THAN THREE NOR MORE THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE TEMPORARY ORDER, TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WILL BE ISSUED AND THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF SUCH HEARING, PROVIDED THAT THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN SIX DAYS UPON REQUEST IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING; AND (III) INFORMING THE RESPONDENT THE HE OR SHE MAY SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY AND THAT AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED PROMPTLY; ANDA FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF SERVICE OF THE TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WHICH ELICITS A LIST OF ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE PARTICULAR LOCATION OF EACH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN LISTED.IF THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS NOT GRANTED, THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE PETITIONER AND, UNLESS THE APPLICATION IS VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER, NONETHELESS SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. SUCH HEARING SHALL BE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD PROMPTLY, BUT IN ANY EVENT NO LATER THAN TEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY REQUEST, AND THE COURT MAY GRANT, ADDITIONAL TIME TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING. A NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE COURT AND SHALL INCLUDE THE DATE AND TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ADDRESS OF THE COURT, AND THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING.THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION, ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH ORDER NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO SUCH PERSONS OR AGENCIES. THE COURT ALSO SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES AND PROVIDE A COPY OF ANY ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO RESTORE SUCH RIGHT TO THE RESPONDENT. ANY NOTICE OR REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.UPON RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ORDER TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO ALLOW THE BUREAU TO IDENTIFY PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS. THE DIVISION SHALL ALSO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE BUREAU THE EXPIRATION OF ANY SUCH PROTECTION ORDER, ANY COURT ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO REMOVE ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION. AS PART OF THE ORDER, THE COURT MAY ALSO DIRECT A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES OF ARTICLE SIX HUNDRED NINETY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW.UPON ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, OR UPON SETTING A HEARING FOR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WHERE A TEMPORARY ORDER IS DENIED OR NOT REQUESTED, THE COURT SHALL DIRECT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION AND REPORT TO THE COURT AND, SUBJECT TO ANY APPROPRIATE REDACTIONS TO PROTECT ANY PERSON, EACH PARTY REGARDING WHETHER THE RESPONDENT:HAS ANY PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, USE OF A WEAPON, OR OTHER VIOLENCE;HAS ANY CRIMINAL CHARGE OR VIOLATION CURRENTLY PENDING AGAINST HIM OR HER;IS CURRENTLY ON PAROLE OR PROBATION;POSSESSES ANY REGISTERED FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS; ANDHAS BEEN, OR IS, SUBJECT TO ANY ORDER OF PROTECTION OR HAS VIOLATED OR ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED ANY ORDER OF PROTECTION.ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, NO SOONER THAN THREE BUSINESS DAYS NOR LATER THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND, ALTERNATIVELY, NO LATER THAN TEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THIS ARTICLE WHERE NO TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO ISSUE A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND, WHEN APPLICABLE, WHETHER A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED BY, OR REMOVED FROM, THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE RESPONDENT. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS IF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED AND THE RESPONDENT REQUESTS A REASONABLE PERIOD OF ADDITIONAL TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING. WHERE NO TEMPORARY ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE RESPONDENT MAY REQUEST, AND THE COURT MAY GRANT, ADDITIONAL TIME BEYOND THE TEN DAYS TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING.AT THE HEARING PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, THE PETITIONER SHALL HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THE RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF, HERSELF OR OTHERS, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH ONE OR TWO OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 9.39 OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW. THE COURT MAY CONSIDER THE PETITION AND ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, ANY TESTIMONY PRESENTED, AND THE REPORT OF THE RELEVANT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE. THE COURT SHALL ALSO CONSIDER THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.AFTER THE HEARING PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND SETTING FORTH THE REASONS FOR SUCH DETERMINATION. IF THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS GRANTED, THE COURT SHALL DIRECT SERVICE OF SUCH ORDER IN THE MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.UPON ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER: (I) ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN REMOVED PURSUANT TO A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR SUCH EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THE DURATION OF THE ORDER, UNLESS OWNERSHIP OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL PERMITTED BY LAW TO OWN AND POSSESS SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN; (II) THE SUPREME COURT SHALL TEMPORARILY SUSPEND ANY EXISTING FIREARM LICENSE POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ORDER THE RESPONDENT TEMPORARILY INELIGIBLE FOR SUCH A LICENSE; (III) THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR POSSESSING, OR ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS, A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN; AND (IV) THE COURT SHALL DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SURRENDER ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN HIS OR HER POSSESSION.AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION SHALL EXTEND, AS SPECIFIED BY THE COURT, FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF SUCH ORDER WAS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THEN THE DURATION OF THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER.THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO REMOVE ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION. AS PART OF THE ORDER, THE COURT MAY ALSO DIRECT A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN A RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES OF ARTICLE SIX HUNDRED NINETY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW.THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION, ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES OF THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH ORDER TO SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER. THE COURT ALSO SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES AND PROVIDE A COPY OF ANY ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO RESTORE SUCH RIGHT TO THE RESPONDENT. ANY NOTICE OR REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.UPON RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ORDER TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO ALLOW THE BUREAU TO IDENTIFY PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS. THE DIVISION SHALL ALSO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE BUREAU THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH PROTECTION ORDER AND ANY COURT ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.IF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN HAS BEEN SURRENDERED BY OR REMOVED FROM THE RESPONDENT, AND THE SUPREME COURT SUBSEQUENTLY FINDS THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF PROOF, THE COURT'S FINDING SHALL INCLUDE A WRITTEN ORDER, ISSUED TO ALL PARTIES, DIRECTING THAT ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED OR REMOVED PURSUANT TO SUCH TEMPORARY ORDER SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE RESPONDENT.IF ANY OTHER PERSON DEMONSTRATES THAT HE OR SHE IS THE LAWFUL OWNER OF ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED OR REMOVED PURSUANT TO A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, AND PROVIDED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE PERSON'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED OR REMOVED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, THE COURT MAY, AFTER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, DIRECT THAT SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN BE RETURNED TO SUCH LAWFUL OWNER.THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE NOTIFIED ON THE RECORD AND IN WRITING BY THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE MAY SUBMIT ONE WRITTEN REQUEST, AT ANY TIME DURING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, FOR A HEARING SETTING ASIDE ANY PORTION OF SUCH ORDER. THE REQUEST SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AND MANNER AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS. UPON SUCH REQUEST, THE COURT SHALL PROMPTLY HOLD A HEARING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BEAR THE BURDEN TO PROVE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ANY CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY JUSTIFY A CHANGE TO THE ORDER.SURRENDER AND REMOVAL OF FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS PURSUANT TO AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. WHEN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TAKES ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN PURSUANT TO A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE OFFICER SHALL GIVE TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IS TAKEN A RECEIPT OR VOUCHER FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN, DESCRIBING THE PROPERTY IN DETAIL. IN THE ABSENCE OF A PERSON, THE OFFICER SHALL LEAVE THE RECEIPT OR VOUCHER IN THE PLACE WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND, MAIL A COPY OF THE RECEIPT OR VOUCHER, RETAINING PROOF OF MAILING, TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND, IF DIFFERENT, THE OWNER OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, AND FILE A COPY OF SUCH RECEIPT OR VOUCHER WITH THE COURT. ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE POSSESSION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SHALL BE RETAINED AND NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS UNLESS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT TO AN INDIVIDUAL PERMITTED BY LAW TO OWN AND POSSESS SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.IF THE LOCATION TO BE SEARCHED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS JOINTLY OCCUPIED BY TWO OR MORE PARTIES, AND A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN LOCATED DURING THE EXECUTION OF SUCH ORDER IS OWNED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE RESPONDENT, THE COURT MAY ALLOW RETURN OF SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IF IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WILL BE SAFELY STORED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 265.45 OF THE PENAL LAW, SO THAT THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OR CONTROL OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN BY THE OWNER.REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IF A PETITIONER BELIEVES A PERSON SUBJECT TO AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER CONTINUES TO BE LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF, HERSELF, OR OTHERS, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH ONE OR TWO OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 9.39 OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SUCH PETITIONER MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN SIXTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH EXISTING EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, INITIATE A REQUEST FOR A RENEWAL OF SUCH ORDER, SETTING FORTH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING THE REQUEST. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS SHALL ADOPT FORMS THAT MAY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH APPLICATIONS AND THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF SUCH APPLICATIONS. THE COURT MAY ISSUE A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIXTYTHREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE, DURING THE PERIOD THAT A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS UNDER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.A HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN THE SUPREME COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTYTHREE OF THIS ARTICLE, TO DETERMINE IF A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF THE ORDER SHALL BE GRANTED. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE SERVED WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL A REASONABLE TIME BEFORE THE HEARING, AND SHALL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING. THE COURT SHALL DIRECT SERVICE OF SUCH APPLICATION AND THE ACCOMPANYING PAPERS IN THE MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.EXPIRATION OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. 1. A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, AND ALL RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, SHALL BE SEALED UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH ORDER AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT WHEREIN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES, THE HEADS OF ALL APPROPRIATE POLICE DEPARTMENTS, APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT THE ORDER HAS EXPIRED AND THAT THE RECORD OF SUCH PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE SEALED AND NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY PERSON OR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITY, EXCEPT THAT SUCH RECORDS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO:(A)    THE RESPONDENT OR THE RESPONDENT'S DESIGNATED AGENT;(B)     COURTS IN THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;(C)     POLICE FORCES AND DEPARTMENTS HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE GENERAL CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE STATE;(D)    ANY STATE OR LOCAL OFFICER OR AGENCY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES TO POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, WHEN THE RESPONDENT HAS MADE APPLICATION FOR SUCH A LICENSE; AND(E)      ANY PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN SUBDIVISIONS THIRTY-THREE AND THIRTY-FOUR OF SECTION 1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, IN RELATION TO AN APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AS A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT EVERY PERSON WHO IS AN APPLICANT FOR THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH A COPY OF ALL RECORDS OBTAINED UNDER THIS SUBPARAGRAPH AND AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN EXPLANATION THERETO.UPON EXPIRATION OF A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE AND UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENT WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF SUCH ORDER, WITH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO THE PETITIONER AND EVERY LICENSING OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUANCE OF A FIREARM LICENSE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, AND UPON A WRITTEN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE RETURN OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN NOT OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION ONE OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR OF THIS ARTICLE. WHEN ISSUING SUCH ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FIREARM SUBJECT TO A LICENSE REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, IF THE LICENSING OFFICER INFORMS THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SEEK TO REVOKE THE LICENSE, THE ORDER SHALL BE STAYED BY THE COURT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF ANY LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEEDING.EFFECT OF FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONTRARY CLAIM BASED ON COMMON LAW OR A PROVISION OF ANY OTHER LAW, NO FINDING OR DETERMINATION MADE PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INTERPRETED AS BINDING, OR HAVING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR SIMILAR EFFECT, IN ANY OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING, OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER DETERMINATION OR FINDING, IN ANY COURT, FORUM OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.PARAGRAPH (B) OF SUBDIVISION 5 OF SECTION 530.14 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, AS ADDED BY CHAPTER 644 OF THE LAWS OF 1996, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:THE PROMPT SURRENDER OF ONE OR MORE FIREARMS PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VOLUNTARY SURRENDER FOR PURPOSES OF SUBPARAGRAPH (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF SUBDIVISION A OF SECTION 265.20 OF THE PENAL LAW. THE DISPOSITION OF ANY SUCH FIREARMS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW  ; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT UPON TERMINATION OF ANY SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION OR SECTION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-TWO-A OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER, WITH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE PROTECTED PARTY, AND EVERY LICENSING OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS LICENSE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, AND UPON A WRITTEN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE SUBJECT'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, ANY COURT OF RECORD EXERCISING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION MAY ORDER THE RETURN OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN NOT OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW. WHEN ISSUING SUCH ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FIREARM SUBJECT TO A LICENSE REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, IF THE LICENSING OFFICER INFORMS THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SEEK TO REVOKE THE LICENSE, THE ORDER SHALL BE STAYED BY THE COURT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF ANY LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEEDING.________________________________________________________ 

1. AN EXPLICATION OF AB 6994

A couple of observations are in order. First, this bill is not to be considered an adjunct of the Federal “Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994” even though a family member, pursuant to both AB 6994 and the Federal Act, may petition the Court for protection against another family member. Under both AB 6994, in the event it becomes law in New York, and, under the federal domestic violence statute, an individual, against whom a Court order is issued, will lose possession of firearms. That much is the same and is clear.In New York, revocation or suspension of firearms licenses, and concomitantly, loss of one’s firearms follows upon issuance of an order of protection. See, NY CLS CPL § 530.14. Second, the merits of statutes aimed at protecting individuals against violence notwithstanding, Americans are in danger of turning against each other as we become a Nation of undercover “shooflies,” constantly reporting on each other, turning family member against family member and turning the police against everyone.In their zeal to protect society from the misuse of firearms, antigun proponents attempt to negate the import of the Second Amendment altogether, leaving ever more people altogether defenseless against criminal assailants. No matter, as antigun groups would rather the Second Amendment did not exist at all. But, the codification of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist, and the constant whittling away of that right under the mask of promoting public safety is not lost on those of us who place the Nation’s well-being on the strength of the citizenry’s Bill of Rights.In reviewing AB 6994, there is a presumption in the bill that sufficient due process requirements are met. But are they? Police officers and district attorneys and family members may both file a petition for a “temporary extreme protection order.” Once filed, that petition takes effect immediately, namely, prior to an evidentiary hearing. The individual against whom the petition is issued immediately loses his or her firearms, as the police are authorized to secure those weapons at once. The respondent is informed of a hearing date to present his case, and the petitioner has the burden of showing that the threat posed by the respondent warrants issuance of a permanent extreme protection order.  Disconcertingly, even before a hearing is held, the Court will notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the issuance of a temporary extreme protection order. That hardly accords with protecting the civil rights of an individual before he has had a chance to proffer evidence in his or her own defense that may warrant revocation of the temporary extreme protection order.As bad as this bill is, for Governor Cuomo, AB 6994, as written, doesn’t go far enough. He would include in the role of petitioners entitled to file for “temporary extreme protection orders,” classroom teachers, along with police officers, district attorneys, and family members. On June 5, 2018, wskg.org, in Albany New York, reported that:“Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed an expansion to his Extreme Risk Protection Order bill that would give teachers the power to go to court to prevent a student’s access to guns.Cuomo said the measure gives that power to teachers and school administrators who believe a student might use guns to be a danger to themselves or others.“If a teacher believes there is a troubled student who might be dangerous, that teacher has the legal authority to go to a judge directly,” Cuomo said.A judge could then determine whether the student needs a mental health exam, and whether the student’s or their family’s guns should be taken away.”The session is scheduled to end in a couple of weeks, and Cuomo concedes that he does not expect the measure to pass in the state Senate, which is gridlocked with 31 seats each in the Democratic and Republican factions.But Cuomo said he believes people in the state overwhelmingly support the measure and predicted that it will become an election issue in the fall.”It need hardly be said that teachers are not trained psychologists; nor are they police officers who deal with criminals on a daily basis; nor are they district attorneys, trained in the law; nor are they family members who have an intimate familial relationship with each other; and yet Governor Cuomo would bestow immense authority onto teachers to petition Courts directly against their students with whom they spend little time with. Of course, if teachers truly believe that a student poses a danger to self or others, the teacher may inform and should inform school officials. But, it is one thing for teachers to exercise authority to inform school officials of a possible danger posed by a particular student. It is quite another to grant to a teacher, on his or her own behalf, the power to file a petition with a court to secure a temporary extreme risk protection order. Imagine how this would play out, were a teacher permitted under law to secure such a protection order. Once such an extreme risk protection order issues, police officers would be empowered to go to the student’s home, and with court order in hand, the police would have the authority to secure the firearms belonging to the student’s parents, under the presumption that the student would otherwise be able to gain access to his or her parents’ firearms. The parent’s own firearm’s license would thereupon be suspended. If this scenario seems unlikely, keep in mind that Governor Cuomo hasn’t suggested any checks against such an occurrence. Bear in mind that in the few States that have enacted extreme risk protection laws, none have gone so far as to permit teachers to file such a petition. But, then, few individuals in any State have as far-reaching political ambitions as does Governor Andrew Cuomo, in preempting the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.We will have to wait and see how AB 6994 plays out in the months ahead and whether Governor Cuomo’s desire to expand AB 6994 results in further amendment prior to further action in Albany. But, we know full well Cuomo's antithesis toward the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo has frustrated the right of citizens of the State to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. That is bad enough; yet his power is constrained, limited to New York. But, Cuomo's ambitions extend well beyond that of Governor of a State. Cuomo has aspirations to become President of the United States in 2020. Were that to happen, the war he would wage against the Second Amendment would be far worse for Americans--the likes of which Americans have not yet seen--having a ripple effect throughout the Country._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

STRATEGIES OF DESTRUCTION: HOW THE NY SAFE ACT EVISCERATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT IN ONE’S PERSONAL PROPERTY

ANTIGUN GROUPS ADVANCE THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TRAGEDY

American citizens who hold dear our sacred Bill of Rights may think that leftists in this Country, and abroad, have placed their goal of destroying the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on the back burner by virtue of the fact that the mainstream media has said nothing, or virtually nothing, about it, in the last few weeks. This is due to a few other matters that have piqued media interest and attention in recent days and weeks: one, the crisis at the Nation’s Southern Border, resulting from a massive influx of individuals—tens of thousands of them—from Central America, trekking through Mexico, to our Nation’s doorstep, outrageously demanding entrance, at various ports of entry, to our Country, or otherwise illegally crossing over into our Country; two, the retirement of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy from the U.S. Supreme Court; three, the closed door Congressional hearings with the renegade, Trump-hating FBI Official, Peter Strzok; and, four, today’s open door Congressional hearing of Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who has, for months, wrongfully and defiantly placed impediments in the path of Congress, making Congressional oversight functions of the Department of Justice and FBI extremely  difficult. While these issues have, at the moment, taken center stage—and, make no mistake, these are critical issues—still, destruction of the Second Amendment forever remains the major goal of both so-called “moderate” Democrats, and those of the radical “Left.”

FIREARMS AND MENTAL HEALTH

The issue of mental health and access to firearms has become a focus of concern in the mainstream media due to two mass shooting incidents occurring in public schools: one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, and a second, not that long ago, at Santa Fe High on May 18, 2018. These two tragedies follow in the wake of two other major school shootings: Columbine High School, in Jefferson County, Colorado, that occurred in April 20, 1999, and a later shooting incident taking place at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012.Mass shooting incidents occurring in public elementary and secondary schools across the Nation—these four, in the span of 18 years—are statistically small in number. But the mainstream media’s control of the airwaves, newsprint, and the internet—thrusting the issue into the public consciousness and conscience—has warped perspective. An illusion has been created and deliberately fostered, suggesting that school shootings are common when in fact they are not. Consider that, according to a 2013-2014 National Center for Educational Statistics (“NCES”) study, there are over 98,000 public elementary and secondary schools in the Nation, and another 33,600 private schools. Four mass shootings have taken place have in four schools in the span of 18 years. Statistically, the number of mass shooting incidents in schools is small. Of course, any gun shooting incident, especially in schools, is a serious matter, never to be taken lightly. The number of such shooting incidents should be zero. But, it is a mistake to believe that the cause of gun violence is the gun itself and not the sentient being who misuses the firearm. It is a mistake that many citizens make because it is one that the mainstream media, on behalf of antigun groups, fosters. Antigun groups, and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, always blame the misuse of firearms on the firearm itself, rather than on the individual who misuses the firearm. They do this, of course, in furtherance of their agenda, emphasizing, as they see it, the need to curb, in this Country, gun ownership, generally, all the while remarking little, if at all, that even the four tragic mass shooting events that did occur in public schools would never have occurred—indeed could never have occurred—had the schools in question undertaken, in the first instance, rigorous school security assessments, following these security assessments up with the implementation of effective security measures and procedures.In each case, failure at the “backend”—failure to implement effective school security—was a major factor in the horrific tragedies that ensued. But there also existed a failure at the “front end” as firearms fell into the hands of young people who should never have had access to them in the first place. In each of these four mass shooting incident cases, there was: one, a failure to secure firearms away from disturbed young people and, two, a failure of Governmental authorities and/or adult family members to provide these disturbed young people with appropriate mental health treatment.Had appropriate measures been taken at both the backend and front end, the four mass shooting incidents that took place in the Nation’s public schools would never have occurred. In fact, there have been no shooting incidents in those schools that have implemented comprehensive, effective school security measures.Obviously, no reasonable person would argue that a severely disturbed individual ought to have access to firearms. But, by the same token no reasonable person--if that reasonable person should stop to consider the matter--would posit that a severely disturbed individual should have access to any instrumentality through which such severely disturbed individual might do violence to self or others.Yet, it is, invariably, the misuse of guns by disturbed individuals that receives mainstream media attention. It is never the misuse of knives* or automobiles by disturbed individuals that receives attention. The reason for this is clear. The mainstream media, as the dutiful mouthpiece for fanatic antigun groups, targets the gun, an inanimate object, for elimination from society, rather than preventing the agents of violence, those individuals who pose a threat to self or others, from acquiring access to these weapons.

NEW YORK IS THE FIRST STATE OUT OF THE GATE TO FURTHER RESTRICT A CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO USE, POSSESS, AND ENJOY THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY

Antigun Legislators, most notably, those in New York, jumped on the antigun bandwagon early, through the creation of ever more stringent gun laws, following the Sandy Hook School shooting incident in 2012. Almost one year to the day of the occurrence of that tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the New York Safe Act. As for the purpose of instituting further firearms restrictions on resident gun owners, the Governor said this, as emblazoned on the Governor's NY Safe website: “The SAFE Act stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun by requiring universal background checks on gun purchase, increases the penalties for people who use illegal guns, and mandates life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and imposed the toughest assault weapons ban in the country.” But that wasn’t all. In what could only be seen as provoking resentment among those residents of New York who wish to exercise the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment, the Governor had the gall to add: “For hunters, sportsmen, and law abiding gun owners, this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns.”Actually, the ability of law-abiding gun owners to buy, sell, keep or use their firearms—through implementation of the Safe Act—is extremely restricted, contrary to Governor Cuomo’s pronouncement. For example, those individuals who lawfully owned firearms, dubiously referred to as ‘assault weapons,’ prior to enactment of and now banned by the Safe Act, are in fact denied the right to possess, use, and enjoy their property because of substantial Government interference. Further, if one has any doubt as to the parameters of one’s right to possess, use, and enjoy one’s firearms qua private property, the Safe Act does little to reassure that person, because there is nothing in the Safe Act that clearly clarifies the parameters of that property right.Like so much of the NY Safe Act, one finds inordinate ambiguity and vagueness. A person can debate whether such ambiguity and vagueness is due simply to negligence in the drafting of the Act or is, rather, the product of careful and crafty deliberation on the part of the Act's drafters to make it ambiguous and vague. Be that as it may, the law-abiding gun owner, licensed gun dealers, mental health practitioners, and even executors of estates are left scratching their heads as to the meaning of several of the provisions of the Safe Act. One thing, though, is manifest and clear, and cannot be overstated. Those New York State legislators who pushed for this thing detest firearms and would gladly abolish guns from civilian hands outright if they could. The only thing that prevents complete gun bans and gun confiscation in States such as New York, and in States, such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and others—States that hold the Second Amendment in low regard if not outright contempt—is the very existence of the Second Amendment as etched in stone in the Nation's Constitution.Given that the framers of the Constitution, specifically the antifederalists, were adamant in demanding codification of the natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, the gun grabbers of today are compelled to take a seemingly more measured approach to the matter of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country, albeit they do so reluctantly and disgruntledly.   As heretofore stated, the New York Safe Act is the first major piece of antigun legislation to hit the public. Coming on the heels of the Newtown, Connecticut Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, Governor Cuomo sought, one, to be the first out of the gate to tighten the noose around those individuals who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, and, two,As with all restrictive gun measures, emanating in antigun jurisdictions across the Country, but predominately on the East and West coasts, the NY Safe Act is heralded not as an attempt to constrain the exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment, which it is, but as a “common-sense,” “sensible” measure meant to secure that right. Through a feat of legerdemain, the public is expected to buy into the proposition that restricting Americans’ gun rights somehow preserves and strengthens Americans’ gun rights. It does no such thing. The NY Safe Act as with those Acts modelled on the Safe Act in other jurisdictions is no less than a scarcely disguised attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment. Congressional Democrats, for their part, would just love to see a New York Safe Act measure applied to the Nation as a whole, through federal law enactment; and make no mistake, Congressional Democrats, with the quiet backing of some Centrist Republicans—no friends of the Second Amendment—will work toward accomplishing that very goal in the unhappy event they happen to attain a majority in Congress, in November.

IN WHAT MANNER IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MERCILESSLY ATTACKED BY CONGRESSIONAL ANTIGUN FORCES AND BY ANTIGUN PROPONENTS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE?

There are three primary strategies by which and through which antigun groups and antigun legislators in Congress and in various States seek to significantly reduce the efficacy of the Second Amendment. One, expand, exponentially, the domain of firearms that the citizenry is precluded from lawfully owning and possessing. Two, expand, incrementally, the domain of individuals who are precluded from owning and possessing any firearm. And, three, increasingly restrict the free exercise of one’s property rights in one’s chattel among those people within the law-abiding civilian population of this Nation who are permitted to own and possess firearms. These are the three strategies employed in the NY Safe Act. One, the Safe Act is specifically designed to expand the domain of guns banned in New York. Two, the Act expands the domain of those New York residents who are prohibited from owning and possessing firearms. And, three, the Act makes increasingly expensive, onerous, and oppressive, gun ownership and gun possession for those New York residents who wish to exercise their property rights embodied in the Second Amendment right, who are not denied the exercise of their right outright.We will, in upcoming articles, look at how the NY Safe Act applies these strategies to curtail one’s enjoyment of his or her personal property as guaranteed under the Second Amendment, and we will see how these strategies are then replicated in various jurisdictions across the Nation._________________________________________________*Once guns are effectively banished from a society, a government will go after other implements, using the pretext of societal violence to constrict and constrain a nation's populace under the guise of protecting it. In one of several articles on the subject--this one from a May 2018 article, posted by the BBC, titled, "Judge calls for rounded knives to stop stab deaths,"--the BBC reports:“Judge Nic Madge said ordinary kitchen knives were causing a "soaring loss of life", rather than more heavily regulated large-bladed weapons.He was speaking at Luton Crown Court at a ceremony to mark his retirement.Knife crime rose by 22% in England and Wales in 2017, according to the Office for National Statistics.‘Kitchens contain lethal knives which are potential murder weapons and only butchers and fishmongers need eight or 10 inch kitchen knives with points,’ the judge said.He wants manufacturers to produce knives with rounded points for domestic use and those with points to be sold under strict rules.In past two months in Bedfordshire, 77 knife related street attacks went through the courts, with three deaths and 44 injuries.”Rather than dealing with the perpetrators of violence, governments tend to cast a wide net, capturing an entire population, treating the entire populace of a nation to "population control." Is it really the criminal element of society that a nation's government seeks to control, or is it a nation's citizenry that a nation's government seeks to control, albeit under the cloak of promoting "public safety?"  Consider our Nation under the thumb of the Democratic Socialists of America. The Democratic Socialists of America openly admits, on its website: "We are a political and activist organization, not a party."Not since the heyday of the Communist Party USA, one century ago, 0f which the Democratic Socialists of America may be considered one of several offshoots, struggling for membership, have Leftists in this Country actually gained some modicum of political traction, due in no small part to the surprising upset of Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz over the U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Party incumbent and power broker, Joe Crowley. What it is that people like Ocasio-Ortiz envision for our Nation is not equality for the masses, regardless of her pronouncements, but, rather, mass serfdom, for one and all, and an end to the fundamental rights of the American people as codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights. Americans shouldn't for a moment take Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz seriously. After all the Party of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi has, as evidenced by the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz to the House of Representatives, devolved into a burlesque imitation of itself, if ever it were to be seen as anything more or other than a sad joke. But we, Americans, must nonetheless ever be cognizant of erosion of our sacred rights and liberties if we become too complacent. To be sure, there is more danger posed by smug, status-quo Centrist Republicans, to the preservation and strengthening of our sacred rights and liberties, than any danger to the preservation of our fundamental rights and liberties posed by sordid leftists, whatever their stripe: Socialist, Communist, Moderate Democrat, Democratic Moderate, Progressive Democrat, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Democrat, Socialistic Communist--so forth and so on--however this or that leftist may happen to define him or herself._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SCHOOL SHOOTINGS SERVE AS PRETEXT FOR GUN BANS TARGETING THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY.

SINCE THE SANTA FE, TEXAS SCHOOL SHOOTER DID NOT USE A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON TO KILL OR INJURE HIS VICTIMS, WILL ANTIGUN GROUPS NOW SEEK TO BAN ALL FIREARMS?

Antigun groups must be throwing a temper tantrum. When the Santa Fe High School shooter committed his horrific act of murder and mayhem in May 2018, he had the temerity to use the wrong weapons. Antigun groups fully expected the shooter to destroy innocent lives utilizing a semiautomatic long gun— a firearm often referred to by the politically charged but specious expression, ‘assault weapon’—thereby keeping with the antigun zealots’ running narrative. But the shooter killed or seriously injured innocent students, teachers, and a police officer, with a shotgun and with a revolver, not an "assault weapon." Moreover, the weapons utilized by the shooter did not belong to the shooter and the shooter did not procure them from a gun dealer, through the internet, or through a third party at a gun show. No! The weapons belonged to the shooter’s father who had failed to properly secure his weapons from his severely mentally disturbed son. The failure of parental responsibility, here, is, in the first instance, where blame for the tragedy rests and where blame should properly be placed.

WHAT WEAPONS, SPECIFICALLY, DID THE SHOOTER USE IN COMMITTING HIS HORRIFIC ACT?

Specifically, the shooter utilized his father’s Remington model 870 pump action, manually operated shotgun, along with his father’s .38 caliber revolver to maim, injure, and kill innocent people. The police have not, apparently, identified, or otherwise officially released  the specific make and model number of the .38 caliber handgun utilized by the gunman as of the posting of this article. No matter. It is clear enough that the weapons the gunman utilized were not the typical firearms of choice for committing murder and mayhem—semiautomatic long guns—as antigun proponents and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, constantly and erroneously, maintain. But, that fact didn’t stop some individuals from surmising, without bothering to first verify, the nature of the weapons used.Apparently, in an attempt to get ahead of the curve, John Cornyn (Senator-Texas) said, as reported by the Houston Public Media Service, that, “. . . the 17-year-old student accused in a fatal shooting at a Texas high school used a semi-automatic pistol and a sawed-off shotgun to kill 10 people. The Republican from Texas says investigators are still determining whether the shotgun’s shortened barrel is legal.” Well, contrary to Senator Cornyn's conjecture, which he asserted as fact, the American public quickly learned that the shooter did not use a semiautomatic handgun, after all, and that the shooter likely did not use a so-called “sawed off shotgun” either. The killer used a common revolver handgun as mentioned above. And, as for Cornyn’s ludicrous, off the cuff remark about the shooter having used a “sawed off shotgun,” if that were the case, how long would it take “investigators” to determine whether the “shortened barrel is legal?” It is, of course, possible, but highly, and presumptively, unlikely, that the Remington Model 870 pump action manually operated shotgun the shooter’s father owned had a barrel length less than the limit prescribed by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. A cursory check of the Remington website does provide the prospective buyer of the popular Model 870 pump action shotgun with in depth data about the shotgun along with substantial graphics. The Model 870 shotgun is available in a myriad of configurations and in several barrel lengths, from 14 inches to 30 inches, to meet a user's specific needs, whether employing the weapon for sporting uses or for self-defense.

DID THE SANTA FE TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTER USE A SHOTGUN WITH A BARREL LENGTH LESS THAN 18 INCHES—A  SO-CALLED “SAWED OFF SHOTGUN”—AS U.S. SENATOR, JOHN CORNYN, MAINTAINS?

If, in fact, the shooter’s father’s Remington Model 870 had a barrel length of less than 18 inches, then ATF approval for a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches, or less, would be necessary. As pointed out by the ATF, in the atf.gov website, “A shotgun subject to the NFA [National Firearms Act] has a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length. The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device.”The website, gundata.org discusses, assiduously, the matter of barrel length of both rifles and shotguns.“Simply put, on the whole, a rifle barrel should be no less than 16" and a shotgun barrel should be no less than 18". While the overall gun length for either a rifle or a shotgun has to be 26" according to the ATF, paying extra for an exception can make a difference. Even though black powder guns don't have this limitation, guns that fire ‘smokeless powder’ do have to adhere to ATF and federal guidelines.That's why shotguns like the modern Mossberg 500 and 600 series riot shotguns will measure out to these specifications. While sawing off a double barreled shotgun or cutting a M1A1 to lengths as short as 12" is possible to make them a lot more cancelable, especially under a dustcoat, the government says that a short shotgun or short rifle isn't legal unless you apply for a specific license.It is possible to apply for a license for a short rifle or short shotgun with the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms). The fee is either $200 or $5 depending on circumstances and the way the gun is manufactured, but owning a gun shorter than the ‘standard’ legal limits is possible. For a gun manufacturer, adhering to the legal limits is mandatory and if you find a shortened gun at a gun show or even at a private sale, be aware of your rights and the applicable laws.” 

A QUANDARY FOR ANTIGUN PROPONENTS

Unlike sophisticated semiautomatic weaponry, manually operated pump action shotguns and manually operated revolver handguns have been around for a long time, approximately 130 years. The pertinent question is this: how have antigun proponents and the mainstream media spun the narrative in the call for further gun restrictions since the Santa Fe, Texas school shooter, here, didn’t use what antigun proponents, along with the mainstream media, often refer— contemptuously, pejoratively, slyly, and clearly erroneously—to as an “assault weapon?” It should be abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain, that, for your average, garden variety killer, who desires to create carnage, any weapon at hand will do. Unless a killer happens to be a psychopathic “professional” assassin or a psychotic member of a drug cartel, either of whom would likely have the contacts, wherewithal, and grim determination to acquire access to specialized, unlawful weapons, the kind of weapons that fall in a domain well beyond those weapons commonly available to the law-abiding American public—an American public that generally acquires firearms through a licensed firearms dealer—a killer will use whatever weapon he is able to get his hands on. That was certainly the case with the Santa Fe Texas shooter. But, given the circumstances of that recent school shooting incident in Santa Fe, Texas, antigun proponents are in a quandary as to whether to stay with their present running narrative—that non-semiautomatic weapons only are okay for law-abiding, rational, average American citizens to possess because semiautomatic weapons and full auto or selective fire weapons are weapons of war that have no place in a modern civilized society—or to sharply alter the current narrative, admitting to the American public, at long last, what it is they are truly after: a ban on civilian ownership and possession of all firearms—to turn the entire Nation into a “Gun-free Zone.”Clearly, antigun proponents’ calls for increasingly tight restrictions on civilian access to so-called assault weapons—meaning, of late, virtually all, not merely some, semiautomatic weapons—suggests a marked reluctance on their part to show their hand too soon, by calling for a total, or, otherwise, comprehensive ban on civilian ownership and possession of firearms of all types. Antigun proponents and zealots have traditionally preferred an incremental approach to gun bans and gun confiscations—one category of firearms at a time, and ever widening the domain of Americans who are precluded lawfully from owning and possessing any firearm—in order to slowly acclimate the public toward acceptance of a gun-free Country.In fact, antigun proponents—a few of them, ostensibly gun owners, posturing as supporters of the natural, fundamental, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms—disingenuously claim by mere assertion, and rarely if ever by hard argument—that some firearms are specifically designed for self-defense, and so, are deemed the good weapons; and that other weapons—various kinds of semiautomatic firearms, the so-called “assault weapons”—are designed for war; and that this latter category of  firearms therefore fall, presumptively, into the bad kind of weaponry that, as antigun proponents vehemently exclaim, civilians should not have access to.Antigun proponents evidently like to recruit and trot out seemingly avid “antigun gun owners” who, in accordance with the central theme and narrative, argue for reinstating a national ban on “assault weapons,” a catchall expression that is increasingly becoming synonymous with all semiautomatic firearms, not merely some semiautomatic weapons. Antigun proponents falsely assert that no one is trying to take all firearms  away from the civilian population of the Country, just some of them—the bad sort, the ones they have corralled under the brand of “assault weapons” or “weapons of war.” They assert that banning such weapons of war is okay because, after all, law-abiding, rational Americans can still keep true self-defense weapons, like .38 revolvers and shotguns handy at the ready, at home.But is that assertion true, especially when it is clear that so-called weapons for self-defense, or for sport, or for plinking at targets, like revolver handguns and shotguns, are capable of offensive use, as well, and with devastating effect, when in the hands of irresponsible individuals; or in the hands of gangbangers; or in the hands of the common criminal; or in the hands of  severely disturbed individuals, such as the shooter who murdered, maimed, and injured several innocent individuals in a Santa Fe, Texas high school? Do not these self-described antigun gun proponents, after all, deviously, deceptively, insidiously, mislead the American public by proffering a seeming reasonable compromise solution to curtailing gun violence and at once "permitting" lawful gun ownership? Are American gun owners expected, honestly, to suspend their skepticism? How many times in the past have American gun owners heard antigun proponents and antigun legislators preface their antigun diatribes with the assertion that they do, of course, support the Second Amendment, when clearly we know that they do not? So, whom are these antigun proponents and antigun legislators really fooling?LET US TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT A COUPLE OF SEEMING “PRO GUN” ANTIGUN GUN PROPONENTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT CIVILIAN GUN OWERNSHIP AND POSSESSION AND CONSIDER THE EFFICACY OF THEIR REMARKS, CONCERNING REVOLVERS AND SHOTGUNS IN LIGHT OF THE SANTA FE, TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL INCIDENT.Consider the assertions of one antigun zealot, Ashley Addison, who claims, incongruously, to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Addison refers to herself as a definitive gun owner. In the weblog, scarymommy.com (an obvious antigun forum, merely masquerading as a weblog supportive of the Second Amendment), this self-proclaimed gun owner claims that she owns only the right and proper sort of weapons—that is to say, weapons for self-defense. Addison says:“I’m a gun owner. I have two pistols, a rifle, a shotgun . . . and a (now-expired) concealed carry permit. I’ve been shooting since I was a kid. I also support every single gun control measure out there. . . . But an AK-47 (and other assault weapons) is not an ideal weapon for personal defense, and it serves no purpose for “home protection.” It was designed for military use. A a [sic] 12-gauge shotgun is a better, more realistic choice for home defense. I’ve never seen any peer-reviewed study/expert/article anywhere that can refute this. Bottom line: Assault-style weapons should never be in the hands of civilians.” Would Addison be so quick to assert that she does, in fact, “support every single gun measure,” as she bluntly says in her blog post if that means having to relinquish her shotgun, since, as anyone with any knowledge of the operations of firearms knows that a “self-defense” weapon can be used offensively and that a self-defense weapons, namely a revolver handgun, and a shotgun were in fact utilized by the Santa Fe, Texas shooter to murder, quite effectively, several innocent young people, and in short order? Would Addison continue to suggest that a 12-gauge shotgun is somehow a good weapon—a safe and humane kind of weapon—one particularly suitable for civilians to wield, but that a semiautomatic “assault-style weapon” is not, when considered in light of this recent mass shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. Is the distinction that Addison draws a sound one? One website, internet armory.com has this to say about the shotgun:“The shotgun is, by far, the deadliest and most formidable, effective firearm ever created for short range personal defense. No other firearm will devastate, disable, or discourage an aggressor as reliably as a shotgun.  No other firearm is as likely to obtain decisive hits on an assailant as a shotgun loaded with buckshot.”When used at shortrange—for example, a school room—Addison’s remark about shotguns (for civilian use) versus assault-style weapons (for military or other non-civilian use is not only patently ridiculous but truly bizarre. One must ask: Does Ashley Addison know what she is talking about? And, by the way, Ashley, shotguns have been and continue to be used by the military and by the police.The point is that any firearm in the wrong hands is deadly. A psychopath or lunatic can create monstrous horror, wielding any firearm. Moreover, while some firearms or firearm configurations are useful or ideal for a particular purpose, any weapon in the wrong hands can dispatch many innocent people, quickly and effectively, as factual accounts of recent shooting incidents bears out.In another “scarymommy.com” blog post, a second female, also a self-described “gun owner,” and purported supporter of the Second Amendment, Marissa Bowman, writes: “The fact of the matter is that guns in America are not going to disappear — at the very least not anytime soon. [Is Bowman suggesting they should disappear? If so, she is hardly the supporter of the Second Amendment that she claims to be]. Our Second Amendment rights guarantee that, and more importantly, our social structure is keeping it in place. Until we can guarantee safety for all children — not just our own — parents like me feel it necessary to utilize the right to have added protection for our family. “That does not mean, however, that anyone should be able to own whatever type of gun that they want and without restrictions. As a part-time solo mom whose partner is frequently away for his job, I absolutely feel it’s necessary to own a gun which I keep in my home. My family’s safety is simply not up for political debate. The Smith & Wesson M&P Bodyguard (.38 Special) that I carry makes me feel as though I can protect and defend my children in a moment’s notice, which in turn makes me feel empowered as a mother.”In light of the Santa Fe, Texas school shooting, the incongruity of the claims of Addison and Bowman are abundantly clear. The notion that some firearms are acceptable for Americans to own and possess and that some are not is demonstrably weak. The fact of the matter is that, in any confined public area where people are cowering, or even in an open area where people are densely packed and running hither and yon into each other, in panic, a would-be killer can use any firearm, or, for that matter, even a knife, to injure or kill a substantial number of people, quickly, effectively, and unceremoniously. It is therefore dubious for a person to claim that law-abiding, rational Americans have a right to acquire some firearms, but not others--with antigun groups and antigun legislators, along with the mainstream media, being the ultimate arbiters as to what firearms some members of the American citizenry, and, increasingly, an ever dwindling number of the American citizenry--to own and possess. We know where this leads. Given a plethora of ad hoc, inconsistent, and unsound arguments propounded, almost daily, concerning what firearms the law-abiding citizen may own and possess, along with a call for increasing restrictions on one's use of his or her personal property, and further restrictions on American civilians who are deemed worthy of owning and possessing a firearm what must inevitably come to pass is the virtual extinction of ownership and possession of any firearm in this Country.

HOW HAVE ANTIGUN WRITERS FOR MAINSTREAM PUBLICATIONS RESPONDED TO THE SANTA FE SHOOTING INCIDENT, WHERE THE KILLER DID NOT USE A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM, BUT A BASIC DOUBLE-ACTION REVOLVER HANDGUN AND A MANUALLY OPERATED PUMP ACTION SHOTGUN?

Had the shooter utilized a semiautomatic long gun qua “assault weapon,” the antigun groups would merely claim, as they have been doing for some time, that no one needs such a weapon for self-defense, and that Congress should therefore enact another “assault weapons” ban. Of course, antigun groups seek, ultimately to forbid civilian ownership and possession of any firearm, but they would seek to do so incrementally, and in a linear fashion. As the NFA (National Firearms Act of 1934) operates, essentially, as a practical matter, as a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of fully automatic and selective fire weapons, as well as operating essentially, and as a practical matter, as a ban on civilian ownership and possession of so-called, “sawed off shotguns,” the desire of antigun groups is, as is evident, to see enacted an NFA style set of federal laws applied to semiautomatic weapons, that is to say, “assault weapons”—meaning, an NFA style set of federal laws applied to every conceivable semiautomatic firearm. Once that goal has been accomplished—if it were accomplished—then the American public should make no mistake, as antigun groups would not stop there. They would then go after civilian ownership and possession of remaining firearms: including revolver handguns, shotguns, lever action rifles, black powder muzzleloaders, and any other type of fully functional firearm that  the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, and civilian, may happen to own and possess.

HOW IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DEALING WITH THE SANTA FE TEXAS SHOOTING IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE SHOOTER DID NOT USE A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON TO WREAK HAVOC IN A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL?

With this latest mass shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, will antigun zealots now call for stringent curbs on civilian ownership and possession of all manner of weaponry? Consider how this is beginning to play out.A contact reporter for the Chicago Tribune, in an article, caustically titled, “No matter what type of gun is used in school shootings, innocent people end up dead,” Dahleen Glanton, writes,“This time, the school shooter did not use an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to slaughter his classmates. That must be quite a relief to gun lovers.This killer’s weapons of choice were a shotgun and a .38-caliber handgun — two of the most common firearms available. What more proof do we need, gun lovers will ask, that the problem isn’t with guns but rather with people? . . .With so many mass shootings in schools and other public places, there is no question that gun lovers have been feeling as though they are under attack. They have tried their best to fend off arguments by the rest of the country that every gun is not protected under the Second Amendment. With so many people dying, we desperately need them to wake up and join us in the struggle to keep our children safe. Only then will politicians feel secure enough to take action.We cannot let them off the hook. Guns in general, and semi-automatic rifles in particular, remain the greatest threat to safety in America.Pagourtzis might not have been armed with a high-powered weapon when he allegedly entered that classroom Friday, but gun laws are so lax in Texas that he certainly could easily have gotten his hands on one. In fact, he could have walked down the street with an AR-15 strapped to his shoulder and likely no one would have thought it was odd.If anything, the shooting exemplifies what anti-gun advocates in cities like Chicago have been saying too. It is far too easy for a legal gun to turn into an illegal gun.”We make a couple observations here. Firstly, the reporter for this mainstream Press newspaper is acting in typical lockstep with previous mainstream reports of mass shootings, maintaining a consistent antigun narrative. But, she acknowledges, as she must, that the Santa Fe, Texas high school shooter did not use a semiautomatic long gun. But she then moves to propounding bald counterfactuals, apparently to maintain the consistent antigun movement narrative, blasting the presence of semiautomatic long guns in the civilian population, asserting that the shooter could have gotten his hands on an “AR-15,” given, what the reporter refers to as lax gun laws in Texas—a point the reporter doesn’t bother to clarify and expound upon; nor does this reporter explain how the shooter could have gotten his hands on a semiautomatic rifle, but didn’t. Actually the shooter quite effectively murdered and injured innocent young people at Santa Fe High School with a pump action shotgun and a revolver handgun. He need not have bothered to get his hands on an AR-15 if he had thought about the matter at all. Secondly, the shooter gained access to his father’s firearms because his father failed to properly secure them. Note: This is the same, virtually identical and disturbing scenario, by the way, that played out, tragically, in Newtown, Connecticut, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in 2012.A mother, Nancy Lanza, failed properly to secure her firearms from her psychotic son, Adam Lanza. Now, no one would seriously suggest that Connecticut has had lax gun laws, either prior to the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, or at any time since the tragedy. In both the Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting incident and in the recent Santa Fe, Texas mass shooting incident, the primary cause for the tragedy can and should be laid at the feet of irresponsible adults and heads of families who knew or should have known of, and certainly better than anyone else, the dangers posed by failing to properly secure firearms from children or from disturbed family members who happen to be residing in the household, and by failing to properly secure any other object that could be feasibly used as a deadly weapon by children or by severely mentally disturbed family members. What we see instead is that neither the irresponsible adult family member, nor the psychotic son is cast as the principal culprit and villain. Rather, the firearm that an obviously psychotic young man acquired and used to murder, maim, and injure innocent individuals—be it a semiautomatic rifle in one instance, or a shotgun and revolver handgun in the other—is cast as the primary cause for the ensuing tragedies and cast, too, as the basic and principal villain and "fall guy." The antigun proponent's narrative can take one of two forms.Consider: one of two narratives must play out when we see antigun proponents and commentators placing blame squarely on an object, rather than on the sentient entity who wields it, that is to say, when we see antigun proponents and commentators placing blame on an object rather than upon the agent who wields the object. Antigun proponents and antigun commentators tend either to fall back on the same, ever recurring narrative, namely  that the primary cause for gun violence rests upon the so-called assault weapon, even if a semiautomatic weapon was never in use by a killer or antigun proponents and antigun commentators must construct a new narrative. If antigun commentators wish to stay with the typical narrative, namely that semiautomatic weapons must be banned even if semiautomatic weapons were never used in the shooting incident, as was the case in the recent Santa Fe, Texas incident, then an argument calling for a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic weapons and mass confiscation of semiautomatic weapons is nonsensical in the extreme, as a narrative that does not fit the factual situation must invariably devolve into a recitation of senseless, hypothetical "what if" scenarios as we see in the Chicago Tribune article, and as we also see in the New Yorker article, infra. The narrative becomes decidedly discordant if predictable; for the proverbial deadly object qua "assault weapon" doesn't factor into the fact pattern. It cannot. If, on the other hand, antigun proponents and commentators wish to construct a new narrative, admitting to the public what antigun proponents most assuredly discuss among themselves, namely, that firearms of all types must eventually be banned, not just so-called, “assault weapons”--aka “weapons of war, then the antigun proponent and commentator isn't compelled to resort to spurious and specious hypotheticals, which has not place in a news account anyway; and the narrative is internally consistent. But the true intent of the antigun movement would be laid bare for all to see. The true aims of the antigun movement would be clear and irrefutable. In that case, the "cat" would definitely be "out of the bag,"  as the antigun proponent or antigun commentator  would be clearly and categorically articulating the antigun movement's ultimate goal: the disarming of the American citizenry en masse. Neither narrative would sit well with American gun owners; nor should it. For, any attempt to arbitrarily ban civilian possession of firearms--whether a gun ban and gun confiscation scheme embraces one type of firearm or all types--would, in either case, be true folly and wholly unacceptable to the American gun owning public because gun bans and gun confiscation schemes are altogether incompatible with the import and purport of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Semiautomatic weapons, revolvers, and shotguns are all in common use by millions of average, honest, law-abiding, and rational American citizens. These weapons all fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment and cannot lawfully be taken away from Americans. The late, eminent U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the seminal Second Amendment Heller case made abundantly clear that, presumed State public safety concerns do not and cannot legally override fundamental, primordial Constitutional rights. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the Land; and basic, natural rights and liberties, as a critical component of the U.S. Constitution, are not and never shall be subordinate to State or Federal Statute, much less to public opinion polls or to orchestrated public demonstrations.As the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not and never has been a right bestowed on Government to the people but exists forever within the American people, that right cannot be legitimately, legally tampered with. To obliterate the natural and fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by arrogantly attempting to turn a sacred right into a mere privilege, easily dispensed with, is an anathema to our history, traditions, values, ethical sensibilities, and legal, social, economic, and moral foundational understanding. Such an effort would, as well, illustrate the antigun movement's naked, and absolute, unbridled disdain for seminal Second Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court rulings.Another writer for a mainstream news publication, John Cassidy, a columnist for the New Yorker, in an article titled, “Everything About the Texas School Shooting Seems Horribly Familiar,” makes similar comments to those of Dahleen Glanton, writing for the Chicago Tribune. Cassidy, too, maintains the usual antigun proponent's narrative, attempting to shoehorn counterfactuals into a factual account of the mass shooting. So, despite the weapons that the Santa Fe, Texas gunman used during his murderous escapade, a shotgun, and .38 caliber revolver, which did not include semiautomatic weapons, Cassidy eschews keeping to the facts, contrary to what a reporter should be doing--recounting facts, not contemplating, "what ifs." Cassidy argues that the shooter could have used a semiautomatic weapon to seriously injure or kill innocent young people, even if the shooter, as we know, didn’t. The account comes across as weak, even silly. John Cassidy exclaims:“About the only atypical aspect of the shooting was that Pagourtzis reportedly used a Remington Model 870 shotgun and a .38-calibre revolver, rather than a semi-automatic rifle, to kill his ten victims and wound ten others. This was probably because his father didn’t own an AR-15 or any other weapon of war. (Pagourtzis told police he used his father’s guns. It wasn’t immediately clear whether his father knew that they were in his possession.) Enthusiasts of semi-automatic weapons will presumably use this detail to fortify their case against banning such weapons—the argument being that there are firearms of all kinds (more than three hundred million in private hands across the U.S., according to some estimates) and banning one particular type of gun won’t prevent a dedicated shooter from carrying out a massacre.In the world of Second Amendment devotees, this qualifies as a legitimate case to make. So does the argument, which Donald Trump and the N.R.A. have made, that the real issue with school shootings isn’t the fact that disturbed adolescents have such ready access to deadly weapons but that schools don’t have enough armed teachers to stop gun-wielding intruders, or enough ready escape routes for students and staff to take as they flee the gunfire. ‘We have to look at the design of our schools moving forward and retrofitting schools that are already built,’ Dan Patrick, the Republican lieutenant governor of Texas, said on Friday. ‘And what I mean by that is there are too many entrances and too many exits to our over eight thousand campuses in Texas . . . Had there been one single entrance, possibly, for every student, maybe he’—Pagourtzis—'would have been stopped.’ Rather than descending further into the world of deliberate denial, it is perhaps worth stating a few facts: this was the second school massacre in three months, and the second gun massacre in six months in Texas.”“Descending further into the world of deliberate denial?” How does fortifying schools against shooters translate into denial. Clearly, John Cassidy is, himself, in denial. It isn’t the millions of law-abiding, rational Americans who happen to own firearms and who strongly support our Bill of Rights—all Ten of them—who are in denial. In fact, in those States that have implemented truly effective school safety plans against shooters, utilizing armed teachers and other armed personnel, there has been not one incident of a school shooting. But, antigun proponents, like John Cassidy choose, apparently, to ignore that fact, assuming he bothered to investigate the matter at all. He presents, as self-evident, true the false and absurd notion that the answer to school safety rests, simply and solely on banning civilian ownership and possession of firearms en masse.Cassidy’s argument boils down essentially to this: killers murdered young people with guns; so, once Congress bans firearms from the American citizenry, commencing with a ban on semiautomatic rifles, the problem of mass murders in schools will be resolved. Cassidy is wrong. The problem of mass murders in schools or in other public venues won’t end, not by a long shot! Because violence exists in the minds of people, not in objects. That simple truth seems forever to elude antigun proponents who are obsessed with eliminating “The Gun” from society, irrespective of the root causes of violence.John Cassidy, as with Dahleen Ganlon, seems fixated on the notion that the Santa Fe shooter would, of course, have taken up an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle if the shooter’s father happened to have one. Antigun proponents, like John Cassidy, love to slither here and there—perhaps unaware that they are doing so—from reporting on events taking place in the world to reflecting on possible circumstances that might have, or could have, or conceivably would have, occurred, but didn’t; and they conclude their polemics with express or tacit normative remarks about the way the world ought to be. Since, the antigun movement is hell-bent on removing from civilian possession all semiautomatic weapons, first and foremost, commencing with a broad ban on all semiautomatic weapons that this or that antigun proponent wishes to call an "assault weapon," the movement's proponents and the commentators and reporters of the mainstream media who echo the movement's tactics and strategies, do not wish to muddy the waters by talking about the weapons that a particular killer happened to use, rather than the ones that the antigun proponents' would have wished for the gunman to have used in order to keep with the "game plan." Time would come, when, after semiautomatic weapons have been confiscated, remaining categories of firearms can be confiscated and banned as well.As with all or most antigun zealots, John Cassidy knows little if anything concrete about firearms, and likely cares not one whit to educate himself. As for so-called weapons of war, a little history lesson is in order here. Revolver handguns as well as shotguns have seen use in war. Both weapons are used by many police departments and they have use in sport and for self-defense, as are semiautomatic weapons. And, as the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out in the previously posted article, any weapon can be used for good or ill, dependent on the wielder of the weapon. The Santa Fe School shooting, the Parkland, Florida school shooting, and the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting were easily preventable. Failures by governmental authorities and/or by parents of shooters led to tragedy. Those who own and possess firearms have the responsibility to properly use and care for them and to properly secure them. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. There is no sane reason to target their firearms for confiscation.In any event, the answer to curbing gun violence does not devolve to imposing debilitating, draconian gun restrictions on millions of responsible gun owners. That would destroy our free Republic and likely led to outright civil war, as the American citizenry would see first hand, an unlawful attempt by Government to wrest control of the Nation from the citizenry.There is a more direct and effective response to school safety. It is a twofold approach; and it is an approach that does not create havoc with our Constitution and with the natural rights of Americans. First, at the State, County and local Government levels, a clear and honest assessment of school safety must be made. Once that assessment is completed, a plan must be devised and then implemented with proper testing. The New Yorker columnist, John Cassidy, may see this as a trivial matter. We do not. Second, firearms must be removed from the hands of those who act irresponsibly, and there must be a concerted effort to remove firearms from the criminal elements in our society. Laws already on the books need to be enforced. The Nation does not need more firearms’ laws. Unfortunately, the antigun movement in this Country seeks to disarm the vast responsible American citizenry. School shootings serve merely as a pretext for broad-base gun bans and eventual mass gun confiscation. It is the vast responsible, law-abiding American armed citizenry that the antigun movement is truly targeting, for it is the vast law-abiding armed citizenry that those who seek to disarm Americans truly fear, as it is the vast, law-abiding armed citizenry that, as the Founders of our Republic intended, they cannot, ought not, and must not control. For, it is only in an armed citizenry that true Government encroachment on the rights and liberties of the American citizenry is effectively, categorically, constrained and contained. It is not the criminal element, then, and it is not the occasional lunatic that goes off on a shooting spree that the antigun movement and their silent, secretive, ruthless Globalist benefactors truly fear.It is the average, law-abiding American citizen and gun owner that these anti-American elements fear and therefore seek to control. The banshee shriek and wail calling for a ban, eventually, on civilian ownership and possession of guns generally and a ban on civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic firearms—pejoratively and idiotically referred to by antigun proponents as “assault weapons” and as “weapons of war”—particularly, at this juncture, and the claim made that only through mass gun control and eventual mass gun confiscation will this Nation, its people, and its children be safe from violence are, on close inspection specious, even ludicrous, pronouncements even if, superficially, these boisterous, obstreperous pronouncements happen to sound palatable and convincing, as, of course, they are meant to. This propaganda—for propaganda it is—is directed to the weak-willed and the uniformed among us—individuals who are looking for a panacea to violence in society, as violence is claimed to be endemic in society, and they are told it need not be, if only the public accedes to giving up their firearms.Through it all, the American public is being fed a false narrative. It is a narrative carefully crafted and then directed to the American public through mass media organizations, controlled by transnationalist billionaires who seek to alter, forever, the framework of the Nation, a free Republic that the Founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution and of our sacred Bill of Rights, bequeathed to us. The transnationalist billionaires seek to destroy our Nation for their own benefit, for their own selfish  ends. The goal, of these extraordinarily powerful, insanely wealthy, highly secretive, and absolutely ruthless individuals, is not suppression of gun violence, despite the claims of antigun groups, their willing tools. To the contrary; it is repression of the American citizenry. That, unfortunately, is the sad, but irrefutable truth. The American public should not be deluded to think it not so._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

I AM A GUN AND THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO SAY

I am a Gun. I am not a person. I, myself, am incapable of harming anyone. Only a person is capable of harming another person. I cannot, myself, harm a person. And I cannot force a person to use me for an evil purpose. In the hands of a rational, competent, law-abiding person, I serve a greater good. In the hands of an irrational, incompetent, lawless individual, I serve a dark end. But, I, myself, must be held blameless because I am not a person.Many ill-informed individuals are quick to cast aspersions on me. They will say or suggest that I am evil incarnate. I am not. I do not have the power of choice. I do not have “free will.” Only a human being has the power of choice; only a human being has free will. I do not. Only a human being can choose to do good or ill, in accordance with that person’s “will.” I cannot. Still, there are those who believe, falsely, that I am evil, and strenuously make that claim. That truly puzzles me; for, only a person who misuses me can be deemed evil.Those who denigrate and demean me fail to realize the enormous positive benefit that I have brought and continue to bring to this Nation. The United States could not exist but for me. The founders of this free Republic used my great great grandfather, the flintlock, to forge a mighty Nation. During the Second World War, my cousins—including, among others, the M1 Garand Rifle, the Thompson submachine gun, and the Browning Automatic Rifle—in the competent hands of our Nation’s troops, helped to defeat two of our most powerful and intractable foes: Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan. I have also assisted and continue to assist our police officers in helping protect our communities from lawless elements.AND, I AM, TO THE COUNTLESS AVERAGE, LAW-ABIDING, RATIONAL, RESPONSIBLE AMERICAN CITIZENS--AS THE FRAMERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION INTENDED--THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS AVAILABLE THROUGH WHICH THESE CITIZENS ARE ABLE TO PRESERVE AND DEFEND THEIR LIFE, SAFETY, AND WELL-BEING AND THE LIFE, SAFETY, AND WELL-BEING OF THEIR FAMILIES—FROM THOSE RUTHLESS, TERRIBLE, EVIL ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY WHO SEEK TO DO HARM.Going back far earlier in time, my ancestors, the matchlock and wheel lock firearms, gave to the common man the ability to grapple effectively with powerful nobility, who wore formidable suits of armor, wielding massive lances and swords, sitting atop powerful steeds.There is much to commend me. Unfortunately, history’s revisionists dismiss me out-of-hand, selectively  focusing only on those who have misused me. In recent months, young men who gained access to me, and who should never have gained access to me, have committed monstrous acts. Those monstrous acts have been wrongly ascribed principally to me, rather than to the individuals who have misused me. I am well aware of the horrific acts that deranged young people have done. Their monstrous acts should not have occurred and would not have occurred but for crucial missteps by irresponsible people who failed to properly secure me.In 2012, a severely mentally unstable young man, Adam Lanza, gained access to his mother’s firearms. Had I been able, I would have warned Nancy Lanza, Adam’s mother, to properly secure me so that her mentally disturbed son could not gain access to me. She failed to do so. Her irresponsible act in failing to properly secure me led directly to her death at her son’s hands. This sad, deranged young man, Adam Lanza, then carried me to a public school, Sandy Hook Elementary School, located in Newtown, Connecticut. In his hands, Adam Lanza used me to kill innocent children and teachers. But for Nancy Lanza’s irresponsible actions, this horrific incident would never have happened and could never have happened. Major media organizations wrongly blamed me for the tragedy.A similar horrific event occurred, in February of 2018. Another deranged young man, Nikolas Cruz, wrongfully gained access to me, and used me to murder or seriously injure many innocent students and teachers—this time at another public school, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, located in Parkland, Florida. Once again media people, reporting on this event, at the urging of those individuals who profess a pathological hatred toward me, blame me for the senseless tragedy, claiming that it is I, rather than this young man, Nikolas Cruz, who is the principal cause of the tragedy.Legislators, members of the mass media, and members of groups who call for my eradication, fail to realize that it is not I that cause violence. To cause violence I must have the desire to do violence, and once having the desire to do violence, I must then act on that desire. But, I am incapable of desire, and I am incapable of action. People, alone, are capable of desire and people alone are capable of acting on their desires. People are causal agents of harm. I am not a causal agent, but merely an object, a tool. Yet, I am blamed for the evil actions of those who misuse me. On careful reflection, though, it is clear that it is the killer, Nikolas Cruz, 19 years old, and it is those agents of Government who knew or should have known of the danger Nikolas Cruz posed to the community, who are the principal causes for harm done to others.There were multiple warnings and warning signs of the danger Nikolas Cruz posed to the community, but Governmental authorities failed to heed those warnings and those signs. Had I been able to, I would have spoken up, alerting the School Board, alerting the FBI, and alerting the County Sheriff’s Office, of the imminent danger posed by Nikolas Cruz. The tragedy that occurred was easily preventable. Yet, local, County, State, and Federal authorities are not held to account. I, however, am held to account. I, the Gun, am deemed responsible for the myriad failings of people.Irresponsible, lawless acts, uncorrected, tend to repeat themselves—an endless loop of tragedy occurring ever again. So it is that yet another severely disturbed young man, Dimitrios Pagourtzis, went on a shooting rampage at a high school, in Santa Fe, Texas. That tragedy unfolded recently. How did this happen? Quite simply, the young man’s father failed to properly secure me. The father breached a duty of care owed to the community to prevent his son from gaining access to me. That failure led to horrific tragedy.The pattern is disturbingly familiar, replaying itself over and over again, and each time, the tragedy was preventable, and would have been prevented but for the failure of adults residing in the community, and but for the failure of Governmental authorities to act to thwart the tragedy. And, once again, the blame for the tragedy is laid at my feet. I, who cannot do any act, good or ill, but for an agent who wields me, is ever the scapegoat.Of course, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. They treat me with respect. They handle me competently; and they properly secure me, preventing those who must not gain access to me, from doing so. Yet, there are individuals in Government, in industry, and even foreigners who bear a personal grudge against me and who hold me in contempt. And there are groups, comprising individuals whose sole purpose for existence is to eradicate me. These individuals think that by dispossessing millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens of me, the Gun, that violence will stop. It will not stop.A person need merely consider that, in many Western nations where Government has essentially banned me, violence continues unabated. Sociopathic and criminal elements in society still obtain possession of me and use me to seriously injure or kill innocent people. And, even if horrible, evil people do not have immediate access to me, that does not prevent them from causing horrific violence just the same. Those people who desire to harm others will always find a way and means to do so. And, they have done so, repeatedly, constantly, using knives, and bombs, and even cars and trucks to murder and maim innocent people.Still, the drumbeat continues for my banishment from so-called “civilized” society. Those individuals who detest me argue that violence can be stemmed simply by outlawing me. But, arbitrarily denying the average responsible citizen from owning and possessing me will do nothing to prevent lawless and deranged individuals from doing harm, whether by wielding me, or by wielding or utilizing another object. And, when all is said and done, I am just that—an object, a tool, nothing more. Those who seek to blame me, profane me, debase me, denigrate me, castigate me, would do well to recall a quotation from the classic 1953 Western film, “Shane,” where the protagonist offered this sage advice concerning me, as he addressed the wife of a rancher:“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it.”Those who desire to ban me outright would do well to remember that banning me will do nothing to prevent the occurrence of and recurrence of evil acts. Evil cannot be legislated away, even as some people seem to believe that it can be legislated away or would like to believe that evil can be legislated away through the simplistic, implausible, unconscionable, and constitutionally impermissible, unlawful expedient of denying to the average, rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizen the fundamental right to own and possess me. At the end of the day, evil remains, and monstrous acts of violence will, unfortunately, continue to occur because evil exists in the heart of those people who seek to do evil, and there are, lamentably, all too many of those in the world. Evil does not and never did exist in me, “The Gun.”_________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE GREAT DIVIDE: THE POLITICAL LEFT AND POLITICAL RIGHT WAGE A MODERN-DAY CIVIL WAR FOR THE AMERICAN SOUL.

During the American Civil War, there were no fence sitters. Every American chose a side. In the border States, especially, brother fought against brother and father fought against son. Foreign nations stayed out of the fray, perceiving the war as an internal matter between two sides—each with its own needs, its own perspective, its own interpretation of the relation between the Federal Government to the States.“It was therefore much to the chagrin of United States President Abraham Lincoln when, in 1861, near the outset of the American Civil War, the British government recognized the belligerency of the Confederate States that had unilaterally seceded from the Union. This recognition caused the British to be neutral in the domestic American conflict and to aid neither the rebels nor the government.” “The Concept of Belligerency in International Law,” 166 Mil. L. Rev. 109, 114, December 2000, by  Lieutenant Colonel Yair M. Lootsteen, Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Arguably, Americans are headed toward outright civil war today. Granted, this present state of civil unrest has not devolved into actual armed conflict—at least not yet. But, in an important respect the situation existent in our Nation today bespeaks civil unrest as pronounced as that which led to the American Civil War. The outcome of this present day civil unrest will shape the future contours of our Nation as assuredly as the outcome of the American Civil War had shaped the contours of our Nation once Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant, in 1865.As use of the words ‘Yankee’ and ‘Rebel’ served, effectively, as colloquial expressions and shorthand descriptors for the opposing sides of the American Civil War, we see, today, as well, use of expressions, such as ‘Liberal Left’ and ‘Conservative Right’ bandied about in the media as shorthand descriptors for the two opposing sides in the modern American conflict. The terminology in use today, simplistic as it is, does underscore a clear, explicit, categorical, demarcation between two sides, in clear and perpetual opposition. As with the American Civil War, there are no fence sitters in this modern day civil war, even as many Americans proclaim themselves, ostensibly, to be independent, taking no side in this period of civil unrest.Through time, each side’s political, social, and economic philosophies have solidified. There is no debate. There can be none. Any attempt at compromise is impossible. Each side holds resolutely to one of two irreconcilable, mutually incompatible positions, representing two polar opposite ideological strains within the American polity. And, every American has a stake in the outcome of this present day state of nascent civil war.Transpiring today is more than mere “Culture War.” Americans are locked in mortal, internecine combat. The differences are stark and are readily perceived on multiple fronts. The outcome will change the very structure of the United States, as an independent sovereign Nation, forever.Each side views the Nation’s institutions from a different ideological perspective. Each side views the relationship of individual to Government and the relationship of one individual to another in a different light, even attaching a different meaning to the notion of ‘citizen.’ One major point of contention—an incipient and inevitable flashpoint that defines and clarifies the two sides—concerns how each side perceives the U.S. Constitution and, especially, how each side perceives the rights and liberties codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights.Liberals view the Bill of Rights as a set of man-made rules—constructs, contrivances, subject to modification and de facto repeal, as time and circumstance dictate, not unlike any Congressional Statute. Conservatives, though, view the Bill of Rights as natural law, intrinsic to each American citizen, fundamental and inalienable, therefore immutable; not man-made, and, so, superior to Congressional Statute, never subject to modification, much less perfunctory rejection.Liberals view the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as subject to constraint and modification on the basis of emotional impact to particular groups. Censorship is condoned if the purpose is to spare the feelings of groups. Conservatives view the freedom of speech clause as demanding full expression, consistent with high Court rulings. Censorship is to be avoided. Liberals play the game of “Identity Politics.” Conservatives do not.Liberals view the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, as  archaic—to be ignored or to be statutorily constrained. Conservatives view the right of the people to keep and bear arms as pertinent today as at the founding of the Republic. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolutely fundamental to the autonomy of the American citizen and essential to the preservation of a free Republic, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned.There are other marked differences between The Liberal Left and the Conservative Right. The Liberal Left views moral acts from the standpoint of the impact of behavior on society as a whole. Personal intent and motivation behind one’s actions is considered irrelevant. The Liberal Left defines the moral good as maximizing utility for the greatest number of people. That ethical perspective detrimentally affects the rights and liberties of the individual. The Conservative Right, on the other hand, views morally good acts and morally wrong acts from the standpoint of a person’s intent. Maximizing utility for the multitude never outweighs the needs and interests of the individual.Liberals espouse a policy of open and porous borders, reflecting the idea that the notion of ‘citizen of the United States’ is essentially redundant in an increasingly globalized world. And they see the expression, ‘citizen of the United States,’ in the near future, as becoming essentially meaningless. For liberals, the people of any Country are deemed merely “citizens of the world,” and therefore free to emigrate to any nation at will. Liberals wish to see naturalization laws changed to recognize, exemplify, and reflect the idea that anyone who wishes to reside in the United States ought to be permitted to do so. Conservatives argue that a Sovereign Nation State—to be worthy of the name—must maintain the integrity of its borders. For Conservatives, no citizen or subject of a foreign power can legitimately stake claim to residing in the United States as a matter of legal or moral right. Conservatives maintain that Congress has sole authority, as the Constitution mandates, to determine who may emigrate to the U.S. and who may not, and to place restrictions on the number of those emigrating to this Country.The Political Left accepts--consistent with its view of the ‘Nation State’ as an archaic concept--the eventual dismantling of the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation. The Political Left sees this process as inevitable, inexorable, and irreversible. The Political Right views the dismantling of the United States as an anathema—a process, neither inevitable nor irreversible, and one to be prevented at all costs.Liberals believe in the utility and propriety of propaganda and psychological conditioning to effectuate their goals. Those who espouse Democratic liberalism, as that concept is understood and glorified, and placed into practice by the governing "elites" of the EU, do not believe in the autonomy and inviolability of the individual, and therefore do not profess concern over using the tools of propaganda to manipulate the American psyche to promote the Left’s policy goals. Americans are witnessing, in recent years, the explosive use of mind-control techniques, permitted and propagated through the Bureaucratic Deep State within the federal Government, and through the mainstream Press, and by billionaire CEOs of left-wing technological Companies, intent on promoting a socialist agenda, notwithstanding that such an agenda is inconsistent with the core values of our Nation and of our Nation’s history; inconsistent with our Constitution and system of laws; and inconsistent with the preservation of our Nation as a free Republic.Conservatives do not countenance use of propaganda or psychological conditioning to alter the mindset of the American citizenry under any circumstance. For the use of such techniques damage the individual psyche and spirit. Conservatives hold the use of such techniques to be intolerable. They view the use of such techniques as incompatible with the exercise of one’s free will. Moreover, for Conservatives, the idea that the United States can and ought to be relegated eventually to the status of a subordinate cog in a world-wide socialist federation of Western States is horrific in the very contemplation.The election of Donald Trump to the Office of President of the United States is illustrative of the battle for the soul of this Nation. Conservatives voted for Donald Trump as an act of defiance against a deviant Liberal tidal wave--a tidal wave that seeks to obliterate our Nation's core values, to shred our Nation's sacred traditions, to erase our Nation's unique and lasting history, and to reduce the population of our Country to abject servitude in docile service to an international ruling "elite." Curiously, the Political Left talks incessantly about a Constitutional crisis impacting this Nation and about the failure of Trump and the Political Right to adhere to “the rule of law.” Yet, it is abundantly clear that, although a Constitutional crisis does exist, it is one of the Political Left’s own making, starkly evidenced by, and through, the illegal appointment of a Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, whose sole purpose is to manufacture a reason to indict a duly elected, sitting President of the United States.Whether for good cause or no—and no cause whatsoever exists here for removing the U.S. President, Donald Trump, in any event—criminal indictment of a sitting President has never before occurred in our Nation, and no provision for indictment of a sitting President exists in the U.S. Constitution, and that is so for good reason: to preclude the subversion of the will of the American People by a hidden, powerful, inordinately wealthy upper class that seeks to create a Country amenable to their special, and exclusive interests. Robert Mueller’s audacious attempt to even consider compelling the U.S. President to appear before a Grand Jury is indicative of a dangerous coup d’état playing out before the American electorate by a secretive "elite."Liberals constantly maintain that the American people are a Nation governed by the rule of law. That means our Nation is to be governed by law, not by men. What the very existence of the Bureaucratic Deep State, entrenched with hundreds if not thousands of holdovers from the Obama Administration, demonstrates, though, is that We, the People, are a Nation that is consistently ruled not by law, but by men, contrary to the platitudes voiced by politicians of the Liberal Left.Americans are indeed in the midst of major civil unrest, headed toward outright civil war. How this plays out will be seen through President Trump’s ability to weather all underhanded attempts to destroy his Presidency and by the strength of those Americans who have not been deluded and are fully capable of perceiving the presence of and understanding the inherent danger presented by a ruthless, cunning and intractable foe lurking ominously in their midst.If the Political Left prevails--and as its failure to seat the devious, duplicitous, anti-American Globalist Hillary Clinton in the White House has not prevented the Political Left's efforts to dismantle a Country situated as a sovereign Nation State, but, rather, has caused the Political Left merely to redouble its  treacherous efforts to defeat the Will of a Conservative populist surge desirous of preserving a Nation founded on the sacred principles of the founding fathers, as those principles have been set in stone in the U.S. Constitution and in the Constitution's sacred Bill of Rights--socialism will rear its ugly head, and a sovereign Nation State, a free Republic, and a free people, will be well-nigh forever lost._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.