U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES SEEK TO DESTROY NATION'S BILL OF RIGHTS AND TO UNLEASH A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

PART TWELVE

The Democratic Party is in a bind. This is the inference to be drawn after the first two recently aired Democratic Party Debates. And no less a source of Radical Left, Marxist hate-filled proselytizing and propaganda-filled garbage than The New York Times newspaper recognizes this indisputable fact; and, recognizing it, laments it, but for a very specific reason--one that may not be apparent to the casual reader.In two recent stories—one, an Op-Ed, appearing in the Saturday, June 29, 2019 edition of the newspaper, and the other, a news story appearing on the front page of the Sunday, June 30, 2019 edition of the newspaper—two NY Times reporters in a news story, and one NY Times columnist in an Op-Ed, express concern, even consternation over the style, tone and mood of the two recent Democratic Party debates. Several of the candidate hopefuls were falling all over themselves in their call for radical change for the Nation—calling for no less than a Marxist Revolution. Their exuberance was on clear display for all to see. The problem was that these Radical Left candidates for the Democratic Party nomination were much too exuberant; much too honest in setting forth their agenda for our Nation in the 21st Century. For, what they are calling for, what they are pushing for, what they seek to accomplish is the dissolution of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation.President Trump has made clear, consistent with his policy objectives, that our Nation is not to be  beholding to or subordinated to any other Nation, Group of Nations, or any new social and political transnational Governmental world order. The Country had been in danger of losing its National Sovereignty and independence during the Administration of Barack Obama, through his duplicitous, seditious machinations.And work toward accomplishing that awful, horrific, nefarious objective would have continued under the Administration of Hillary Clinton. That is what the Radical Left wants, and the Democratic Party hopefuls were delivering that message to their base during the recent debates. They would attempt to accomplish immediately what Obama and Clinton had sought to accomplish slowly, incrementally. That's what the Radical Left wanted to hear, and hear that message, they did.Well, the message delivered at the Debates may be all well and good for the Radical Left base. It never tires of hearing how the United States Constitution ought to be shredded, commencing with the Bill of Rights; getting rid of the Second Amendment outright, and restraining and constraining the right of free speech of the First Amendment, on the other. And, the Radical Left never tires of hearing how our unique history, traditions, culture, and ethos are to be relegated unceremoniously to the dustbin.Yet, the message of the Radical Left means something patently horrific to everyone else—the vast majority of Americans, the silent majority in our Nation that happened to tune in on the debates. The silent majority does not ascribe to a new international world order, predicated on open borders, mass surveillance, loss of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights and liberties, and who do not place their confidence in the firm and callous hand of Government, that seeks to control all action, thought and conduct of the American populace.The plans expressed by these Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls may sound appealing to Progressives, to Marxists, and to Antifia anarchists and nihilists who seek to tear this Nation apart; who seek to create an entirely new system of Governance, one predicated on Socialist, Communist, and Marxist principles. And, the Democratic-Socialist agenda will, of course, certainly sound appealing to the millions of uneducated, or, at best, poorly educated, unskilled illegal aliens (who have no legal right to be in our Country in the first place). For, what it is that these functionally illiterate illegal aliens find most appealing about our Country has nothing to do with our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties; and it has nothing to do with the Governing principles and precepts upon which our Constitutional Republic rests and which they know little if anything about, and care not at all to know about.What these functionally illiterate illegal aliens find most appealing about our Country, what it is they are really looking for, and what it is that brought them here and which continues to bring, in droves, hundreds of thousands more of their ilk to our Nation, is the promise of U.S. Government and tax-payer assisted largess: free housing; free medical care; free education for their offspring, of which they have a multitude; and access to abundant welfare aid and programs and massive public assistance. These aliens and hundreds of thousands more of them—waves of them—illegally crossing our borders every month, have no concept of our fundamental rights and liberties and they have no desire of exercising such rights anyway because of the attendant personal responsibility attached. Yet, Americans are expected to obliterate their Constitution and dismantle a free Republic and to do so to cater to the riffraff of the world and to cater to the proponents and zealots of Marxist Collectivist ideology and Marxist social engineering who bemoan the very existence of sovereign, independent Nation States, and who seek not the preservation of, but the utter annihilation of our rich and unique national history and heritage* and ethos.The fact of the matter is that for millions of Americans who tuned in to hear the recent Democratic Party “Debates” and who listened to the Radical Dead Souls, calling for nothing less than a Marxist Revolution, were less than enthralled with the message delivered. In fact, the majority of Americans were positively alarmed at the tone, mood, and bravado of these individuals who would have the audacity to serve as U.S. President, seemingly on behalf of a Nation and its citizenry whom they really couldn’t care less about, as they seek to destroy the one and to reduce the other to servitude, penury, and misery, serving their lives out in a Socialist Collectivist nightmare of reality.Whether the Democratic Party candidates are cocksure that one of them—whoever it may be—will prevail over Donald Trump in the coming U.S. Presidential General Election, or they are are simply misguided in presuming that a Socialist or “Democratic-Socialist” will occupy the White House in 2020, they behaved, in the Debates, as if the success of their Political Party is assured and that a Marxist Collectivist Revolution is at hand and, that the implementation of their vision for a one-world Government is a foregone conclusion.They certainly didn’t restrain themselves in projecting the most outrageous social and political policy positions and in providing the American public with their prospects for our Country. In that, these Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls, were clear and categorical about the agenda they are hell-bent on setting for the Nation: a transitional path forward to ultimate subsumption of our Country, our Nation, into a transnational, trans-global political, financial, economic, social, cultural, and legal system of governance. That would indeed mark the end of our rights and liberties; the end of the supremacy of our laws; an end to our history; an end to the very idea of a United States existing as a distinct Nation State as it is subordinated to and subsumed into a new transnational Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural construct.A disaster in the making is, apparently, what these Radical Leftists of the new Democratic Party want, indeed, what they are banking on; what, in fact, they are calling for: reducing the Nation’s citizenry to abject poverty and servitude, to the point where the citizenry cannot ably resist the dismantling of their Nation’s Constitution and subsumption of the Nation into a new international system of governance, where our Nation’s laws are no longer the supreme Law of the Land; where the United States can no longer reasonably, rationally be considered an independent sovereign Nation; and where the people of the United States are no longer deemed citizens but, rather, subjects within a new and vast world order.But, unlike the Democratic Party candidates, who demonstrated remarkable, if bizarre, exuberance and giddiness at the thought of seeing their vision of a Collectivist Marxist World realized, The New York Times, no less a proponent for the Marxist overthrow of the natural order of things, exhibited a note of caution and wariness over the alacrity with which the Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President laid bare their plans for the Country if any one of them were able to defeat Trump and actually assume the Office of Chief Executive of the Nation.In the June 30 article, the NY Times reporters made this comment in the opening paragraph of their news account:“The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing seeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of a political backlash. Vowing to eliminate private health insurance, decriminalize illegal immigration and provide government health care benefits to undocumented migrants, high profile contenders like Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are wagering that they can energize voters eager to dismantle President Trump’s hard line policies.”Donald Trump’s hard line policies? Since when has it become hard line for a U.S. President to seek to protect and maintain the integrity of our Nation’s geographical borders; to work toward preservation of our Capitalist, free market economy; to faithfully execute the laws of our Nation—and that means, all of our laws—including, then, our immigration laws; and how is a U.S. President to help “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” if that means squandering our Nations limited funds and resources on government health care benefits and welfare to millions of illegal aliens? The New York Times’ sentiments are clearly in line with the most radical of Democratic-Socialist goals, and always have been; but, obviously, the Times, unlike the Democratic Party Candidates vying for their Party's nomination in the run-up to the General Election, is not convinced the American public is itself behind the Democrats, ready to jump on their bandwagon. In fact, the vast majority of Americans, the silent majority, couldn’t agree less with the aims and wishes of this neo-Democratic-Socialist Party. For the Party’s agenda and policy goals are a recipe for National disaster.In a June 29, 2019 Op-Ed, the NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, seemingly grudgingly acknowledges that the Democratic Party agenda is well beyond the pale of anything acceptable to the vast majority of Americans, as he tellingly recounts the message of the Democratic Party candidates, as perceived by the vast majority of Americans. Stephens’ asserts, in pertinent part:“In this week’s Democratic debates, it wasn’t just individual candidates who presented themselves to the public. It was also the party itself. What conclusions should ordinary people draw about what Democrats stand for, other than a thunderous repudiation of Donald Trump, and how they see America, other than as a land of unscrupulous profiteers and hapless victims?Here’s what: a party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country. A party that puts more of its faith, and invests most of its efforts, in them instead of us.They speak Spanish. We don’t. They are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. We are. They broke the rules to get into this country. We didn’t. They pay few or no taxes. We already pay most of those taxes. They willingly got themselves into debt. We’re asked to write it off. They don’t pay the premiums for private health insurance. We’re supposed to give up ours in exchange for some V.A.-type nightmare. They didn’t start enterprises that create employment and drive innovation. We’re expected to join the candidates in demonizing the job-creators, breaking up their businesses and taxing them to the hilt.That was the broad gist of the Democratic message, in which the only honorable exceptions, like Maryland’s John Delaney and Colorado’s John Hickenlooper, came across as square dancers at a rave.On closer inspection, the message got even worse.Promising access to health insurance for north of 11 million undocumented immigrants at a time when there’s a migration crisis at the southern border? Every candidate at Thursday’s debate raised a hand for that one, in what was surely the evening’s best moment for the Trump campaign.Calling for the decriminalization of border crossings (while opposing a wall)? That was a major theme of Wednesday’s debate, underlining the Republican contention that Democrats are a party of open borders, limitless amnesty and, in time, the Third World-ization of America.Switching to Spanish? Memo to Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker: If you can’t speak the language without a heavy American accent, don’t bother. It just reminds those of us who can that the only thing worse than an obnoxious gringo is a pandering one.Eliminating private health insurance, an industry that employs more than 500,000 workers and insures 150 million? Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris support it (though the California senator later recanted the position). Since Democrats are already committed to destroying the coal industry and seem inclined to turn Silicon Valley into a regulated utility, it’s worth asking: Just how much of the private economy are they even willing to keep?”Keep in mind Brett Stephen’s account of what he perceives as the fears of “ordinary Americans” does hit the mark. It isn’t really hyperbole even if his intention was to be sarcastic. For, the fears of a Collectivist-Marxist Revolution in this Country are for us "ordinary Americans" very real, and we do in fact have good and justifiable reason to dread such a Revolution even if Brett Stephen and other New York Times contributors, reporters, editors, and the Times' publisher do not and are, in fact, active proponents of just such a Revolution, seeing it as a positive thing, as do the Progressive elements and the Radical Left in this society.So the sentiments expressed by the Democratic Party candidate hopefuls are those exulted by The New York Times and by other mainstream media organizations. Brett Stephens' concern and that of The New York Times staff is not that a true Collectivist-Marxist vision cannot be realized--for they fervently wish for it to happen--but that it will not transpire if the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential Candidates are too vocal about their plans for our Country, as they certainly were during the first two Debates. Far from alleviating the fears of the vast majority of Americans the candidates exacerbated those fears; and that would only ensure Trump's reelection to a Second Term in Office.Of course, the Democratic Party and The New York Times, along with the rest of the mainstream media have been articulating the goals and desires of the Democratic Party for a long time—in fact, ever since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office.What the NY Times finds objectionable, apparently, is that the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidates have, for the first time, in the Debates, articulated their message directly and forcefully to the American people--too forcefully; thereby threatening to lose, not gain or buttress a substantial portion of the Electorate to their cause, approving of a Collectivist-Marxist vision for the Nation.The Radical Left base certainly agrees with the creation of a Marxist regime, as do the millions of illegal aliens. The vast majority of the American citizenry, however, does not. The Radical Left base hopes for an end to the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation State, thereby finally realizing the Communist aim of a one-world Government. And the millions of illiterate, ignorant, and uneducated or poorly educated illegal aliens, for their part, are simply hoping that, with a Democratic-Socialist in Office, they can remain in the U.S.; even gain citizenship, and then be assured of a constant, consistent supply of handouts, subsidized by the American taxpayer. 

THE BILL OF RIGHTS WOULD BE IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY IF A DEMOCRAT DOES DEFEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE GENERAL ELECTION

The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their Bill of Rights constrained or abrogated. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their history rewritten; nor the founders slandered. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their legal system subordinated to foreign laws and tribunals, and their Nation subsumed into transnational system of governance. Brett Stephens and Andrew Cuomo, and Eric Swalwell are not those people.What people like Stephens, Cuomo, and Swalwell fear is an armed citizenry that through its very existence would fight to prevent and would be fully capable of preventing a Marxist-Collectivist takeover of the Country. Thus, they seek to disarm the public. Recall that Cuomo and his henchmen were the architects of the New York Safe Act that places a ban on the very firearms with which the American people can ward off the inception of tyranny. And Recall Swalwell's intention to confiscate all semiautomatic firearms in the hands of law-abiding, rational, average Americans.And, recall that NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, on two occasions, has called for repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In an October 5, 2017 Times Op-Ed, published a few days after the psychotic killer, Stephen Paddock, went on a shooting rampage, Brett Stephens didn’t mince words as he went about viciously attacking guns and gun ownership  and possession, making clear what it is he wants. The very title of his Op-Ed made clear his fervent wish: “Repeal the Second Amendment.”  He said, in part:“I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment. . . . the more closely one looks at what passes for ‘common sense’ gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn”** is the fate that soon awaits us.”And, if Americans didn’t get the message in Stephen’s first Times Op-Ed, he reiterated the message in a second Op-Ed, titled, “To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment,” that was published in The New York Times on February 16, 2018, after the Parkland High School tragedy.Stephen’s argument against gun ownership and possession is nothing new. Americans have heard the same tiresome message  countless times before, albeit delivered with more sense of urgency and ferocity, immediately after a tragedy involving firearms in the hands of psychotic or psychopathic killers: namely that society must get rid of guns, but that those Americans who wish to own and possess firearms need not fear, because it isn’t the intention of Stephens, and Cuomo, and Swalwell, and any of the other Radical Left elements in our Nation to take away all guns from citizens. They just want to take away some of them--and they want to add a little more scrutiny on those who really wish to possess them. And, eventually, these people want to confiscate most firearms from the American citizenry; and, eventually, they seek to confiscate all firearms, so that no one may own or possess a firearm lawfully without first obtaining a valid license, issued by the appropriate Government authority--rendering the Second Amendment de facto repealed, as gun ownership and possession would devolve into mere privilege; no longer a right. And those who possess them--the wealthy, powerful, "Elite" of society would--then, alone, have lawful access to firearms, rendering firearms' ownership a "status" symbol, like owning a Ferrari, but even rarer, as money alone would not be sufficient to own and possess firearms. Since a person would need to acquire a valid license, one would have to show that he has the appropriate Marxist political connections.So, we go back to the Radical Left's desire to effectively repeal the Second Amendment,  which Brett Stephens would like to do outright, as he expressly, blatantly calls for, and that Cuomo, Swalwell, and other antigun zealots at the moment themselves call for, but tacitly.In other words, no American citizen, according to people like Stephens, Cuomo and Swalwell, should own or possess firearms as a matter of right, but only as a matter of Government license and Government beneficience (granted to a very few) to the wealthy and powerful “elites” in society who have the correct attitude. Americans’ autonomy and self-determination comes to end once Government restrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is not conjecture. That is ice-cold fact._____________________________*It should come as little surprise, if at all, to anyone, that the Radical Left's push to remove the Statues and emblems of the Confederacy and their desecration of war memorials and symbols--all of which are a important component of our Nation's rich cultural history and heritage, and deserving of our respect--would not stop at that point.Now, it has come to light, on the eve of our sacred July 4 Holiday, celebrating our Nation's Declaration of Independence from tyranny, that further symbols of our heritage are denounced and denigrated. The footwear Company, Nike, that had  sought to honor our Nation by manufacturing a tennis shoe with a historical American Flag, consisting of Thirteen Stars, representing the original Thirteen American colonies, has scrubbed that effort.Why? The Company has done so because Colin Kaepernick--yes, that Colin Kaepernick who took a knee while our National Anthem was played just before commencement of the Super Bowl in January 2012--told the Company to do so, and Kaepernick who is on the Company payroll, doing Advertisements for Nike, apparently has the clout to compel Nike to do his bidding. Kaepernick claims that the Thirteen Starred Flag represents racism. It does?One may find evil in the most innocuous of things if one has the mind to do so. According to a spokeswoman for Nike, as reported by The New York Times, in its Wednesday, July 3, 2019 newspaper:"Nike had made the decision to 'halt distribution' of the [commemorative Fourth of July] sneaker 'based on concerns that it could unintentionally offend and detract from the nation's patriotic holiday.'"That is an incredibly odd and duplicitous remark. How can an emblem of our Nation's history possibly detract from the "nation's patriotic holiday." There is obviously much more at play here. The Marxists and Anarchists among us slowly but incessantly and inexorably chisel away at our Nation's sacred symbols, emblems, and memorabilia. And, they attack honorable men, not just General Robert E. Lee and others who happened to represent the South during the American Civil War, but also our Nation's founders, not least of which include the Nation's First U.S. President, George Washington, and the Nation's Third U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson.Ostensibly, the attack on people and symbols of our Nation's history is grounded on issues of morality. That may sound plausible to some, if at first and cursory glance, but, there is something much more sinister taking place here. For the Radical Left and the Anarchists have a sordid, devious, and diabolical game plan that rests at the heart of their actions and antics, well beyond the stated concern of forcing "political correctness" on the public merely for its own sake.By denigrating historical personages, symbols and emblems and successfully seeking their removal from public spaces and eradication from our history books, these reprobates seek to induce amnesia in the mind and psyche of the American public, erasing all memory of our Nation's rich cultural history and heritage. Thus, they mean to destroy our Nation and its Constitution. The U.S is to become, then, to be perceived, not as an independent and Sovereign Nation State, but as little more than a geographical region of space, subsumed into a vast transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, cultural, and legal sphere of governance and influence. That goal becomes easier to accomplish once a Nation loses its National identity and ancestral memory. The overseers of the EU are attempting to exert control of the populations of the quasi-independent member Nation States, deliberately, diabolically attempting to undermine National identity, along with a Nation's sense of culture and history, unique to itself; substituting National identity with an amorphous identity with the EU, notwithstanding differences in language and historicity, going back centuries. And Brussels is suffering a backlash as a result. The Radical Left is copying the EU's playbook, by attempting to scrub clean our ancestral memory, inducing collective amnesia on the Nation. One major problem for the Radical Left is the existence of our Nation's unique Bill of Rights. A Marxist Revolution cannot succeed unless the Bill of Rights is destroyed. Thus, the Radical Left attacks it, sometimes subtly, sometimes not.It is, for example, much easier to constrain free speech if one forgets that, once upon a time, people were able to speak their minds, freely, openly, without threat of physical attack and verbal condemnation. And, it is easier to disarm the public if the public is induced to forget that, once upon a time, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not and could not be infringed. The Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists, intend to reduce the sum total of our Nation's history and rich cultural heritage to mere legend. In time, that legend will become myth; eventually fairy tale, and ultimately completely erased from all memory. That is what they want. That is the real import and purport of their desire to destroy symbols, artifacts, emblems, and accounts of our Nation's great founders, leaders, and military officers. For, once erased, their vision of a New World Order can finally take shape and be realized. If a people cannot recall what they once were, they cannot fret over and dwell over what they have lost. And, they become more amenable to change, believing whatever it is that they are told to believe--and accepting their new world as right, and just, and proper. This becomes far, far easier to accomplish with children, as they need not be induced to forget a past they had never known. Their heads can be filled with the dry rot of Collectivist precepts at the get-go of their primary school education. **The original movie, titled, “Red Dawn,” released in 1984, and starring Patrick Swayse, Charlie Sheen, and Lea Thompson, concerns an invasion of the U.S. by Soviet forces, supported by unnamed Central and/or South American and possibly Mexican Communist military forces. The protagonists are high school students in some generic area of rural America, who, operating as a well-armed partisan, guerrilla force, attack the invaders. It is odd, though, that Brett Stephens would refer to the 1984 movie as some sort of fantasy wish. Why would any American in their right mind look forward to the invasion of our Nation simply so they have an opportunity to engage in warfare on the home front. That would hardly amount to play acting.Actually, the greater threat to this Nation, as the Arbalest Quarrel, has made patently clear, as a central theme in its articles, is not the threat of Russian, or even Chinese interference in our elections. The true threat derives from within the Nation, and through a seditious Press, and through political and Grassroots elements taking their cue from and monies from wealthy, powerful Globalists within the EU (our Allies?) who seek to weaken our Constitution and to destroy our National Sovereignty, in order to drive us into the throes of a Global Conglomerate, controlled, politically, economically, socially, culturally and legally by a hidden power elite. What we face is a new world order; what the writer Sheldon S. Wolin, in his in his sociological and political science work on  titled,“Democracy, Inc.,” refers to as “Inverted Totalitarianism” which, as he says, consists of a “blend of powers,” wielded by a small group of “elite” forces; at once impenetrable, secluded, unapproachable, faceless and omnipotent, answerable to no one but themselves; operating in accordance with their own personal trans-global, neoliberal economic interests and in support of their own inscrutable and pathological supranational political, social, cultural, and militaristic goals; altogether at odds with the precepts of our Constitutional Republic, and oblivious to the concerns and interests of the American citizenry.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CUOMO, SWALWELL, AND OTHERS OF THE RADICAL LEFT INTEND TO OBLITERATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS, COMMENCING WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

PART ELEVEN

Radical Left elements, with the connivance of the mainstream news media—the Dead Souls existing among us—slowly, methodically, systematically work toward completing their Marxist agenda, notwithstanding the failure to install their candidate, the duplicitous, innately evil Hillary Clinton, in the White House. But, to make their abominable policy objectives palatable to a wary, discerning American public, this Radical Left realizes the need to control the narrative and to foreclose debate on all Second Amendment related matters, and on any other matter that touches upon their policy goals. And, so, through mass, repetitious story-telling, the most ludicrous of proposed changes to our Nation and to its Constitution become commonplace and then accepted as normal and proper. They have their own tenets, their own set of principals, their own Commandments: right out of the Marxist Playbook.A compliant Press, sold on the idea of a Marxist style Amerika, willing to take—indeed, ecstatically taking— marching orders from the Marxist enterprise that the Democratic Party has slowly, inexorably, systematically, and inevitably devolved into and that, in turn, likely takes its orders design from the extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, and innately corrupt, ruthless, and decadent Rothschild clan, dispensing its orders and edicts through its apparatchiks ensconced in their plush offices in Brussels—has focused all of its attention on denouncing, ridiculing, debasing, vilifying, and destroying the duly elected U.S. President, Donald Trump.Disrupting Trump at every turn has been the raison d’être of the mainstream Press since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office on January 20, 2017. The mainstream media Press and Democratic Party leadership, along with most of the rank and file Party membership and the Deep State Federal Government Bureaucracy, and with the acquiescence of not a few Republicans, has sought to disrupt Donald Trump and his Administration at every turn, lest Trump continue to sully their plans: plans that go far beyond orchestration of a mere Center Left-wing agenda for the Country. For, the forces at work both within the U.S. and outside it, intend something much more ambitious and horrific.This ruthless lot intends to capture the United States, drawing it, kicking and screaming, if need be, into the orbit of the EU. These Radical Left reprobates intend to force the United States into the arms of EU’s planners: those orchestrating a New World Order; relegating the United States into one of many vassal States—like the Nations of Europe—a mere appendage of a transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, legal, and cultural system of governance—a post Nation State world; a mammoth, insatiable beast that gobbles up Nations whole, and reduces populations to abject poverty and servitude. For Americans this means the end of personal freedom and personal autonomy; the end of the right of the individual to be individual, to control one’s own destiny, to remain free from Government interference.These Godless, ruthless overseers of men, controllers of human thought and action, dare dismiss out-of-hand the very truth inherent in the concept of preexisting natural rights. These ruthless Dead Souls would dare to destroy exercise of the the fundamental rights of Americans—the foundation of one’s physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual Self and of one's aspirations: the core of the Bill of Rights. These include the right of free expression and association, the right of free exercise of religion, the right of the people to be free from unreasonable Government searches and seizures, and, most importantly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, especially and singularly, sustains, nurtures, and ensures all the others, sanctifying one’s God-given right of self-defense and God-given right to defend one’s physical, intellectual, and spiritual Self against all State encroachment that, given its nature, would seek, must seek, to crush the individual into submission.The framers of the Constitution of the United States knew full well the danger of a powerful, overbearing centralized authority. Having thrown off the yoke of one such authority, they had no wish, if unintentionally, to create another. They were faced with a conundrum: how to establish a centralized Government strong enough to withstand attacks from outside the Nation but constrained from usurping its formidable power to subjugate the citizenry within the Nation?The Constitution the framers of our Nation hammered out is a testament to their diligence and ingenuity. The blueprint for a Constitutional Republic that the framers designed is unlike that existent in any other Nation on this Earth, existing either before or since the creation of the United States. The framers of our Constitution, the founders of our Constitutional Republic, created and implemented a Governmental structure for our Nation that, to the extent possible, responds to the dilemma they were faced with.This is made abundantly, categorically, and transparently clear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: the framers of our Constitution asserted that it is Government that exists to serve the American people and not the people that serve Government. The American people themselves are, then, the true and sole and ultimate authority; sovereign ruler; and final arbiter of the Nation:“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”It is “We the People” that do “form” the Nation. Does a Constitution or other Government forming document of any other Nation on Earth make this claim? And, if so, does the Constitution or other Government forming document of any other Nation on Earth establish the fact—in the language and in the context of that Nation's Constitution or other Government forming document, and not as mere platitude—that it is the people of the Nation themselves that create their Nation and who are therefore the ultimate authority, power, and arbiter of and for their Nation? Not likely.Combing the records for any Constitution or other Government forming document of any other Nation, confederation of Nations, or aggregation of regions will fail to yield anything remotely like our own U.S. Constitution, or one that has endured for so long as ours has.The framers of our Constitution created a centralized “federal” Government that would only be permitted to wield specific power. Thus, such power that the federal Government wields is limited. The primary roles of Government--Legislative, Executive, and Judicial--is exercised by three independent Branches, thus effectively checking the power of any other Branch, and preventing Government from growing ever more powerful. And the nature and extent of the power and authority of each Branch is established clearly and categorically.No Branch is permitted to usurp the power of any other Branch, nor override the power of any other Branch; nor is any Branch of the federal Government permitted to acquiesce to another Branch. Each Branch of the federal Government is constrained to exercise such powers and to wield such authority as precisely prescribed to it in the Constitution’s Articles; and to exercise no other power; nor wield more authority than the powers set for that Branch, as set forth in the Articles.And, to further check the power of the fledgling Nation’s Government, which, given the nature of the beast to accumulate more and more power for itself, if left unchecked, the framers incorporated into the Constitution a Bill of Rights. But, this Bill of Rights was nothing like that existing in any other Nation that happened to have one at all. For our Bill of Rights is not a collection of rights and liberties created by Government.Our Bill of Rights is a codification of preexisting rights intrinsic in each living soul. Our Bill of Rights is not mere platitude, niceties, inconsequential pleasantries, or whimsical touches, expressing, at best, a Nation's honorable intention but having no real effect other than what a Government wishes to give to it. No! the rights codified in our Nation's Bill of Rights is much, much more. Our Bill of Rights comprises affirmations of powers inherent in the American people themselves, preexistent, immutable, indestructible; unalienable;  existing before Government, and beyond the power of Government to lawfully tamper with. And, they are "real powers," not phantoms; They are powers that the framers of the Constitution expected the American people to exercise readily; and to do so in order to effectively corral the Beast--the federal Government. Yet, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and the other progressive and radical Leftist elements do not see the Bill of Rights in that way. They fail to realize and to appreciate the salient fact that the rights codified in the Bill of Rights were not created by the framers of the Constitution; they are simply assertions of rights intrinsic in the soul of each American, and, they need not have been incorporated into the Constitution, but were done so--at the behest of those among the framers who were most prescient, the Antifederalists--to serve as a constant reminder to those who wield power in Government that it is, not them, but the American people who ultimately are in charge. For, it is, after all, their Nation, and the Government belongs to them, to serve them.Those who wield power in Government must remember that it is they who are the servants of the American people; and not the American people who serve them.Yet, we see in the political pronouncements of Cuomo, Swalwell and others, constant efforts to deceive the public, as they beseech the public to relinquish their sacred rights and liberties under the guise of doing so to protect the public, as if the public needs their protection, an arrogant attitude of its own. In truth, they intend to weaken the public, in order to effectively control it, subjugate it. And, to accomplish that end, they must destroy the Bill of Rights. And, to do that, they must somehow convince the public that the Bill of Rights is nothing more than a collection of man-made rights--some good, some not so good, and some, like the right set forth in the Second Amendment, altogether, bad--and all requiring modification, reinterpretation, or outright abrogation. These radical Left elements have, in recent years, become very vocal in their antipathy toward our Nation's Bill of Rights, as they have become ever more frustrated with their inability to transform the Nation into a Marxist, Collectivist construct, to be subsumed eventually into the EU and, thence, into a one-world, unified system of Governance.Radical Left-wing politicians and media personnel dare openly to call for restraints on speech and on freedom of association among the polity; abridgment of the free exercise of religion; abrogation of the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; encroachment on the right to own and possess personal property; and outright eradication of the Second Amendment, audaciously refusing to accept the simple truth of an individual right of the American people to keep and bear arms: and contemptuous then of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald.Cuomo, Swalwell, and the rest of the sordid lot, engage in heresy and sedition and do so openly, bombastically, endlessly. They adamantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of fundamental, preexisting, immutable, unalienable rights; intrinsic to and preexistent in each American citizen and therefore beyond the power of Government to modify, ignore, or abrogate.These Dead Souls endorse the false notion that our Nation's Governmental structure is easily transformable. It isn't and should not be. And these Dead Souls argue that our rights and liberties are infinitely malleable. They aren't and cannot be. But, the false belief allows them to maintain our Nation’s Governmental structure can be manipulated to suit their ends and that our sacred rights and liberties can be modified or abrogated to conform to their vision of reality in a particular moment of time.People like Cuomo and Swalwell are the very manifestation of the real fear our founders rightfully felt could one day doom our Country: that arrogant, ruthless individuals from within our Nation would dare wrest control of the Nation from the American people. And so the framers incorporated the Bill of Rights into our Constitution, and made certain that the Nation's citizenry would be able, in accordance with their God-given right, to be well armed.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a constant reminder to Cuomo and Swalwell and the rest of them, that a metamorphosis of our Nation into a Collectivist, Marxist nightmare they and other Radicals envision is not so easy to manifest in reality. Thus, they seek to destroy the sacred right that stands in their way—which the framers of our Constitution intended to stand in the way of all those who would dare usurp power for themselves.Cuomo and Swalwell and the rest of the Radical Left continue to debase, damn, and ridicule both the Second Amendment and those who support it. In doing so, they aptly illustrate their condemnation of, disgust with, contempt for, and outright abhorrence of a Governmental structure—a Constitutional Republic, predicated on and defended by an armed citizenry—that they cannot square with the tenets of their radical, Collectivist, Marxist belief system, and which they cannot and will not, then, ever abide by.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO'S HATRED OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT KNOWS NO BOUNDS

PART TEN

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo hates guns, all kinds of guns. He hates them with a passion. His vehement disdain for these inanimate objects rests on the ground that, as he perceives it, they serve no legitimate or useful purpose. Guns do kill, of course. That fact isn’t to be denied. But, there is a huge difference between guns in the hands of criminals and lunatics, on the one hand, and guns in the hands of law-abiding, trained individuals, on the other—a world of difference that antigun zealots don’t seem to recognize or appreciate; or, if they do, then it is something they simply refuse to acknowledge.Criminals and lunatics use guns to threaten life and to destroy innocent life. Law-abiding rational citizens use guns to thwart threats by criminals and lunatics, in order to protect their life and other innocent life.  The mainstream media and antigun zealots invariably conflate the two or otherwise skirt this critical difference. Why do they do this? They do so because drawing attention to a clear and obvious difference between misuse of guns by criminals and lunatics, on the one hand, and the proper, lawful use of guns for self-defense by the law-abiding citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t fit the false and shameless narrative antigun zealots wish to convey: that no concrete difference exists between proper lawful use and improper illegal use of firearms.According to the antigun zealots’ running narrative, the very existence of guns threaten the well-being, cohesion, and order of society; so, for them, it doesn’t matter who has them. The idea expressed through the tale spun, and constantly, tediously regurgitated for public consumption, is patently false, even if it seems superficially sound.Firearms will invariably make their way into the hands of criminals and lunatics; and, even if that were not so, nonetheless the criminal element and lunatic fringe will always exist, threatening the life and well-being of everyone else through the use of one implement or another—be it knife, hammer, baseball bat, or anything else. It is, therefore, only with a firearm—the best means of self-defense at the disposal of the average, freedom-loving, law-abiding, American citizen—that real threats to life and safety will ever be effectively thwarted.Not infrequently off-duty police officers, in civilian garb, have protected their own life with a firearm when confronted by a would-be assailant, when that would-be assailant is unaware his targeted victim is an armed police officer. The tables are quickly turned on the assailant. But, even if they acknowledge that police officers have, often enough, defended their own life and well-being with a firearm, when off-duty, nonetheless, they refuse to recommend similar protection for the average law-abiding civilian citizen, notwithstanding that the life of an off-duty police officer, and the life of prominent politicians and of wealthy individuals who can afford armed guards, or who have armed guards assigned to them, are treated differently and better than the rest of us.Thus, Cuomo and other Radical Leftists refuse even so much as to acknowledge, even if grudgingly, the benefits a firearm affords the average law-abiding citizen. After all, they have a fairy tale to tell the public. And it is that the armed citizen is somehow less safe when confronted by an assailant and that society, too, is more threatened by an armed citizenry.Removing firearms from the hands of the average, honest, rational, law-abiding American citizen is their raison d'etre. So, Cuomo and the Radical Left elements that comprise antigun groups continue their call for ever more restrictive gun laws; weaving a fable--one consistent with both the tenets of Collectivism and with their own warped political, social, and ethical view of society and of the role and place of the citizen in that society. The Second Amendment is an anathema to them. Thus, they seek no less than the eventual destruction of the Second Amendment.It is the American citizenry, itself, that antigun zealots, like Cuomo, seek to disarm; it isn't the criminal element and the occasional lunatic they are really intent on disarming. If Cuomo's true aim and that of the Radical Left, pertaining to gun ownership and gun possession, remains hidden, then it is hidden in plain view.Denying criminals and lunatics access to guns is merely the pretext to placate the public—a make-believe tale concocted—to make the call for stringent arms control palatable to non-discerning members of the populace, even as the public is made less safe and even as that goal is wholly incompatible with the clear, import, purport, and categorical imperative of the Second Amendment—that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed.The plain fact of the matter is that Cuomo and other Progressives and Radical Leftists do not truly consider the Bill of Rights to be a salient component of the Constitution. Yet, the Ten Amendments, that comprise our Bill of Rights, must be taken together, as the framers intended, as one, unified whole, and an integral and critical component of the U.S. Constitution. Cuomo and those who agree with is political and social philosophy play with the Ten Amendments, pretending that these Ten Amendments—fundamental, primordial, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator—are, in their inception, nothing more than man-made constructions, not unlike any Congressional Statute, which they are not. But, this is the tacit assumption and fiction that informs all the policy decisions and aims of Cuomo, and of the other Radical Leftists, who hold to, and place their faith in, the tenets of Collectivism.These Collectivists assume, WRONGLY, that the original Ten Amendments, are capable of being lawfully modified, weakened, and, in some instances, as with the Second Amendment, even abrogated, erased, altogether obliterated, on the ground, as they believe, and as they argue, albeit erroneously, and even implausibly, to the perceptive American citizen, that the Second Amendment has no context in a modern society. Yet, in the same breath, these Radical Leftists and progressive elements in our midst, claim, ingenuously, to support the Constitution.How often have New York residents heard this third-term Governor, Cuomo, bombastically asserting that he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, even as his actions invariably belie his words? Governor Cuomo, and others who express his sentiments, reject the Second Amendment out-of-hand—a critical component of and, in fact, one of the most important components of the Constitution, as a Free Republic would not, could not, long exist without it. Yet, Cuomo and others of his political and social persuasion couldn’t care less about the Constitution, even as they exclaim, disingenuously and hypocritically, that they do.

ANDREW CUOMO IS ABSOLUTELY APOPLECTIC ABOUT BOTH GUNS AND CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF GUNS

Americans must not forget that Cuomo’s obsession with guns, generally, and with civilian ownership and possession of guns, particularly, isn’t something he concocted out-of-the-blue, and it didn't happen yesterday. Having been able to use his State, New York, as a test-bed for his radical antigun policies to play out, Cuomo’s attack on the Second Amendment commenced many years ago, on January 1, 2011, during his first term in Office. Cuomo’s agenda then took shape over time, rapidly gathering steam, during the course of his first four-year term in Office, as New York’s Governor. Let Americans be ever mindful of that.As reported by the weblog Observer, in an article published on January 9, 2013, titled, 'Cuomo Vows to 'Enact the Toughest Assault Weapon Ban in the Nation, Period!'“One of the most hotly anticipated elements of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s annual State of the State address today [to the New York Legislature, delivered on Jan 9, 2013] was his plan to enact ‘sweeping’ gun control reforms in New York. In his speech, the governor outlined a seven-point gun control plan focused on “high-capacity assault rifles” that he promised would be one of the ‘toughest’ in the nation and lead similar laws to spread beyond New York.‘Gun violence has been on a rampage as we know firsthand and as we know painfully,’ said the governor. ‘We must stop the madness, my friends. In one word, it’s just ‘enough.’ It has been enough. We need a gun policy in this state that is reasonable, that is balanced, that is measured. . . .’ The governor outlined the items on his seven-point gun plan.‘Number one: Enact the toughest assault weapon ban in the nation, period!' he shouted, before ticking off his other new gun control proposals. 'Number two, close the private sale loophole by requiring federal background checks. Number three, ban high-capacity magazines. Number four, enact tougher penalties for illegal gun use, guns in school grounds and violent gangs. Number five, keep guns from people who are mentally ill. Number six, ban direct internet sales of ammunition in New York. Number seven, create a state [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check on all ammunition purchases.’ [To this 7 Point list, we can now add, Cuomo’s 8th Point: “On Monday, February 25, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Red Flag Bill into law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He was joined by many of his colleagues in New York State government, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to celebrate this new legislation, the first in the nation of its kind. . . .” (Source: John Jay College of Criminal Justice), Governor Andrew Cuomo predicting the rest of the country will follow New York’s lead and adopt stiffer gun laws].‘New York State led the way on guns once before. It was the Sullivan’s law of 1911, which was the first-in-the-nation gun control law. A model law’ he explained. [But, is the Sullivan law something to be proud about, really? See, New York Post article on this subject: “The Strange Birth of New York’s Gun law,” published January 16, 2012] ‘I know that the issue of gun control is hard. I know that it’s political. I know it’s controversial,’ the governor said, his voice rising with every word. ‘I say to you, forget the extremists! It’s simple: no one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer! Too many innocent people have died already! End this madness now!’By the end of the speech, the governor was shouting.” Cuomo never intended his antigun agenda to be confined to one State. His agenda was much more ambitious. On October 30, 2015, The New York Times exclaimed, in an article titled, "Cuomo Planning Role in National Gun Control Campaign," that Cuomo anticipated national attention.  “ ‘The political climate is right again for action,’ ” said Mr. Cuomo, who has endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president. He added, ‘The appetite is there, I think, in the presidential election, especially in the Democratic primary but also in the general election.’ ”  Well, that didn’t come to pass and Governor Cuomo obviously never forgave Donald Trump for having had the audacity to win the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereby dashing Cuomo’s hope of implementation of a National NY Safe Act—dashing Cuomo's hope of adding an important feather in “Chief Cuomo’s" own headdress. See article in the weblog, "Syracuse," posted on April 29, 2019, titled, "Cuomo to Trump on gun violence: You have done nothing but tweet."Don’t for a moment think that the incessant, vicious, virulent attack on the Second Amendment won't factor as a major issue in the upcoming 2020 U.S. Presidential election, as Democrats gear up for the debates, beginning this month. It most definitely will.Eric Swalwell and Kamala Harris, especially, have made “gun control” a salient component of their campaigns; and Cuomo will, no doubt, be cheering them on, all the way, hoping for National attention on the "gun issue," for himself, if he is able to insinuate himself into the National Democratic Party machinery, with the aim of seeing the New York Safe Act becoming the Law of the Land.Feeling that he has been cheated out of that goal, in 2016, with the defeat of Hillary Clinton, Cuomo is certainly looking for redemption in 2020. And, he may very well obtain it, if, God-forbid, a Democrat should defeat Trump in 2020.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ONLY GODLESS RADICAL LEFT PROGRESSIVES WOULD CONSIDER NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO’S LATE TERM AT-WILL ABORTION ACT A GODSEND

PART NINE

“ ‘The Reproductive Health Act is a historic victory for New Yorkers and for our progressive values. In the face of a federal government intent on rolling back Roe v. Wade and women’s reproductive rights, I promised that we would enact this critical legislation within the first 30 days of the new session—and we got it done. I am directing that New York's landmarks be lit in pink to celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow.’” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s boastful, defiant comment, as he preens before the cameras, having just signed into law, on January 22, 2019, New York’s abominable, Reproductive Health Act—a law that permits at-will abortion under any and all circumstances that heretofore amounted to Manslaughter under New York law.* Quotation obtained from the Daily WireWhat Lord Cuomo giveth, Lord Cuomo doth taketh away. So, this presumed preserver of life is very much the destroyer of life. Less Saint, more Sinner, except to his besotted flock of worshipers, Cuomo seems to be a permanent fixture in New York City. And Cuomo gloats over this "achievement," as reported by the Governor's own news source, just as he had gloated over enactment of the New York Safe Act, years earlier. The number of human beings murdered every year through abortion dwarfs the number of Americans  who lost their lives through the horrific attack on our Country by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001; and dwarfs the number of Americans who lost their lives through the reprehensible Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.**In 2016, alone, over 87,000 abortions took place in New York, as reported by abort. 73.com, citing statistics of the New York State Department of Health.*** Reflect on this: that number, 87,000, is the number of human lives that were destroyed in New York before enactment of the Reproductive Health Act. How many abortions will occur in 2019 and in subsequent years in the State of New York, given that abortion, in New York, under any circumstances, is, henceforth, no longer a crime?**** That number will most certainly skyrocket with enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, especially now that abortion, under any circumstances, is no longer a crime in New York, as any reference to abortion as a crime has been repealed in every section of the Penal Code of New York; and New York's Police Coroners are now forbidden to investigate any incidence of abortion. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, "A License to Kill," Part Eight of this series, for details on the State Legislature's changes to New York law, mandated by the Reproductive Health Act.Too bad the Nation cannot quarantine this man, Andrew Cuomo, (Governor of New York), as a carrier of virulent plague, and quarantine, as well, those who share his bizarre world view—his base that, perennially, is of one mind with the idea that an unborn child is just one of many non-sentient body organs to be disposed of at whim.

ABORTION IS AN ABOMINATION

There is nothing pretty about abortion. That is a fact that those who argue for abortion, especially who no are pushing even for late term abortion, up to the very moment of birth, do not want the American public to know. Not surprisingly, the mainstream Press doesn't even hint at the horrors of late term abortion, fearing a massive public outcry and backlash. But, the Ghouls that seek to censor the horrific facts of late term abortion cannot control the entirety of the Web, at least at this present moment in time, much as they would like do so; albeit they have obtained Court Orders blocking the few major cable news networks that would otherwise report the sordid details. Still, abortion-rights fanatics cannot censor every news resource. View this video clip, provided by Abyssum.org; and this, from Lifesite; and this one from the Daily Wire. And, there are many more.Yet, despite the horror of abortion, the Dead Souls, the God Denying Atheists of the Radical Left, sing Cuomo’s praises with ebullient comments. The National Institute of Reproductive Health (NIRH) President, Andrea Miller gushes:“Today, Governor Cuomo recommitted to passing the Reproductive Health Act within the first 30 days of the new session – a position supported by New York voters who in November delivered a mandate to pass the RHA. . . . New Yorkers need and deserve stronger laws to protect their reproductive freedoms and enshrine them into state  NIRH applauds Governor Cuomo for recognizing that access to abortion care is a fundamental right, and for his promise to advance that right through New York law. Through our recently launched campaign to build grassroots support throughout the Hudson Valley and Long Island and raise awareness of and swiftly pass the RHA, NIRH looks forward to continuing our work with Governor Cuomo to turn this bill into law as soon as possible.” Miller also said this: “Governor Cuomo has tirelessly advocated for a woman’s access to quality reproductive health care, especially in the face of hostile attacks from the president, U.S. Congress and Supreme Court. Today, in signing the RHA, the CCCA, and the Boss Bill, he has cemented New York’s role as a progressive stronghold that prioritizes access to abortion care and contraception.” Planned Parenthood of New York adds its sentiments, writing:“Planned Parenthood of New York City applauds advocates and the New York State Legislature who today moved our state forward with milestone legislation securing sexual and reproductive health care and rights, including passing a groundbreaking bill updating New York’s abortion law for the first time since the law was originally passed in 1970.” A pro-abortion advocate and defender of late term abortions, Monica Klein, founding partner of the radical Left-wing Group, Seneca Strategies, one-time communications director for Mayor de Blasio’s re-election campaign in 2017, and regional press secretary for the Clinton campaign in Ohio in 2016 (according to her Bio), happened to be interviewed on Tucker Carlson, a few months ago. When asked about late term abortions, Klein refused to discuss the horror of infanticide. Instead she sarcastically, caustically attacked Tucker Carlson on his own program. Her facial mannerisms, in the video clip are telling: acutely disrespectful.And, the Left-wing weblog, HuffPost, apparently thinks Monica Klein’s behavior is not only acceptable, but commendable.In fact, abortion on demand is, or certainly will be, a principal platform of the Democratic Party going into the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. And each of the candidates hoping for the Party's nomination for U.S. President in 2020 are falling all over themselves, establishing their unqualified support for abortion--all that is but for Joe Biden, who is attempting to cast himself as an apparent hold-out centrist candidate. But, in Biden's present support of the Hyde Amendment, he has thereby incurred the wrath of abortion rights zealots. The Hill reports, "Former Vice President Joe Biden infuriated abortion rights advocates Wednesday when his campaign confirmed he supports a policy that blocks Medicaid and other federal health programs from paying for abortions, making him the only Democratic presidential candidate to hold that position.Biden's support of the the Hyde Amendment puts him at odds with party leaders, congressional Democrats and his 2020 competitors amid growing momentum to repeal the federal prohibition."That, at any rate, was Biden's position up to June 5, 2019. But, wait! Biden just reversed course. The New York Times reports, now, on June 6, 2019, that:"After two days of intense criticism, Joseph R. Biden Jr. reversed himself Thursday night on one of the issues most important to Democratic voters, saying he no longer supports a measure that bans federal funding for most abortions." This change of heart should come as a surprise to no one. We see politicians, generally, and Democrats in particular, routinely changing their position on the issues. They claim they were wrong, before, as for example, on the immigration issue, and they are correct, after; that their new position accurately reflects their "real" position. That is, of course, until they change their position once again, ever again, as they have a mind to do, with disturbing regularity and frequency.The fact of the matter is that these jackasses do not hold a consistent position on anything, even though, at any given moment of time, when you find them proselytizing, they claim to hold a firm and unyielding position on everything. It would've been refreshing if Joe Biden had the decency, at least, to be honest with his remarks to the American citizenry. He could have stated that he espouses no particular view on the killing of unborn human beings. The public could have, then at least, respected him for his honesty; for having demonstrated the courage to admit the simple truth, namely that he doesn't care; that, in fact, he couldn't care less, one way or the other, about the life of an unborn child. But, then, honesty isn't Biden's strong suit. Biden must revert to form, namely that of a slug. He must engage in pretense. He must provide a pathetic rationale for his "U-Turn" on the Hyde Amendment--an utterly implausible 180 degree turn, especially as Biden proffers it just a few days after having clearly, succinctly, categorically, and unequivocally asserted his support for the Hyde Amendment. So, then, are we supposed to believe the truth of Biden's earlier statement, or are we supposed to believe the truth of his later statement? Or, for that matter, should we believe what it is that this man has to say about anything at all? Well, there is one thing that the public can reasonably take to be true about Biden, and that is his desire to secure his Party's nomination for U.S. President; and that, of course, is the only thing the rest of the disgusting horde of Democratic Party candidates, vying for their Party's nomination care about, as well. To that end, Joe Biden, and the rest of this odious bunch will say and do anything.And so, Biden reverts to form, namely that of a spineless slug, as he offers a pathetic, implausible, and, in fact, ludicrous, rationale for his seeming reasonable change of heart on the Hyde Amendment.The Hill had this to say about Joe Biden's flip-flop:"Democratic presidential hopeful former Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday he no longer supports the Hyde Amendment, just one day after reaffirming his decades-long support for the ban on federal funding for abortions.'If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's ZIP code,' he said at a Democratic National Committee gala in Atlanta.Biden cited abortion restrictions recently passed by Republican governors for his change in position. 'I can't justify leaving millions of women without the access to care they need, and the ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right,' he said.The presidential front-runner added that he makes 'no apologies'  for his previous support for the Hyde Amendment [of course not, after all Joe Biden is slug]."But circumstances have changed. I've been working through the final details of my health care plan like others in this race, and I've been struggling with the problems that Hyde now presents," he said. Biden’s presidential campaign had said Wednesday that he still supported the controversial ban.The news sparked intense blowback from members of his party, including fellow presidential hopefuls, who criticized Biden for maintaining his stance amid a spate of abortion restrictions passing state legislatures.  The remarks also drew criticism from women's health and abortion rights groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.Planned Parenthood CEO Leana Wen lauded Biden's announcement on Twitter.'Happy to see Joe Biden embrace what we have long known to be true: Hyde blocks people—particularly women of color and women with low incomes—from accessing safe, legal abortion care,' Wen wrote."And, we are supposed to take Biden at this word? But, think about this: "safe, legal abortion care?" Safe for whom? Definitely, not for the unborn child, who is unceremoniously and perfunctorily dispensed with like so much detritus. And, "legal" by what standard? Such makeshift expedient that is less law and more perversion and travesty, a thing merely masquerading as "law." And, the public is expected to kowtow to this sacrilege; to accept this out-of-hand, without recourse, without question, without debate?Clearly, the radical elements in society, who would dare turn law and morality on its head, don’t want debate, and, having essentially taken over the mainstream Press and the Democratic Party, they wish to shut down debate on all political, social, ethical, and legal issues; and that includes their refusal to discuss the issue of late-term abortion. They absolutely, adamantly, shamelessly, refuse to take well justified criticisms of their positions head-on, which they would clearly lose, given the unsoundness of their positions. They instead invoke fallacious straw man arguments and red herrings in an illogical, irrational attempt to make a case for the killing of the unborn child.And, especially in matters of the killing of an unborn child, these fanatics, these Dead Souls, prefer to use, and they invariably resort to indiscriminate use of, verbal slurs, insults, snubs, barbs, and rebuffs, even physical altercations against all those who disagree with them. That is how they proceed to make their case, ever preferring the use of vitriol and violence to that of calm and open discussion, as we see in this Lifenews clip. Threats of physical violence and actual physical violence, outbursts of vitriol and venom, and the use of harsh emotional rhetoric, devoid of rational, deliberate, intellectual substance is, after all, really all these Dead Souls have in their tool chest.And, where, in all of this, is the calm, reasoned, but forceful voice of Pope Francis to refute and rebuke these Radical Left fanatics, and to refute and rebuke, especially, the fanatic, Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, a Roman Catholic no less, who has cajoled, coerced, and maneuvered the New York State Legislature into turning at-will, late term abortion--heretofore a serious crime, manslaughter--into a lawful act! 

THE PONTIFF IS NOTICEABLY SILENT ABOUT THE HORROR OF NEW YORK’S AT-WILL ABORTION POLICY, NOW THE LAW THROUGHOUT NEW YORK

Pope Francis refuses to speak out against Governor Cuomo, by name; and he refuses to attack specific abortion policies, particularly the abhorrent the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, that has now been enacted into law. Of course, if Pope Francis did speak out, it follows that Governor Cuomo must be excommunicated from the Church, as, indeed, many Catholics have called for; and this is the takeaway from Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s own righteous denunciation of Governor Cuomo, as referenced in the National Catholic Register. See also this Fox News clip.It isn't by accident that  Pope Francis has remained reticent—apparently not willing and not prepared to take on a Governor of a major City in the United States, head-on.But, by doing nothing, by remaining noticeably silent, Pope Francis, as the religious leader of well over one billion Roman Catholics, has essentially acquiesced to the Governor of New York and to others like him. Pope Francis could could have denounced Andrew Cuomo, without suffering international backlash since the Governor is, after all, a Roman Catholic. He isn't an Islamist or a Jew, even though abortion is reprehensible to adherents of those mainstream religious faiths as well.The Pope would clearly have been targeting someone within the Roman Catholic faith, whose words and actions are inconsistent with Roman Catholicism. And, as a Roman Catholic, Andrew Cuomo's words and actions fall, then, squarely within the purview and jurisdiction of the Pope, on all matters having a spiritual nexus. And the matter of abortion certainly has that. What then explains the Pontiff's reticence in condemning Cuomo's words and actions. After all, Governor Cuomo bears personal, grave, and ultimate responsibility, for enactment of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 as he was always the driving force for it and behind it.But, Pope Francis may have thought that speaking out directly against Cuomo--Roman Catholic though Cuomo be--might have negative repercussions for the Vatican. But, what could be more detrimental to the well-being of the Catholic Church than failure to speak out on behalf of the most innocent human beings among us; those who cannot speak for themselves; a human infant? Failure of Pope Francis to speak out against New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as a matter of pragmatic politics does not bode well either for New York or for the Vatican.It is only recently, on May 25, 2019, that Pope Francis did speak out on the horrors of abortion but he did so obliquely, directing outrage to no one in particular; nor to any specific radical abortion policy. The Hill reports,“Pope Francis compared having an abortion to hiring a ‘hitman’ and called the procedure always unacceptable on Saturday. ‘Is it legitimate to take out a human life to solve a problem?’ . . . . The pope characterized aborting an unhealthy fetus as “inhuman eugenics. ‘Human life is sacred and inviolable and the use of prenatal diagnosis for selective purposes should be discouraged with strength,’ Francis said. . . .”The Pontiff’s  remarks come as anti-abortion legislation sweeps across several U.S. states. In recent weeks, several state legislatures have advanced or passed bills outlawing abortion at about six weeks into a pregnancy. This month, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed a bill into law that would outlaw almost all abortions." The Pope’s remarks are tepid at best, demonstrating that he would rather play the role of the follower, than that of a leader. This is decidedly contrary to what one would expect of a Pontiff. This isn’t the time for passivity and timidity. Andrew Cuomo and other Left-wing extremists must be called out for their deleterious, monstrous words and sinful actions--words and actions that have no parallel in our Nation’s history._________________________________________________________*A Reporter for The Daily Wire, reports: “On Tuesday [January 22, 2019] New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, delighted that the New York legislature passed the Reproductive Health Act which would allow mothers to kill (pardon me, abort) their babies up until birth, celebrated this legalized murder by ordering that the spire at One World Trade Center, the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, the Kosciuszko Bridge and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany all be lit in pink on Tuesday night.”**The website History.com reports that, a total of 2,996 people lost their lives as a result of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center Buildings, more loss of American lives, 2,335, than occurred on the day Japan attacked the Naval Base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, (as reported by the website, visitpearlharbor.org), horrific as that attack on our Country was.***Perhaps, Cuomo intends, through his “Pink Light,” “ to commemorate” the death of American infants by abortion. Consider these New York State abortion statistics in light of According to the website, Abort 73.com, “The New York State Department of Health reports that 87,325 abortions took place in New York during 2016 [and] this number includes abortions performed on out-of-state residents. . . .”  That same website reports that, from 2006 through 2012, there were, for each year, well over 100,000 abortions in New York. Now, however, with enactment of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, these numbers, high as they are, will undoubtedly climb much higher, increasing exponentially. Might one expect 500,000 abortions? 1,000,000? Certainly many women residing in other States will now flock to New York to obtain abortions, given the ease with which they can obtain them, no questions asked. The pro-abortion group Women’s Choice doesn’t hide its adulation over New York’s permissive abortion policy, asserting,“New York State has the most open and least restrictive laws regarding abortion. Many women travel from other states and other countries to New York to receive abortion care. New York State has the most open and least restrictive laws regarding abortion. Medicaid covers abortion for low-income women. Teenagers do not need a parent’s permission to have an abortion. There are no 24-hour waiting periods so abortions can be performed in one visit.” Keep in mind, too, that Governor Cuomo’s radical abortion policy is not something he conjured up in the last several months. Cuomo’s radical abortion initiatives hark back at least to the early days of  2017, and probably well before that. The Reproductive Health Act of 2019 is simply the culmination of a massive effort, commencing years before, to legalize at-will abortion up to the very moment of birth. With Democratic Party control of both Houses of the New York State Legislature in 2019, Cuomo found that he could now make his abortion policy goals a reality, and he proceeded to do so, with diabolical glee.****We invite the interested reader to see the Arbalest Quarrel article, "A License to Kill," Part Eight of this series.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A LICENSE TO KILL: NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019 AMOUNTS TO “LAWFUL” MURDER

PART EIGHT

ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, LEADER OF THE STATE AND A ROMAN CATHOLIC, NOT ONLY SANCTIONS MURDER OF INNOCENT LIVES, BUT, THROUGH AN UNQUESTIONED AT-WILL ABORTION POLICY, HE TACITLY ENCOURAGES THE TAKING OF LIFE OF INNOCENT AMERICAN INFANTS

And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon. 2 Kings 24:2 - 24:5 King James Version (KJV)These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look; a lying tongue; and hands that shed innocent blood; An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief; A false witness that speaketh lies; and he that soweth discord among brethren.~2 Kings 24:4 King James verison, Proverbs 6:16-19 King James Version (KJV)Governor Cuomo’s dangerous policy objectives and initiatives do not rest solely on his disdain for the Second Amendment. He also demonstrated a desire, indeed, a passion to upend all New York laws that had hitherto restrained abortion. With enactment of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, New York has now removed any constraint or restraint on abortion. The Governor muscled through his reprehensible abortion policy through the Democratic Party controlled New York Legislature, just as he had previously muscled through his horrible antigun policy. He did this with cold, calculated, laser-focused intention and resolveOnce enacted in Albany, it was a mere formality for Cuomo to sign the deceptively titled, “Reproductive Health Act of 2019,” into law. The 2019 Act, doesn’t promote health, any more than the 2013 NY Safe Act ensures safety from gun violence. Instead the “Reproductive Health Act of 2019” destroys life, the most innocent life, and it is now, all oh so nice and legal in New York to do so.How was Cuomo able to do this? He was able to accomplish this by sleight-of-hand. Heretofore, abortion was a crime in New York. But, with Democrats presently in control of both Houses of the Legislature in Albany--the Assembly and the State Senate--Cuomo encouraged and cajoled the Legislature into striking the word, ‘abortion,’ from the New York Penal Code and from other New York Statutes—wherever the the term, ‘abortion,’ appeared. This then opened the door to legally sanctioned murder, infanticide. Peculiarly and insidiously, Cuomo dares proclaim late-term abortion—abortion literally up to the moment of birth—to be a fundamental right even though nothing in the U.S. Constitution remotely supports such an absurd notion.* Cuomo and other supporters of late-term, essentially at-will, abortion believe that an audacious proclamation raising licensed murder to the level of a Constitutional right can pass Constitutional scrutiny. But, is that so? It is only a matter of time before New York’s Reproductive Health Act will be challenged in the Courts.

NEW YORK'S CARDINAL TIMOTHY DOLAN CALLS GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO OUT OVER THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019: CUOMO'S  LICENSE TO KILL

As the battle over abortion-murder brews in the States and is fought over in our Nation’s Courts, the horror over this act of legalized murder isn’t lost on the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.Cardinal Dolan took Cuomo to task in blunt, forceful language, asserting in his Op-Ed appearing in the New York Post:“I’m thinking first of the ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law, which allows for an abortion right up to the moment of birth; drops all charges against an abortionist who allows an aborted baby, who somehow survives the scissors, scalpel, saline and dismemberment, to die before his eyes; mandates that, to make an abortion more convenient and easy, a physician need not perform it; and might even be used to suppress the conscience rights of health care professionals not to assist in the grisly procedures. All this in a state that already had the most permissive abortion laws in the country.As if that’s not enough, instead of admitting that abortion is always a tragic choice, and that life-giving alternatives should be more vigorously promoted, the governor and his ‘progressive’ supporters celebrated signing the bill. At the governor’s command, even the lights of the Freedom Tower sparkled with delight.Those who once told us that abortion had to remain safe, legal and rare now have made it dangerous, imposed and frequent.Then our governor insults and caricatures the church in what’s supposed to be an uplifting and unifying occasion, his ‘State of the State’ address.”The National Catholic Register ran Cardinal Dolan’s direct and vehement denunciation. And, it is patently clear that Cardinal Dolan isn’t simply venting his righteous outrage and indignation upon New York’s abortion Act that legally sanctions the murder of innocent lives, but is directing his outrage on the Governor Cuomo, since, after all, the Governor is the author of the Reproductive Health Act, and bears ultimate responsibility for it. Real blame rests, then, on Cuomo himself, for forcing through this abortion Act abomination in the State Legislature, and, in so, doing, making New York the Abortion Capital of the Country. Cardinal Dolan makes his disgust of Governor Cuomo, a Roman Catholic himself, crystal clear, as Cuomo's actions bespeak a direct attack on the Church itself!“ ‘Andrew Cuomo has insulted the Church, flaunted publicly his dissent from Catholic doctrine, and celebrated the Jan. 22 signing of the state’s ‘ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law.’Cardinal Dolan’s criticisms of Cuomo were direct: “Why would he publicly brag in a political address about his dissent from timeless and substantive Church belief? Why would he quote Pope Francis out of context as an applause line to misrepresent us bishops here as being opposed to our Holy Father? Why did he reduce the sexual abuse of minors, a broad societal and cultural curse that afflicts every family, public school, religion and government program, to a ‘Catholic problem?’”“I’m a pastor, not a politician, but I feel obliged to ask these questions, as daily do I hear them from my people, as well as colleagues from other creeds. I’ve been attacked in the past when I asked — sadly and reluctantly — if the party that my folks proudly claimed as their own, the Democrats, had chosen to alienate faithful Catholic voters. Now you know why I asked,” Cardinal Dolan added.Cardinal Dolan said that while the state’s Democrats purport to be progressive, their recent abortion bill is anything but.”Cardinal Dolan does not stand alone in his directed outrage toward Governor Cuomo. Cardinal Dolan has supporters in New York, standing firmly with him, including some Democrats, notably the Democrats for the Life of America. The National Catholic Register reports,In a Jan. 29 statement, the group said: “Abortion is big business in New York, with unlimited public funding and an abortion rate twice the national average. The governor’s new law will not address the high abortion rate, nor will it help pregnant women who feel pressured or coerced into abortion. The law will help influential and financially flush abortion corporations increase their customer base and profit margin. One in three aborted children were African-American, and one in four were Hispanic. The new law further exploits women, particularly minority populations who are overrepresented in these numbers,” the group said.“We call on New York legislators — particularly Democrats — to embark on a mission to make New York, the state, have the lowest abortion rate in the nation. The estimated $18 million that would be spent yearly on abortion could be put toward programs to prevent pregnancy, including contraction and sex education, prenatal and postnatal health care, public housing, affordable child care and paid maternity leave. Furthermore, we recommend outreach to minority communities to vastly bring down the perceived targeting of women and babies of color.”“As Democrats, we advocate for progressive solutions to problems facing the weakest in society: the poor, minorities, women and children — even if they are yet to be born. New York should repeal this anti-women law, and no other state should replicate it,” the statement added.The National Catholic Register added, in its article, this critical point about Excommunication from the Catholic Church:While Cardinal Dolan has been outspoken in his opposition to the abortion law and Cuomo’s support for it, some Catholics have called for him to excommunicate or impose some other canonical sanctions on the governor, but Cardinal Dolan has recently indicated he is unlikely to do so. The cardinal’s office did not respond to a request from CNA for comments on that possibility. Excommunication from the Church is an extremely serious action, reserved for the most serious of transgressions against the Church. But is excommunication of the Roman Catholic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, practicable, even if clearly warranted, as it is here?

WHAT IS EXCOMMUNICATION?

The website Vatican.com explains the act of 'Excommunication':“Excommunication was a method used by the Roman Catholic Church to exclude one of its members from participating in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. The Roman Catholic Church operates as a society and therefore has the right to excommunicate any of its members, either temporarily or permanently. . . if they go against the church’s constitution and teachings or do not operate within the given authority. According to the Roman Catholic Church, excommunication is the most serious ecclesiastical penalty.” Governor Cuomo must answer the charge. What does he do? Like the adept and cunning rhetorician that Cuomo is, he attempts to reconcile Catholic stricture against abortion with his public policy avidly supporting abortion. As reported in the Weblog, The Deacon’s Bench, Cuomo tries to parry Cardinal Dolan's strident criticism:“I was educated in religious schools, and I am a former altar boy. My Roman Catholic values are my personal values. The decisions I choose to make in my life, or in counseling my daughters, are based on my personal moral and religious beliefs.Thanks to the nation’s founders, no elected official is empowered to make personal religious beliefs the law of the land. My oath of office is to the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York — not to the Catholic Church. My religion cannot demand favoritism as I execute my public duties.”Cuomo cannot and does not refute what amounts to demonstrable hypocrisy, try as he might, for there is an inherent problem with Cuomo’s sanctimonious remarks. Catholic stricture condemns murder; but, then, the laws and Constitutions of both this Nation and of New York condemn murder, too! There is no safe harbor for Cuomo and others of the Radical Left on the matter.** The intentional taking of innocent human life is contrary to God's will, and, therefore, no less contrary to what may be otherwise deemed a justifiable act of man.  ___________________________________________*Cuomo’s statements to the contrary, the New York abortion law permits abortion at any stage of pregnancy, up to the very moment of birth. This is clear from the text of the actual Act. See AQ article.**Abortion, the intentional taking of a human life sans any ethical justification, such as to secure the life of the mother, is a homicide, the unjustified taking of human life: namely, manslaughter or murder. The New York Penal Code, NY CLS Penal § 125.27 of Article 125, Homicide and Related Offenses, of Part Three of the Penal Code of New York, defines the crime of 'murder' in the first degree' as follows: "A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person and [specific conditions set forth]. Note: while 'abortion', in New York historically and technically fell under the serious crime of manslaughter, and not, murder, even when conducted with intent, it was nonetheless still a homicide in New York, and therefore punishable as such, with serious penalties attached. Abortion was defined as a specific form of  homicide, falling within the purview of Manslaughter, either in the first degree or second degree, both forms of which were specifically and categorically repealed on January 22, 2019, as specifically set forth in the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, enacted on January 22, 2019. There is, at present, no crime under which abortion falls, in New York. It is for this reason that abortion may be performed at any time, for any reason whether self-induced or performed by a third party, in New York, regardless of both newspaper accounts and the accounts of other pro-abortion apologists to the contrary. If there is no penalty associated with an act, there is in effect, no crime, and there is no  longer any crime of abortion in New York. Understandably, and certainly unsurprisingly, many, many non-residents are traveling to New York for the very purpose of having an abortion. This is likely to continue and gather speed in the future, especially as some States are enacting laws to curb abortion. Hence, New York will likely become, and be known as, the abortion Capital of the Nation, as well as the Nation's financial hub. ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT VISION FOR AMERICA MARKS NATION’S DEMISE, NOT ITS SALVATION

"The self-deceived person may even think he is able to console others who became victims of perfidious deception, but what insanity when someone who himself has lost the eternal wants to heal the person who is extremely sick unto death!" ~Søren Kierkegaard, from Works of Love (1847)

PART SEVEN

Radical Left politicians, along with a compliant Press, carry the message of the Collectivist vision—a vision that overrides concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the Nation and of the Nation’s citizenry.Like the crass hypocrites they are, radical Leftists love to go on about how they respect the rule of law, but ignore it when they find it convenient to do so to support their radical agenda. Lacking all visible restraint and common decency, they flagrantly, even exuberantly, attack our Constitution, our institutions, our history, our culture, our ethos, our Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethical underpinnings and belief in the Divine Creator.These Dead Souls, these transgressors of the Creator’s sacred Commandments attack all our citizenry holds most dear and these extremists do so with increasing frequency and ferocity. Everything about them bespeaks ill-will, anger, hatred, resentment, intemperance, rage. They don’t seek to preserve our Nation; rather, they seek to destroy it. Both in their words and actions, they intend to rend everything, both tangible and intangible, that represents and constitutes the very soul-memory of our Nation and its people. These radical Leftists, these God-deniers, these Dead Souls, will suffer no one that dares disagree with them.These Dead Souls ignore, out-of-hand, fundamental rights etched in the Bill of Rights, but show no reluctance in creating out of whole cloth other “rights” that cohere with their Collectivist precepts. They claim as fundamental rights: the right to attend college; the right to abortion on demand; the right of non-citizens to reside here under a general prescription of seeking asylum; and the right to be free from so-called “hate speech” and hurtful speech in the public space.But such purported “rights” exist nowhere, tacitly or expressly, in the Bill of Rights or, for that matter, anywhere else in the Nation’s Constitution. Indeed, one presumed fundamental right catalogued by the Radical Left—the claim of a fundamental right to abortion on demand, abjectly unnatural, is transparently contradicted by Federal Statute and Supreme Court precedent, as is the right to be free from such vague notions as “hate speech” and hurtful speech.Yet, as these Dead Souls don’t profess a belief in the concept of natural rights preexistent in the citizenry, such new panoply of “rights,” that are permitted to exist at all, shall consist only of those that Government deigns to grant to the polity, whether to a few members of the polity or to several of its members; whether to most members of the polity or to all its members—but with the understanding that such set of rights and liberties may be amended, ignored, or abrogated as Government needs and goals change, or as Government simply wishes.And Government, as Government is conceived by these Radical Leftists, these Dead Souls, may at will, amend ignore or abrogate any and all such rights and liberties; doing so if for no other reason than to make the point that all lawful power, authority, and control emanates from and proceeds through Government to the Governed, the people, and not to Government through the consent of the Governed, the people. Thus, the Radical Left seeks to turn the very political framework of our Nation on its head.These Leftist extremists in the United States—these proponents of the political and social philosophy of Collectivism—will seek the “consent of the governed” one final time. By turns, they persuade, urge, and cajole the public to relinquish all power and authority to Government, claiming, all the while that this will all be for the best: for the good of society, for the good of the Collective, for the good of the Hive, albeit not good, at all, for the individual, the American citizen.And, this fact explains the Radical left's single-minded obsession with the Second Amendment in particular, and the heavy-handed efforts to defeat it. The Radical Left uses the mantras of "public safety" and "gun violence" to make its goal of de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, deceptively, "disarmingly" plausible and palatable to the citizenry so that it acquiesces, blindly, willingly; surrendering its firearms; ceding its Birthright to the Radical Left. Thus, the total disarming of the American citizenry proceeds, without a whimper; or, so the Radical Left believes and hopes. And, for these Americans who are not so easily duped, who do not wish to acquiesce, the Radical Left is not reluctant to use threats. Recall the remarks of the “illustrious” Congressional Representative from the “Sanctuary” State of California, Eric Swalwell, who, in November 2018, brazenly, spouted that he would be ready “to nuke” gun owners who do not willingly surrender their “assault weapons.” Many Americans took offense at the remark and rightfully so. Yet, the liberal “fact-checker” website, Snopes, counters that Swalwell had never really meant what he said. Trying to cast a positive light on Swalwell’s remark, Snopes reports:What's True [about Swalwell’s remark]In a tweet on 16 November, Swalwell responded to a gun rights enthusiast who said the Democrats' proposal to confiscate or buy semi-automatic rifles would result in "war" due to resistance from the gun owners, stating "it would be a short war" because "the government has nukes."What's False [about Swalwell’s remark]Swalwell quickly insisted that his reference to the government's possession of nuclear weapons was intended as no more than a joke and emphasized that he was not warning gun owners about such a response to their (hypothetical) resistance to gun confiscation.But, who is the joke really on? Obviously, the remark was hyperbole. That much is true. But Swalwell’s sentiment wasn’t, and isn’t hyperbole. Swalwell is deadly serious. Eric Swalwell is one of a large bevy of Democratic Party candidates campaigning for his Party’s nomination for U.S. President in the upcoming 2020 election, and, while all of these Candidates are virulently antigun, Eric Swalwell, in particular, is running prominently on an antigun platform.Lauding the Australian Government’s gun confiscation policy, Swalwell is openly critical of our own Nation’s Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, and he has made clear that he intends to confiscate all firearms Government defines as 'assault weapons.'What isn’t humorous about Swalwell’s remarks—not the least bit humorous—and isn’t meant to be a joke, is a point that Swalwell has stated and reiterated often, and it is a cornerstone of his antigun plank. Swalwell has made it abundantly clear and is deadly serious when he asserts his intention to confiscate all firearms that Government—his Administration—defines as ‘assault weapons.’ And, he has also made it crystal clear that any American citizen who fails to surrender those weapons will be arrested and prosecuted.Consistent with the pronouncements of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Swalwell waxes poetic about Australia’s extraordinarily restrictive gun measures. But, keep in mind that Australia’s heavy-handed antigun stance and actions that Swalwell and that Obama and Clinton applaud, isn’t a Constitutional Republic in the vein of our own Nation. Australia is a Commonwealth Nation, presided over by a Governor General, who answers to the Queen of England. Moreover, Australia, unlike our Nation, never did recognize a right of the people of Australia to own and possess firearms, independent of Government say-so. Hell, Australia doesn’t even have a Bill of Rights and its overseers have vigorously fought against inclusion of one. Not surprisingly, then, the Australian Government can by,  fiat, restrict gun ownership and possession, and Australians--less citizens than subjects of the realm--have no legal recourse. And, this is the Country that Swalwell, and Obama, and Clinton, and all of the other Leftist extremists emulate?To say these Leftist extremists hold a vision of America different from that of the founders’ vision, indeed a vision diametrically opposed to that of our founders’, is a crass understatement. For the assertion fails to capture the sheer scale and scope of the Radical Left's horrific agenda--what it is the Radical Left wants to accomplish and what it intends to force upon Americans, all of us--in the event it gains control of all three Branches of Government.What these extremists, these Dead Souls, seek to accomplish is the creation of an entirely different kind of America; an America no longer conceived as a free Republic, no longer existing as an independent, Sovereign Nation State. What these Dead Souls have in mind for Americans and for the Nation is the Nation's dissolution and the subjugation of its citizens. They perceive the remains of what once existed as a free Republic and independent Sovereign Nation State subsumed into a new Governmental and societal construct entirely—indeed, completely consumed by a new international world order that, like a giant serpent, swallows Nation’s whole.Thus, these Radical Leftists, these Dead Souls, seek to demolish the very existence of our Country as a Sovereign Nation State and free Republic; and, in so doing, they seek to undercut the very notion of a Bill of Rights that embraces fundamental, natural rights, preexistent in the Nation’s citizenry—rights, then, that, in the founders' vision, precede and transcend Government and rest well beyond the lawful power of Government to constrain. The Radical Left’s objectives  for this Nation are ruthlessly, remorselessly and frightfully diabolical; its rhetoric, transparently duplicitous; its lack of concern for the Nation's citizenry, abjectly shameful; its methods, rapaciously mercenary. Americans would do well to keep all this uppermost in mind when they go to the polls in 2020.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT ATTACKS AND TRIES TO SILENCE AMERICANS WHO DEFEND BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST SOCIALIST AGENDA

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ~From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

CUOMO, SWALWELL, AND OTHERS LEAD LEFTIST CHARGE AGAINST OUR MOST SACRED RIGHT AS THE RADICAL LEFT, THROUGH A COMPLIANT PRESS, CONTINUES TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE.

Convinced their goals are right and proper, Leftist extremists in Congress and in the Government Bureaucracy, in the Press, in the academia, in entertainment, and in our business sectors, relentlessly attack anyone who disagrees with them. They do not promote and encourage discourse and debate on policy issues. Quite the opposite. They intend to preempt and preclude discourse and debate on all issues. They are Dead Souls, heralds of death and destruction. They seek to tear down, demolish, and upend every aspect of our history, traditions, core values, and salient rights and liberties. They are intent on wiping the slate clean, not to secure the rights of the people but, rather, to strip the people of their God-Given rights: the antithesis of and a perversion of the Declaration of Independence.Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, and Eric Swalwell, Congressional Representative from California, typify these Dead Souls. Unfortunately, sufficient numbers of the populace, both ignorant and well-learned alike—most residing in predominately in urban areas of the Country, and many residing in liberal bastions like New York, California, Illinois, and others—acquiesce to the policy goals of these Dead Souls and willingly allow themselves to be led by the nose, to the ruination and destruction of our Country. With population movements and shifts of radical Leftists into hitherto predominately conservative States, such as Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and even in Montana (as reported in the New York Times in 2013), we find our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties growing more tenuous, situated on more precarious ground.

PRESUMPTUOUS OF HUMAN LIFE, GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO HYPOCRITICALLY AND SANCTIMONIOUSLY CONTENDS HE VALUES HUMAN LIFE.

Andrew Cuomo pompously declared, in 2014, as reported in The Washington Times: “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”Oh really? So, Mr. Cuomo, who are these “extreme conservatives” whom you detest? We will tell you who they are. These people are Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights as written, conceived, and understood by the framers who drafted it. They are Americans who demonstrate an aversion to treating an unborn, or an about-to-be born innocent human life like so much garbage, to be unceremoniously discarded as biological waste simply because the mother would rather not be bothered with that unborn child. These “extreme conservatives,” as you call them, are Americans who believe that illegal aliens who defy our laws, do not, contrary to your opinion, have any right—moral, legal, or logical—to reside in our Country even if they insist that they do and even if they presume, further, although erroneously, that the American tax-payer must bear the burden to provide for them when that taxpayer finds it difficult enough to provide for him or herself. Cuomo doesn’t care whether the public agrees with him or not, and, apparently, he doesn't care what the public thinks of him. As he sees it, all power resides in him to do whatever he damn well pleases; all the worse, Governor Cuomo, thinks, for those naysayers in the New York State Government in Albany and among the public who happen to disagree with him. Cuomo is a driven man, on his own unholy crusade. The way Cuomo sees it: a person must either get onboard with the game plan; or get out of the way. That, apparently, is how Cuomo perceives the Democratic process.Recall, this is a man who pursued with single-minded obsession and passion further gun restrictions in his State, New York, that, before enactment of the New York Safe Act, had among the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation. Cuomo knew that further draconian antigun policies would be highly unpopular. He therefore conspired to pass the New York Safe Act, quickly, in the dark of night, as an emergency measure, absent debate among New York Assemblymen and Senators; and out of earshot of the New York public. Once enacted in Albany, the radical Leftist, Andrew Cuomo, signed the Safe Act into law, in 2013, and he did so amid great fanfare. And, in doing so, he disingenuously proclaimed his desire to protect human life, albeit in some inarticulable general sense, as Cuomo’s true motive in thrusting the Safe Act on New York gun owners has little if anything to do with protecting human life and has everything to do with oppressing the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, and resident of New York. Cuomo dares not express his true motive.Law-abiding gun owners are not, after all, asking the Government to provide them protection from predators that abound in New York. They never did ask Government for such protection. In any event, Government is ill-equipped to do that; and, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Government has no obligation to ensure the life, safety, and well-being of any American, anyway, except in very narrow, and carefully circumscribed instances. Cuomo knows this, but cares not to admit it, as there is no upside in doing so.It stands to reason, then, that law-abiding gun owners simply do not wish to be deprived of the right to protect their own life with the best means available for doing so—a firearm. But Cuomo will have none of that. And, now, having been elected to a third term as Governor, he works tirelessly, obsessively, to further restrict exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The underlying goal of the New York Safe Act of 2013 is to is to strip Americans of their God-given right to keep and bear arms, even though the Constitution is clear about this, and notwithstanding that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases placed its imprimatur. It should be obvious to anyone, be that person a legal scholar or the average man-on-the-street, that the the natural and fundamental right, as etched in the Second Amendment is clear, succinct, categorical and unambiguous. Yet some Courts, on both the State and Federal levels, regularly take issue with this. That fact isn’t lost on Justice Clarence Thomas who, in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, stated, in no uncertain terms, “[the United States Supreme] Court’s refusal to review a decision [of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit] 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. . . . 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."Cuomo and other radical Leftists--most disturbingly, those rendering judgment on us, in their capacity as jurists--are seemingly oblivious to the categorical imperative of the Second Amendment, and are openly defiant of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Now, in his third term, Cuomo, has continually pushed for ever more draconian gun laws. In so doing, he has made clear that the the NY Safe Act isn’t a finished product and was never intended to be a finished product. It is, rather, simply, a work in progress. Governor Cuomo won’t be satisfied until the Second Amendment ceases to exist in New York and in the rest of the Nation, as well.Cuomo, along with other Left-wing radicals, in business, in Government, in academia, in the Press, and even in the Courts, is working ceaselessly, obsessively to chisel away at the notion--at the very idea--that Americans have a fundamental, natural, and unalienable right to keep and bear arms.Americans must take seriously the very real threat these powerful and ruthless elements pose to THIS, our most sacred and inviolate right.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE RADICAL LEFT IN AMERICA: SOWERS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION

The current generation now sees everything clearly, it marvels at the errors, it laughs at the folly of its ancestors, not seeing that this chronicle is all overscored by divine fire, that every letter of it cries out, that from everywhere the piercing finger is pointed at it, at this current generation; but the current generation laughs and presumptuously, proudly begins a series of new errors, at which their descendants will also laugh afterwards.” ~ Nikolai Gogol, (born March 31, 1809; died March 4, 1852); Russian Dramatist; quotation from Gogol’s seminal satire on imperial Russian venality, vulgarity, and pomp, “Dead Souls.”

PART FIVE

The radical Left in this Country acts like petulant children. Ever disdainful of our Nation’s rich cultural and historical and ethical heritage, and contemptuous of the profundity of the sacred Document upon which our Nation has been structured and upon which the foundation of our Nation securely rests, this radical Left, ascribing to the tenets of Collectivism, peevishly, presumptuously presumes it knows better than the framers how a Nation ought to be structured, and how a Nation ought to be governed. This extremist left-wing Marxist element in our Nation exhibits no restraint as it dares to tamper with the U.S. Constitution that the framers, through their blood, through their selfless sacrifice, lovingly bequeathed to their descendants—this Nation’s proud citizenry.And what is THIS extremist alien Marxist element that would upend our Nation? It is a heterogeneous horde of unrepentant Dead Souls. These Dead Souls adhere to the tenets of Collectivism. Collectivism embraces a set of principles completely at odds with that set of principles inherent in our Constitution—principles predicated on the philosophical concept and tenets of Individualism that the radical Left contemptuously spurns. Convinced of the absolute infallibility of its beliefs—ever prey to delusions of grandeur—the radical Left exhibits rancor toward the founders of our Nation, as it goes about unceremoniously, indiscriminately, rapaciously destroying and ravaging the monuments to our forebears.These Dead Souls operate with rabid ferocious, feverish, and all too characteristic abandon, yet with clear, cold, callous, calculated purpose, as they are fixated on erasing, annihilating, obliterating our Nation’s rich cultural history and heritage—the totality of our Nation’s ancestral memory. Screaming like maniacal banshees, they denounce those who disagree with them; outrageously daring to cripple or abrogate outright the Articles of our Constitution that constrain Government; and, at one and the same time, they attempt to obliterate the fundamental rights and liberties that ensure our citizenry’s freedoms—all the while proclaiming that this is all for the best. But all for the best for whom, exactly: for illegal aliens, who have no comprehension of our system of laws and governance, or for the sanctity of, indeed, the very conception of natural, fundamental, and unalienable rights? for convicted felons, gangbangers, and other assorted maniacs, lunatics, sociopaths, and psychopaths, who pose a constant threat to the safety and well-being of the average, law-abiding, sane American citizen? for nihilistic Anarchists, Marxists, Communists, and Socialists, whose aim is the dissolution of our independent, Sovereign, Nation State, and, indeed, who desire to destroy all Western Nations? for a handful of billionaire neoliberals and Globalists who seek to institute a new world order, consisting of one political, social, economic, financial, and cultural system of governance that they alone rule and preside over? for obdurate, headstrong, boisterous, teenagers and rowdy college kids, and for the radical instructors and administrators of our educational institutions who urge them on, often joining them in their charges mindless ecstatic escapades, intent on destruction of the very soul of our Nation? for Hollywood moguls and actors, and for technology company CEOs, who use their wealth and influence heedlessly, arrogantly and self-righteously to attack the U.S. President, in support of the radical left agenda? for the bureaucrats and their minions in Government, and for those politicians who, having a voracious, insatiable lust for for power, would dare use it to destroy the institution of the U.S. Presidency and bring, as well, dishonor, disrepute to the Government and to the American people for whom, ostensibly, they work? for those publishers, editors, reporters, and commentators of the mainstream media who, hiding behind the First Amendment Freedom of the Press, spew invective and venom, and who hurl epithets incessantly, spitefully at the President? for all those people in America who would dare launch reckless ad hominem attacks against anyone, indeed, everyone, who happens to adhere to a different set of political and philosophical beliefs—political and philosophical beliefs that, unlike their own, entail a deep, abiding respect for our Nation’s rich and unique cultural heritage and history, and who revere our Nation’s Constitution, and who venerate our Nation’s founding fathers, and who appreciate our Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethic, and who would rather demonstrate to the world an abiding admiration for, rather than a loathing for, our system of law and jurisprudence, and for our Bill of Rights, and for our institutions, and for our free market economic system that has brought wealth and prosperity to millions of Americans and has made our Nation the envy of the world?In our Nation, unlike any other nation, it is the American citizenry itself in whom ultimate power and authority resides. This is made pointedly and categorically clear, through the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that inures in and to the people themselves and not in Government. But, these Collectivists see the Second Amendment, not as a godsend, but as a blemish, an imperfection. Yet, in attacking the Second Amendment—and of late, attacking the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, as well—and by attacking the President, and by tearing down monuments, and by dishonoring our Nation’s Flag, these Collectivists, these Dead Souls, discredit themselves, as Americans. But, much worse, they bring dishonor to the Nation. And they bring dishonor to the men and women who have given their lives to defend and preserve our Nation and our way of life, since the very birth of our Nation.By assailing, berating, mocking, and discrediting our Nation, our President, our Constitution, our sacred rights and liberties, our history, our traditions, our core values—all those things that make us Americans, a unique and free people—these Left-wing extremists make jackasses of themselves in the eyes of the world, and, in so doing, would dare draw down the enmity of the world upon our Nation and all of its people. These radical elements in our Nation, these Dead Souls, hypocritically proclaim a moral need to act against the very Nation that has given them sustenance, and that continues, remarkably, to sustain them even as they flail out, rabidly against it.But, then, these Collectivists, these ghoulish apparitions, who live among us, aren’t really Americans. They have forsaken any right to call themselves Americans, to think of themselves as Americans, as they unconscionably sow disharmony and discord in our Country.Is this Nation, then, to fall to those who cast aspersions on it, from within the bowels of it? The hideous ghouls who desire to rend the entire fabric of our Nation--a Nation that has stood strong, unconquered, unyielding against external foes, since its birth--ought deal harshly with these contemptible malcontents. They who hate our Nation and its people and its Constitution must be cast out from our Nation. Perhaps, the EU, whom these ghouls admire so, will take them in. It is evident they wish to see our Nation folded into a new trans-world system of governance, where orders and edicts emanate from Brussels.Yet, these Dead Souls will suffer no one to tell them they are wrong and have been wrong all along, dead wrong. Their agenda serves only to wreak havoc across our Nation. Were they to succeed, they would bring nothing but ruin, desolation, and horror to this Nation and to its people; but they don't care. In their blind rage, it is sadly evident that these Dead Souls want to accomplish just that: to destroy the Nation outright. The fruits of their design are plentiful. We see their grand design today in their attempt to erase our history; in their attempt to weaken our fundamental rights and liberties; in their desire to redistribute the Nation’s bounty in accordance with the tenets of Marxism; in their dishonor of our Nation’s flag and in their antipathy toward other National emblems and monuments. And we see their insidious design in their stated desire to rewrite the United States Constitution—the foundation and framework of our free Republic.These ghouls demonstrate, plainly, in their every word and deed, that they disdain the very notion of the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation. Recall Obama, one of their smooth-talking stooges. Ever the apologist, ever emulating the EU, Obama used the Office of the Presidency to bind this Nation to the EU. President Trump, though, has worked ardently, stoically, on behalf of the American people, to reverse course; to reverse the Marxist agenda set by the previous President.Is it any wonder, then, why the Democratic “Socialists”—these Dead Souls—seek to regain the reins of all three Branches of Government. They wish to reset policy in accordance with the Obama/Clinton agenda?These Dead Souls continue, incessantly, obstinately, spinning their wheels attacking the President. They are apoplectic that Donald Trump won the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.But, perhaps these constant, insatiable, virulent attacks on the President may have a silver lining. The Dead Souls in Congress won’t succeed. The Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, couldn’t take down the President, and they won’t succeed to do so either. But, their buffoonish, imbecilic attempt does keep them preoccupied. Just, imagine, for a moment, the damaging legislation they would produce if they directed attention to their salient Article 1 pursuit, instead?______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE RADICAL LEFT AGENDA’S FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: DISARM THE PUBLIC

PART FOUR

THE PURVEYORS OF COLLECTIVE GUILT: ANDREW CUOMO AND ERIC SWALWELL

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty. . . . and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” ~ From the essay, “Of Crimes and Punishments,” by Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, Marquis of Gualdrasco and Villareggio (born March 15, 1738 – died November 28, 1794); Italian criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician; widely considered as the most talented jurist and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. What the jurist, Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, pointed out most eloquently in the Eighteenth Century, concerning the disarming of the civilian population, is no less true today. Yet, radical Left politicians, in the Twenty-first Century are spouting the same inane remarks about firearms’ ownership that antigun politicians evidently spouted in the Eighteenth Century, which, then, would account for Beccaria’s essay, and, tacitly, for Beccaria’s scathing rebuke of them. And, what are those absurd remarks that antigun politicians, and antigun advocates, and zealots crow endlessly, mindlessly about? It all boils down to this:In order to enhance public safety, it is necessary to confiscate firearms. This is done for your [the public’s] own good. Gun violence will be curtailed, once confiscation of guns has been accomplished. Fewer guns means less crime. And, if you do not surrender your firearms, we will make an example of you—all for the public good, of course!Antigun politicians evidently recited  words to that effect in Eighteenth Century Europe, just as they do today—thus, Beccaria’s strong rebuke. But, whether any of the antigun politicians and antigun zealots of the Eighteenth Century, as with their counterparts today, truly believed in their own imbecilic remarks, that is debatable. But, what isn’t debatable, today at least, is that antigun politicians intend to harass law-abiding gun owners to the point that most of us—as these antigun politicians and zealots undoubtedly hope—will relent, and surrender, albeit reluctantly, our firearms to Government authorities.Of course the criminal element, ever disdainful of laws--then, in the Eighteenth Century, as Beccaria points out, and in any other period of history, up to the present time--will continue merrily along to obtain their firearms with relative ease. Law breakers such as criminals and lunatics and other assorted flotsam and jetsam in America, today, obtain all or virtually all the firearms they utilize to commit acts of violence, through unlawful means: namely, on the black market, or through theft, or through deceit. Should that come as a surprise to anyone? And there will, of course, be no concomitant decrease in gun violence in the U.S. through mass confiscation of firearms from the law-abiding citizenry. But, then, gun confiscation to reduce crime isn’t really the radical Left’s reason to confiscate firearms from the civilian population of this Country, anyway. It never was. That is mere pretext. It plays well in the Press. The goal of the radical Left here is, and always has been, population control, not gun control. it is the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners that is of paramount concern to the radical Left in this Country, and not the criminal element, the gang-banger, or the lunatic. A bloated overbearing, overarching power hungry Government and an armed, wary citizenry would make for strange bedfellows, indeed. Is it any wonder, then, that the radical Left's gun policies are directed predominately to the eradication of gun ownership and possession existent among the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, and that less attention is directed to and less time is devoted to the criminal element and lunatic that present laws dictate should never possess firearms? Why aren't the myriad number of Federal and State gun laws and the myriad municipal gun codes, regulations, and ordinances already on the books, not adequately enforced? Does the radical Left truly believe that denying the average, law-abiding citizen his fundamental right to keep and bear arms obviate misuse of firearms by those who are not permitted to have firearms in the first place? Not Likely. It is the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens whom the radical Left is determined to rein in, as the noose tightens over every other elemental natural right, as well; and, inversely, Governmental control over all thought and action grows and at an accelerated pace.A perfect case study of this point, and ongoing at this very moment, is the situation presently playing out in Venezuela, under the Madura Socialist Dictatorship. A reporter for the Washington Examiner, Claude Thompson, poignantly pointed out, on April 30, 2019:"Videos emerging from Venezuela Tuesday show anti-Nicolás Maduro protesters being reportedly shot at and run over by military members while civilians are unable to use conventional weapons to defend themselves following a private gun ownership ban in 2012.Videos circulating on social media show an unidentified helicopter reportedly shooting at protesters and armored military vehicles running over groups of citizens protesting the continuing reign of Maduro, who refuses to yield control of the country to Juan Guaidó, who multiple countries, including the United States, recognize as the legitimate president of the country."Are the scenes coming out of Venezuela, in recent days, a foreshadowing of what we can expect with the installation of a Socialist Dictatorship in our Country? That can very well happen if the Collectivists in our Nation come to power. They will begin the dismantling of our Free Republic by instituting a massive gun confiscation program. That will be the radical Left's first order of business.We know that the radical Left--these followers of  the tenets of Collectivism--disdain the very idea of fundamental rights, as natural rights, preexistent in the individual—rights bestowed on each American citizen by Divine Grace rather than by grace of Government.After all, the very existence of an armed citizenry galls the radical Left—the Collectivists—who are intent on creating an omnipotent, omnipresent central Government, a Government that isn’t answerable to its citizenry. The founders of our Nation would be appalled. But, then, the Collectivists don’t give a damn about what the founders thought, or would think, about the Collectivist agenda.The Collectivists envision a new world order, where sovereign, independent Western Nation States, including the United States, will cease to exist. The Collectivists envision  the erection of a new political, social, cultural, economic, financial, and legal system of governance; one where edicts emanate from the European Union’s Executive arm, the European Commission, whose headquarters is in Brussels, the Capital region of Belgium.Recall the Globalist President Barack Obama’s address to the European Union, delivered in Hannover Germany, on April 25, 2018. In pertinent part Obama said,“And this is what I want to talk to you about today—the future that we are building together—not separately, but together. And that starts right here in Europe.” Was Obama’s remark mere pleasantry, or was it something more; a portentous foreshadowing of something sinister; something ominous in store for Americans: heralding the dismantling of our institutions, the destruction of our Free Republic, the loss of sovereignty; the subordination of the United States to a foreign power; the subjugation of a free people, the abrogation of our Constitution; the rescission of our Nation’s fundamental, unalienable, sacred and inviolate rights and liberties?But whether these Collectivists know it or not, their vision will lead to Armageddon. Our citizenry will not bow easily to subjugation. They did not do so in the 1700s, as the British Empire learned well. And they will not do so now. If the Collectivists seek to thrust their vision on Americans by force of arms, they will be met with force of arms. If the Collectivists seek to thrust their vision of America on the citizenry through subterfuge, they should know that Americans are not easily duped and the Collectivists' efforts will be severely repulsed.It is absolutely galling to hear people like Governor Andrew Cuomo and Representative Eric Swalwell, sanctimoniously bellowing, by turns both belligerent and flippant, for ever more restrictions on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. Indeed, Cuomo and Swalwell, like other radical Leftists in our midst, are no longer maintaining the pretense that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is worth securing at all.While some remarks still invoke the notion that fewer guns means less crime—regardless of the fact that it is not the number of guns in circulation but whom it is that has access to them that is the salient factor —antigun politicians, such as Cuomo and Swalwell, no longer really pretend that gun confiscation will translate into less crime. It is, rather, the tacit implication of their message—namely that guns signify something bad in and of themselves and, so, no one, aside from the police and military should have access to them—that is the real message blared out, behind the banter of gun violence, that they seek to convey to the public.So it is that Cuomo and Swalwell, and other radical Leftists—using the pretext of gun violence, perpetrated by the occasional maniac, lunatic, criminal, and gang-banger—denigrate tens of millions of average, rational, law-abiding American gun owners who do continue to cherish their sacred right to keep and bear arms and who do not take lightly nor kindly to the attack on both them and on their responsibly owned and possessed firearms.It has become patently clear that Cuomo and Swalwell place the law-abiding gun owner in the same camp as psychopathic criminals and the maniacs who happen to use firearms to commit violence. Cuomo and Swalwell dare impose collective guilt on all gun owners despite the fact that it is only a few—the lowest common denominator in society—that is responsible for gun violence. That becomes evident through both the words they utter and through the policies they endorse, which they seek to translate into law.Cuomo and Swalwell remain unperturbed at the outlandishness of their remarks and of their policy goals. They continue to castigate, taunt, and deride gun owners mercilessly—people like you and me who seek merely to exercise our God-given right—YES, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT—to keep and bear arms.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

LEFTISTS URGE AMERICANS TO BETRAY THEIR OWN GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

PART THREE

The Power of Emotional Rhetoric Shamelessly Exploited to Undermine the Second Amendment

People like New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo and Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), know full well the power of rhetoric. And, as they are well versed in it, they know how to use it. They know the power of persuasion. They know how to woo some members of the public—those susceptible to their vitriolic, superficial, and specious polemics. They have mastered well the art of rhetoric and they know well the power of fallacious argumentation.Cuomo and Swalwell appeal unashamedly, unabashedly, and irresponsibly to raw emotion rather than to reason as they impose their personal abhorrence of guns onto an ill-informed public. And these sanctimonious fomenters of public guilt, don’t stop there. Cuomo and Swalwell attempt to foster a sense of collective guilt in gun owners as a class; simultaneously and deliberately rousing rage in the antigun mob against guns and gun owners. Cuomo and Swalwell strongly suggest that gun owners bear a measure of responsibility for every horrific act of gun violence that occurs. And that, too, is in vein with their vision for this Country--an enclave of Socialism. Socialism, as conceived today, embraces a broad  economic, social, political, and cultural belief system predicated on the tenets of Collectivism. The tenets of Collectivism do not cohere with the notion of a fundamental right of the American citizenry to keep and bear arms, independent of Government say-so. And, those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism, such as Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell, do not accept the Lockean view that there exists a set of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights inherent in the people--rights that exist independent of and that therefore, in the purest sense, transcend all Governmental authority to prescribe, regulate, ignore, amend, or abrogate. One such fundamental, natural, unalienable, sacred right, intrinsic to and inviolate in each American citizen is the one codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Concomitant with their belief in the tenets of Collectivism, as a product of economic and political Socialism, Cuomo and Swalwell attempt to create, in the gun-owning public, a sense of collective guilt, for having—as Cuomo and Swalwell see it—the temerity to dare exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Cuomo and Swalwell create myths surrounding guns and gun ownership. They audaciously argue that it is the gun, itself, an inanimate object, rather than the sentient miscreant--the lunatic or the criminal--who bears moral responsibility for gun violence. Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, including the Press, seek, by extension, to assign and cast moral and legal blame, too, for gun violence to those who revere the Second Amendment--namely NRA, its members, and anyone else who seeks to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Through their appeal to emotion, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and others like them, attempt to foment societal rage against both guns and the gun-owning public. These new modern-day witch-hunting moralists, seek to burn both guns and gun owners at the stake for having dared to revere, even adore, the Bill of Rights that the framers lovingly bequeathed to the American people for the very purpose of securing, for the American people, freedom and liberty, against tyranny. But, it is tyranny that Cuomo and Swalwell want, and it is tyranny upon the American people that the American people will most certainly get, if Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, prove successful in foisting on the American people, a vision of the world at odds with the vision of the founders and one the founders sought to cement through the creation of a system of checks and balances in Government; and through incorporation into the Constitution--the blueprint for the new Nation they had conceived--a set of natural, fundamental, unalienable rights: codified in a document called the Bill of Rights. But, if the Collectivists' vision for this Nation takes root, Americans will see the realization of that vision decimate all that our founders created and that so many in our Nation had given their lives to preserve.  As a dense thicket of weeds overtakes and squeezes out a carefully planted and tended garden, we will see all that our founders held dear smothered and blotted out.The destroyers of our Nation--these callous, pretentious grand inquisitors, Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell--will not hesitate to impose harsh punishment on each gun owner who fails to surrender their firearms to Governmental authority. And Americans would see this if the machinery of mass confiscation of guns that Cuomo and Swalwell, and that others like them, seek, were implemented.And implementation of the Collectivists' design for a new America—a new Collectivist world order—will be set in motion if these Democratic Socialists (as they apparently prefer to call themselves) ever gain the reins of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government.

The Power of Appealing to Emotion Over Reason

The ancient Greek philosophers—whom the founders of our free Republic clearly were certainly mindful of and clearly held in great esteem, and for whom our moral philosophy derives—referred to the fallacy of appealing to emotion as “argumentum ad misericordiam.” The Greeks knew that rhetoric devoid of reason is dangerous because of its very power to persuade the unwary. We see constant use of this fallacy by unscrupulous politicians today. With a deceptive air, along with a curt smile, or grimace, these politicians deliberately mislead the public. They do this to encourage the public to accept, as good, and virtuous, and well-meaning, policy that is, in fact, pernicious; policy that is detrimental to Americans’ well-being, and to the well-being of the Nation.Those Americans who are easily moved by emotion have shown themselves to be sensitive to and amenable to the efforts of Cuomo and Swalwell to rein in this presumed plague of guns in America. Unfortunately, there are plenty of them. If Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell succeed—and with their comrades in the mainstream media to assist them in their endeavor--they may yet succeed, albeit not without an ensuing bloodbath. Of that Cuomo and Swalwell, and other antigun zealots, would do well to consider.Will the Collectivists win? Will the Second Amendment teeter and, ultimately, fall? Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and other Collectivists like them, would be ecstatic when or if that happens; and they are doing everything in their power to see that it does happen. Those who hold the Bill of Rights most dear must see to it that it doesn’t.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT MAKES CLEAR: AMERICANS ARE NOT SUBSERVIENT TO GOVERNMENT

PART TWO

THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE  BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS UNIQUE; NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH TRUSTS ITS CITIZENRY; THUS, NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH, BUT THE UNITED STATES, WILL DARE PLACE TRUST IN AN ARMED CITIZENRY

No other Nation on Earth accepts the notion that its citizens—in many instances today, as in times past, more in the nature of “subjects of the realm” and less true citizens—have an inherent, independent right to keep and bear arms. But, the founders of our Nation conceived Americans as individuals who have their own personal needs and desires; their own individual hopes and dreams. The founders perceived each American to be a unique individual soul. They understood that each life is ordained and governed by the Divine Creator, not by the State. And they crafted a free Republic consistent with that belief. Government exists to serve the American citizen. The American citizen does not exist to serve Government.Americans, as individuals, are not an amorphous collective, to be shepherded and controlled with an iron fist. The founders recognized that a constitution for a new nation must be carefully crafted to uphold and respect the sanctity of the individual, lest the nation devolve into tyranny—the yoke of which the founders had fought hard to throw off, and which they certainly had no wish to impose anew on the fledgling Nation they sought to erect.The principle of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual over that of the societal collective was, for the founders of a Free Republic, self-evident, true. That salient principle is reflected in and manifested in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. No other Nation on this Earth has a Bill of Rights like ours--a Bill of Rights that makes clear that the Government of this Nation is subordinate to and subservient to the will of the American people; always and forever. In the event those who wield power in Government happen to think otherwise, or happen to forget this salient fact, the Second Amendment exists as an ever-present reminder to Government officials and legislators of that salient fact. This is the salient reason why the Radical Left is intent on destroying the Second Amendment, although failing to omit this important fact or otherwise dismissing it out-of-hand if anyone happens to bring the matter up; but that is the Radical Left's true fear; that is the Radical Left's ever-present concern: that an armed citizenry can bring their House of Cards down  and would do so if the Radical Left were ever to move this Country toward Dictatorial rule.So it is, that politicians such as New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo, and Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA)--and other politicians or Government bureaucrats like these two, as well as those who work for the mainstream media, or who are employed in our system of education, or those, unfortunately, who serve as judges in our State or Federal Courts--incessantly, ferociously attack the Second Amendment, acting as if seemingly oblivious to the true import and purport of the Second Amendment, but clearly all too aware of it. This explains the Radical left's single-minded obsession with it and the heavy-handed efforts to defeat it. The Radical Left uses the mantras of "public safety" and "gun violence" to make its goal of de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, deceptively, "disarmingly" plausible and palatable to the citizenry so that it acquiesces, blindly, willingly; surrendering its firearms; ceding its Birthright to the Radical Left. Thus, the total disarming of the American citizenry proceeds, without a whimper; or, so the Radical Left believes and hopes.These politicians, pundits, educators, and jurists intend, unabashedly, to upend the very integrity and structural foundation of our Nation. They do so by masking their policy objectives in the guise of promoting the public good. But, through that very argument—denigrating the Second Amendment to promote and protect the welfare of society—the deviousness and insidiousness of their objectives become readily apparent. They seek to reconfigure the Nation into a societal collective, a dictatorship of a kind; one that many on the Left euphemistically, slyly, and disingenuously, refer to as “Democratic Socialism” --an expression coined merely to mask a demonic vision that is the antithesis of anything the founders of this Nation had sought for the Nation but which the radical Left in this Country intends to thrust upon this Nation anyway. Is it any wonder, then, that this radical Left would seek to destroy our Nation's heritage and history, that it would demand the dismantling of our statues and monuments, and that it would dare reserve for itself the right to declare what constitutes acceptable speech and conduct and what does not, lest our descendants recognize the true extent of their loss, and thereupon rightfully begrudge those who had so unceremoniously stolen their birthright?In the new America the radical Left in this Country conceives, there is no place for an armed citizenry. There is no protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. There is no room for individuals to speak their mind, freely and openly. Even the concept of personal property would rest on shaky ground as that concept is inconsistent with the precepts of socialism.These so-called Democratic Socialists are proponents of Collectivism, not Individualism. They argue that the needs and well-being of Society as a Whole, the Collective, is more important than the needs, the desires, the will of the individual American citizen. As they are aware that the goals and aims of the Collective are often at odds with the goals and aims of the Individual, these Collectivists--these so-called Democratic Socialists--show no reluctance in constraining and restraining the needs and desires of the Individual. The founders of our free Republic would vehemently disagree with the goals, beliefs, and predilections of these Collectivists. They would, in fact, be aghast.The Bill of Rights stands as a testament to the founders’ belief in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual over that of the Collective; over that of the herd. It should come as no surprise, then, as we see these Collectivists, the Radical Left in this Country, criticizing the Bill of Rights, attempting to second-guess the framers' reason for incorporating it into the Constitution, as a salient, critical part of it.The precepts and principles of Collectivism are inconsistent with the very existence of our Bill of Rights, as a clear and categorical codification of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights. So, the Bill of Rights is slowly being criticized, and portions, like the Second Amendment, in particular, reviled. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution is sacred to the radical Left. Every part of the Constitution is subject to criticism, change, withering, even abrogation.The Collectivists are openly critical of the very idea that certain rights--indeed, that any right--is to be, or can rationally be deemed natural, fundamental, and unalienable. For them all rights are created by and therefore bestowed on the citizenry by Government. And, what Government bestows on a person is  solely within the prerogative of Government, according to the Collectivist belief system, to take away.Thus, Collectivists relentlessly attack the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They are adamant in their refusal to accept the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists-- or is even capable of existing--independent of Government authorization.But, there is reason why Collectivists refuse to countenance the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, and immutable, quite apart from their rejection of natural law. To the Collectivist, an armed citizenry is an inherent danger to Society. As the Collectivist theorizes, a safe and secure society is one under absolute Governmental control, one under constant supervision and surveillance. So Collectivists remonstrate not only against the existence of an armed citizenry but against the right of unconstrained freedom of speech and freedom of association. And, they attack the basic idea that the American citizen has an unalienable right to be secure in their person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. Collectivists place their sole faith and trust in Government, not in the citizenry. They presume that the citizen cannot be trusted. Contrariwise, the founders placed trust in and their faith in the individual, a sentient being endowed with an immortal soul, by a Divine, Loving Creator. For the founders, it is, then, Government that should not, and cannot be trusted. Thus, the founders designed and implemented a Constitution establishing a Government of limited power, authority, and reach; incorporating into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, setting forth an expansive set of fundamental, natural, and immutable rights and liberties to be retained solely by the people, in the people themselves, beyond the power of Government to diminish or abrogate.The Collectivists in this Country are, however, humbled and respectful not at all by the singular achievement of our Nation's founders. These Collectivists are actively pursuing an agenda aimed at undoing a Constitutional Republic, grounded in a Constitution that has served the American people well for over two hundred years, and they are absolutely committed to seeing their bizarre vision for this Country come to fruition. We must make sure they don't succeed.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUN CONTROL IS A MYTH: THE SECOND AMENDMENT STANDS STRONG OR NOT AT ALL

IS LOSS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A PRICE TOO HIGH? FOR DEMOCRATS IT ISN'T. JUST ASK THEM.

PART ONE

“I know that the issue of gun control is hard. . . . I know it's political. I know it's controversial. I say to you, forget the extremists! It's simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer, and too many innocent people have died already! End this madness — now!” ~ Quotation from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State speech, delivered on January 10, 2013, five days before he signed the New York Safe Act into law, asserting his fervent hope that the New York gun control Act will produce the "toughest assault weapons ban in the nation." “Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.” ~Quotation from Op-Ed by Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat-California, published in USA Today, on May 3, 2018; urging for a mandatory and universal ban on “assault weapons.” Never in the history of this Nation have we, Americans, seen such blatant, such willful, such outrageous and confounding assaults on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution as we have seen during the first two decades of the 21^st Century. This essential unalienable right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a statement at once succinct, categorical, and clear—serves as the linchpin and cornerstone of our free Republic. The Second Amendment is an ever-present reminder that Government serves at the behest of the American people; not at its own pleasure for its own benefit; for its own aims.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE CORNERSTONE OF AMERICAN LIBERTY

The Second Amendment serves a threefold purpose. One, it signals, and is meant to signal, to Government, that ultimate power and authority resides in the American people, not in Government; never in Government. Two, the Second Amendment operates as an omnipresent reminder to those who serve in Government—and who, either through deliberate design and chicanery or through mere reckless conduct, oppress the American citizenry and who seek to impose tyranny on the American people—that Americans have, by dint of force of arms, both the means and the moral obligation to reclaim power from usurpers. And, three, the Second Amendment encapsulates the immutable idea of the sanctity, autonomy, dignity, and inviolability of each American citizen. What does this third salient point mean? Just this: it means each of us is ultimately responsible for his or her life, safety and well-being, and each of us is responsible for his or her own happiness.The ownership and possession of firearms is a potent symbol of the value the founders of a free Republic placed on the worth of each American. This fact isn’t lost on the radical Left in this Country that seeks to divide Americans into specious groups comprising "victims" and "those who would enslave them." It does this to play one group off against the other. It is a game the radical Left invented. It is called, “identity politics.” But, why is the radical Left employing this, and who is really behind the radical Left’s efforts?Consider: There exist individuals in the world, today, who have amassed vast wealth. That wealth is concentrated in but a few hands. These individuals also wield immense power; and they exert that influence in business, in our institutions of government, in our institution of education and in the massive media sector. They perceive the U.S. Constitution to be inimical to their goal—the goal of a one world government, grounded in one uniform political, financial, social, cultural, educational, and legal system of governance. They see the United States, a Nation of great military might, as one with great potential for them—one that can serve them well. But there is a catch. The U.S. Constitution does not permit subordination of the United States to any other Nation, group of Nations, or interest groups. That presents a problem for them. They see the mass of humanity as an inchoate, mindless, dangerous elemental force of nature; less governed by reason; and more by instinct. They see this unruly elemental force of nature as one requiring constant control, guidance, supervision and structure: top to bottom rule. That portends absolute subjugation of a free people, and an open invitation to tyranny.These secretive, powerful, ruthless overseers that seek to control the lives, actions, and thoughts of Americans will not, cannot abide an American citizenry that has, as a matter of right, access to firearms. So, they denigrate the Second Amendment. They have determined that Americans must be reeducated; they must learn to view gun ownership and possession as a vestige of an earlier time, an earlier age, no longer necessary or acceptable in a modern “civilized” age of globalization and neoliberalism, over which they, alone, seek to rule, and to rule with an iron fist.The arguments against firearms ownership and possession are delivered endlessly and vociferously to the public. The arguments are delivered through both a compliant Press and through accommodating politicians. That is how propaganda works; and it has, unfortunately, worked well on many Americans. But it is a long, tedious, drawn-out process. The overseers of a new transnational system of governance have patience, but their patience is growing thin, and they are adopting new, ever more egregious methods such as boycotts and direct legal actions against gun manufacturers. And, they are contriving new ways to attack NRA, and they are attempting to drive a wedge between NRA and its members—millions of Americans.Through a miscarriage of justice, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in the recent case, Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC, 331 Conn. 53, 202 A.3d 262 (Conn. 2019), overturned the comprehensive well-reasoned decision of the lower Connecticut Superior Court. The State Supreme Court ruled that Party Plaintiffs— comprising survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the estates of those murdered by the lunatic, Adam Lanza, can proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer, even in the absence of privity between the gun manufacturer and plaintiffs. That Plaintiffs may proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer turns products liability law and the law of torts on its head. The decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court is also inconsistent with federal law. The case is an egregious example of Courts legislating from the Bench. Those jurists who detest the very existence of the Second Amendment, do not hesitate to use their judicial powers to subvert the Second Amendment.If plaintiffs prevail in their lawsuit, gun manufacturers may very well go out of business. The Soto case poses a serious challenge to the Second Amendment. The case is likely to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichever side prevails in it. If the high Court takes the case, the decision that is handed down will have the most serious impact on the import and purport of the Second Amendment since the  seminal 2008 Heller case and the subsequent seminal 2010 McDonald case. The Arbalest Quarrel will, in a subsequent article, provide a comprehensive analysis of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, given its singular importance and significance.Apart from use of the courts to subvert the Second Amendment, antigun groups are waging war on the Second Amendment on the legislative front, both in Congress and in the States. The attack being waged against the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Congress and in the State Legislatures, on the one hand, and in the State and Federal Courts, on the other hand, constitutes two simultaneous avenues of direct assault on our sacred Second Amendment.If a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, expect to see the Second Amendment attacked by the new Chief Executive, issuing a flurry of executive orders to curtail exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. Obama attempted to do that. Hillary Clinton would have continued to do so had she prevailed in the 2016 election. And, a Democrat holding the Oval Office in 2020, will most certainly continue that effort. No doubt about it.Candidates running for the Democratic Party nomination have made their strong antipathy toward the Second Amendment plain. In fact, at a recent CNN sponsored Town Hall event, as reported in Newsweek, Democratic Party candidate, Kamala Harris, stated, in no uncertain terms: “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.”Misuse of the Office of the U.S. President by the Democratic (Socialist) Party would constitute yet a third front against the Second Amendment; worse yet for the American people if Democrats secure majorities in both the House and Senate in 2020. This scourge of Democrats, and those who support them--those who rail vehemently, endlessly, sanctimoniously against our Nation, against our Nation's unique history, against our rich cultural heritage, against our Judeo-Christian ethic, and against our sacrosanct and inviolate Constitution--must be thwarted. We stand to lose everything we hold most dear if we fail.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANDREW CUOMO SEEKS TO IMPOSE NEW YORK'S RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS ON THE ENTIRE NATION

In November 2018 an elated New York Times reported that Andrew M. Cuomo had secured a third term in Office as Governor of New York. The newspaper asserted, with typical exuberance and fanfare, that:“In defeating Marcus J. Molinaro, the Dutchess County executive, Mr. Cuomo, 60, soaked up the vast majority of votes in New York City, mirroring his success in the September primary, in which he defeated Cynthia Nixon, the actress and education advocate. The race was called by The Associated Press shortly after polls had closed at 9 p.m.Addressing a crowd gathered at a Midtown hotel, Mr. Cuomo said that his victory symbolized the liberal ways of New York, which he called the ‘progressive capital’ of the nation and a fortress against the policies of Donald Trump, a New Yorker himself."Andrew Cuomo—never one to exercise humility and restraint either in words spoken or in actions taken—has shaped and molded New York into his own image, a bastion of Left-wing ideology, increasingly out-of-touch with the Nation at large, and a slap-in-the-face to the vision our founders had for the Nation. Yet, what he has wrought upon the people of New York, he would dare impose on the entire Nation.In the last few months since the election, Cuomo has become increasingly emboldened. And, why shouldn’t he be emboldened? After all, as the Democratic Party has lurched ever Leftward, openly extolling the tenets of Socialism and Communism, and exhorting the Nation to follow suit, Cuomo has made abundantly clear that his own star must continue to rise.Indeed, The New York Times suggested, in its Sunday March 10, 2019 edition, titled, “Centrist Democrats Squirm as Rivals Swerve left in Presidential Race,” that Andrew Cuomo may be one of two logical choices to wear “the moderate mantle” as Democratic Party Presidential hopeful, now that former mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has bowed out of the race, and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden presently remains undecided.Yet, if Andrew Cuomo can reasonably be considered a political moderate or centrist, it goes to show just how far off the deep end the Democratic Party has fallen. Or, perhaps, The New York Times simply seeks to create the impression that Cuomo is a stalwart, solid, and stolid political moderate or centrist, knowing that an outright Socialist such as Bernie Sanders would not likely pull-off a victory against Trump in 2020.The fact remains that Andrew Cuomo is no less a Left-wing radical than is Bernie Sanders or Cory Booker, or Kamala Harris, or Kristen Gillibrand. Andrew Cuomo is as radical in his politics and in his policy choices as they are. He is as radical as they come. Simply look at the New York policy measures that Cuomo campaigned for and that he signed into law. Consider: Cuomo was instrumental in signing into law, in February 2019, an abortion measure that literally sanctions murder. Even pro-choice Americans look askance at late term abortions, much less abortions at the moment of birth, but not Andrew Cuomo.Keep in mind that the very word, ‘abortion,’ has literally been written out of New York’s Penal Code. Given that fact, it follows from this action, both logically and legally, that abortion at any time, up to and including the moment of birth, is now in effect lawful, even if apologists for the law, insist that isn’t the case at all. It is. Since no penalty is exacted from the perpetrator of an abortion, effectively, then, no crime exists upon which the perpetrator of the act can be indicted. This New York law that Cuomo gloats over is hardly representative of a political moderate or political centrist.But if you were to ask him, Andrew Cuomo would likely tell you that he is a political moderate. He would tell you, consistent with his belief—or, if not, then, consistent, at least, with his claim, hoping you would believe him—that his political views and policy objectives are clearly within the mainstream of the Country even if they really aren’t. And, of course, they aren’t. New York’s abortion law is a prime example. Take another: Cuomo’s continued assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.In 2018, during his campaign for a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo, made clear that the New York Safe Act—what he and others would claim as his true signature achievement—was not the endgame; not by a longshot. It is but a mere skirmish in Cuomo’s ongoing campaign to weaken the Second Amendment, and eventually to obliterate it. He would if he could do so in New York, and he would relish doing the same well beyond the borders of New York, namely, throughout the Nation.The weblog, Spectrum Local News reported that, during his campaign for a third term in Office, “Cuomo has not just defended his staunch support for gun control, he’s pledging to expand the existing law.” If anyone were to think this was an empty campaign pledge, think again. It wasn’t. Cuomo was deadly serious. In January of 2019, as reported by Hudson Valley 360, Cuomo, “announced plans . . .  to increase gun control within the first 100 days of the new legislative session,” and he further chortled, “‘New York already has the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, and we are taking additional steps to make our laws even stronger and keep our communities, and our schools, safe. Together, we will pass this common sense legislation and send a clear message to Washington that gun violence has no place in our state or nation.’”To some, this may be viewed as a hopeful promise. But, to the vast majority of the Nation's citizenry this is a singular, dire threat that must be taken seriously and fought ferociously against.Now that Democrats control both the New York Assembly and the New York State Senate, Governor Cuomo is able to make good on that frightful promise. But, one may well ask: why would Cuomo do so; why would he think it necessary to do so? What would that really accomplish other than making it increasingly onerous, if not impossible, for the average law-abiding New York resident and citizen of the United States to exercise his or her fundamental right, under the Second Amendment? But, then, is not that really the point? Is not that really Cuomo’s ultimate objective: the dissolution of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? And, Is not that a primary goal of all radical Leftists?Of course no one can, with a straight face, argue that New York’s present gun laws are lenient, relaxed, or sensible. New York's gun laws--especially those in New York City, and in a couple of New York's Counties--are anything but lenient and relaxed; And those gun laws are anything but ‘sensible’—to use a common appellation of antigun zealots, in reference to their constant call for ever more “sensible gun control” measures. No! New York has long had the most restrictive and oppressive firearms’ laws in the Nation. Antigun groups revel in that fact. Apparently, Cuomo and others of his ilk do not think that New York’s restrictive gun laws are oppressive and repressive enough. They look forward to building upon the NY Safe Act, devising ever further ways in which to confound, antagonize, and demoralize law-abiding citizens who wish merely to be left alone; free to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed to the Nation's citizenry in the Nation's Bill of Rights.

THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT IS A TRAVESTY.

Recall that, in 2013, Cuomo machinated behind closed doors, to instigate enactment of the reprehensible New York Safe Act, which otherwise certainly would not have been enacted. For the NY Safe Act could not have been enacted—likely would not have been enacted—if it had seen the light of day. The Act should have been debated in open session by all Legislators, Republican and Democrat, and the public should have been able to review it and comment on it. After all, isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work? But, what we see in the New York Safe Act is reprehensible. It is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment and inconsistent with the very idea of the sanctity and autonomy of the individual American citizen. Cuomo and those who detest the Second Amendment knew that the NY Safe Act could not, likely, survive legislative and public scrutiny. Subterfuge was necessary for NY Safe to be enacted.But, subterfuge is not the way to enact law. That is not how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to operate. But, that is how the Governor of New York operates and that is how his henchmen in Albany operate. And, to add insult to injury, the Governor and his henchmen in Albany rejoice in their ability to circumvent the law, to attain the aims they wish to attain, the public be damned. To this day the Governor and his comrades in Albany boast of their ability to operate within the periphery of the legislative process to get done those things they want to get done. And, the mainstream media, the echo chamber of these radical Leftist elements, gloats along with them.The New York Times gleefully writes: “The governor successfully corralled recalcitrant Senate Republicans into supporting the so-called Safe Act that expanded the state’s ban on assault weapons, tightened certification requirements, increased criminal penalties for illegal guns and closed private sale loopholes.”  And, so, the NY Safe Act, 2013 Bill Text NY S.B. 2230,was spawned; enacted in Albany, as an “emergency measure,” and signed into law by Cuomo, during his second term as New York Governor, on January 15, 2013.With passage of the New York Safe Act in 2013, New York’s already restrictive gun laws became more restrictive as more and more firearms were classified as illegal ‘assault weapons.’ The Safe Act also imposed new restrictions on ammunition magazine capacity. But that’s not all. The Safe Act did not limit its reach to restrictions to firearms and ammunition.The Act imposed ominous disclosure requirements on health care professionals, impinging uncomfortably on the privilege of confidentiality existent between medical doctor and patient. The Safe Act even imposed new obligations on the Courts, taking judicial discretion away from the Courts on matters involving revocation and suspension of firearms’ licenses and rifle and shotgun permits. And, new, stringent penalties were imposed on law-abiding gun owners who failed to comply with the convoluted new antigun laws, permeating through the Consolidated Laws of New York.Cuomo and the antigun crowd in Albany are fully enamored with themselves. And, with each success, in robbing Americans of their birthright, they consider yet other and more devious ways to divest the public of their sacred right to keep and bear arms, as they escalate their war on the Second Amendment. With Democrats now holding majorities in the New York Assembly and in the State Senate, the State’s antigun Legislators have unleashed a flurry of antigun measures in the first month of 2019:As reported by The Evening Sun newspaper, on January 29, 2019,“The Democrat-controlled New York Legislature is set Tuesday to pass several bills aimed at making the state’s already tough gun laws even stricter. At least eight measures are expected to pass the Assembly and Senate, including legislation to prohibit schools from allowing teachers and other school employees to carry guns in schools.” While Cuomo muscles through his antigun legislation in Albany, he suffers not any attempt by Republican Legislators to enact legislation that might throw a wrench into his policy objectives; he suffers not any attempt by those in Albany who seek to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2017 the liberal weblog, Politico, reported that State Representative Chris Collins, a Republican from Buffalo, New York, attempted to do just that. He introduced legislation to curtail Cuomo’s Safe Act in its entirety. Governor Cuomo was petulant, stating:“‘If they try to overrule the state of New York, we will sue, because the state has rights, too,’ Cuomo said. ‘And especially with this federal government, it’s very important that the states represent their rights and assert their rights. And I will assert my right to the fullest extent of the law, because I am diametrically opposed and the people of my state are diametrically opposed to much of what this federal government is trying to do.’” Undeterred, Representative Collins fired back,“‘The 10th Amendment respects state’s rights until they violate another amendment,’ Collins said at a press conference, flanked by several state legislators. ‘We’re not going to let them stomp on our right to the Second Amendment.’”State Representative Collins is right. He might also have reminded the Governor that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The U.S. Supreme Court made that point abundantly clear in the seminal Heller case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). And, in the subsequent McDonald case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), the high Court held that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment, applies to the States too. That means the Second Amendment applies to New York. Cuomo apparently doesn’t think so, or would rather that it did not because, if Cuomo is aware of that the Second Amendment applies to New York, he couldn’t care less. He will not allow a fundamental right of the people get in the way of his policy objectives.

COULD A TENTH AMENDMENT LEGAL GAMBIT WORK TO SECURE THE NY SAFE ACT AGAINST A SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO REPEAL THE ACT LEGISLATIVELY?

Cuomo’s threat to kill an attempt to waylay the New York Safe Act via a Tenth Amendment challenge could not succeed were Representative Collins successful in repealing the New York Safe Act. Perhaps, Cuomo knows this. But, apart from Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment challenge, it was Collin’s remarks, alone, that Cuomo took particular exception to. Cuomo didn’t like what he heard. Cuomo could not stomach what he perceived to be Collins’ audacious assault on the Governor’s signature gun policy achievement. And, Cuomo didn’t like the tacit idea expressed in Representative Collins’ remarks, namely, that a cause supportive of the Second Amendment might be seen by the public as a noble effort.Cuomo finds most disconcerting that he cannot obliterate the Second Amendment at once, but must do so incrementally. Yet, Republican Legislators and Second Amendment groups are, as well, left, at best, to attempt to defeat an oppressive, unconstitutional Act through piecemeal efforts, tinkering around the Act’s edges to weaken a swollen monstrosity, even as Cuomo and fellow antigun zealots seek to add to an already bloated set of repressive anti-Second Amendment measures that, together, constitute, the New York Safe Act.To date, Republican actions have yielded little positive result, as the bulk of the NY Safe Act remains untouched, seemingly impervious to assault. And Cuomo, for his part, with Democratic Party majorities in both the Assembly and in the State Senate, are better situated to enact further oppressive and repressive antigun laws.But, contrary to Cuomo’s assertions, States cannot justifiably claim a general right under the Tenth Amendment to strip the fundamental right existent in each individual citizen, as codified in the Second Amendment. State Representative Collins correctly and unambiguously points out, a Tenth Amendment States’ rights claim does not trump the Second Amendment right existent in each American citizen. Collins is absolutely correct on that score.  Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not simply refer to States’ rights. It also refers to rights held by the people. The Tenth Amendment sets forth: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  Like all too many politicians, Andrew Cuomo demonstrates a proclivity toward duplicity and incongruity, along with a barely concealed tendency to exact revenge, through the power of his Office, against those he perceives have offended him. And, so it is that Cuomo dares to threaten a lawsuit against State Legislators who would take action to repeal a State law that Cuomo happens to champion.In threatening a Tenth Amendment States’ rights challenge against State Representative Collins and anyone else who would dare repeal the New York Safe Act, Cuomo is also relying on, albeit tacitly, the doctrine of federalism that demarcates power between the Federal Government and the States. But does the doctrine of federalism apply here? No, it doesn’t. Federalism doesn’t apply because Representative Collins isn’t operating at the behest of the Federal Government in challenging the Constitutionality of the New York Safe Act. He is acting as a State Legislator, on behalf of those American citizens who happen to be New York residents, and he is representing the interests of the residents of the City of Buffalo, who elected him to represent their interests.So, in challenging the constitutionality of NY Safe, Representative Collins is operating within the confines of the State to protect citizens who reside in New York, in order to protect their Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Andrew Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment threat directed against New York Representative Collins is both wrong and wrongheaded.The States’ rights aspect of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply here since, one, the Tenth Amendment protects the right of the people too, not merely rights of the States, and, two, because States’ rights do not, in any event, supersede the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. And, the doctrine of federalism isn’t applicable here, either, because NY Safe does not apply to the Nation at large. It applies only to the residents of New York, and it as an unconstitutional Governmental action against the residents of New York, alone, whom the Act targets, and it is interests of New York residents that that Representative Collins’ has sought, then, to protect and vindicate.Governor Cuomo, for his part, though, doesn’t bother to consider all the negative ramifications of the Tenth Amendment that work against him and he doesn’t consider the negative ramifications of the doctrine of Federalism when it comes to expanding NY Safe to the entire Nation. Cuomo has been quite vocal and blunt on this. The State of Politics weblog, points to Cuomo’s position on this:“The rest of the country should take up legislation similar to the SAFE Act gun control measure approved in 2013 in New York.” “In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, New York did more than send our thoughts and prayers,” Cuomo said in a statement. “‘We stepped up to pass the strongest gun safety legislation in the nation. The SAFE Act didn’t affect sportsmen, hunters or legal gun owners—but it reduced the risk to our children, to our families and to our communities. It banned assault weapons like AR-15s and kept guns out of the hands of dangerously mentally ill people. It’s far past time that the rest of the nation follows suit.’Cuomo has previously urged Democrats in Congress to take a more truculent stance on the issue of gun control.” So, even as Andrew Cuomo dares threaten a States’ rights Tenth Amendment challenge against Representative Chris Collins, Andrew Cuomo seems curiously blasé about a true States’ rights challenge that any other State could raise against Congress were Congress to attempt to impose the New York Safe Act on every other State, which is precisely what Congress and Cuomo would like to do. Cuomo is hardly the States’ right advocate he pretends to be when it is his intention to impose New York law, especially, the New York Safe Act, on everyone else.

ANDREW CUOMO "PROJECTS" HIS PERSONAL FAILINGS ONTO OTHERS.

The psychological defense mechanism of projection comes into play when one looks to the Governor Cuomo’s chicanery and antics. Cuomo constantly projects his own moral deficiencies onto those whom he happens to disagree with.The weblog, “The Rant” reports that,“Cuomo has used the gun control issue to knock Republicans.‘They have a different world view of America. They are systemically trying to impose their world view on this country,’ said Cuomo.”

WHO IS IMPOSING WHAT ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Cuomo is wrong about Republicans. Republicans aren’t trying to impose a world view of America at all. Republicans—many of them at least—simply seek to adhere to the vision of America as conceived by the founders of our Republic, as set down in the blueprint of our Nation, our Constitution. It is Cuomo and other extremists in the Democratic Party, both in Congress, and in States such as New York, who are hellbent on imposing their world view on the rest of us, in contradistinction to the dictates of the United States Constitution. What they seek is a world view at loggerheads with the will of the majority of the Nation’s citizenry and one singularly at odds with the traditions of our forebears.The recent antigun legislation coming out of the Democratic Party controlled House is a prime example of the Democrats’ rancor toward our Nation’s history, our Nation’s traditions, and our Nation’s core values. Consider the outrageous: For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1. A perusal of the Act, aptly illustrates just how out-of-touch the Democratic Party is with the American citizenry. Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, stated that the For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1, is dead on arrival in the Senate, as is the House antigun, Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, H.R. 8.But the Democratic Party controlled House isn’t done. The public can expect to see a plethora of unconstitutional laws oozing out of Congress in the months ahead, along with unconstitutional laws emanating from Democratic Party controlled State Governments, such as New York. The U.S. Senate will likely kill all or most Congressional bills coming out of the House. And, those that do make it out of Congress will surely see a Trump veto. But, for State Legislatures that hold Democratic Party majorities, and where the Governor of the State is also a Democrat—as is the case in New York—the people of those States will continue to suffer the evisceration of their fundamental rights.

WILL THE BILL OF RIGHTS TRULY CONTINUE TO EXIST, AND WILL THE UNITED STATES CONTINUE TRULY TO EXIST AS THE NATION’S FOUNDERS ENVISIONED IT, AS A FREE REPUBLIC, OR WILL THE NATION EXIST MERELY WITH THE TRAPPINGS OF A FREE REPUBLIC AND WITH MERELY THE TRAPPINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXISTENT IN THE PEOPLE?

As the Late Eighteenth-Early Nineteenth Century French Philosopher and Diplomat, Joseph de Maistre, said, “Every Nation Gets the Government, It deserves.”  This means the people of a Nation ultimately decide on the form of their Government, and must accept the result of a bad choice.The founders of our Nation carefully considered various models for Government. They created a Constitutional Republic. They realized that Government is best that serves the people, and not the other way around. They fought to overthrow an oppressor,George III of Great Britain.They were successful. But, in creating a new Nation, they did not wish to substitute one oppressor for yet another. So, they established a federal Government with limited, circumscribed powers; and they incorporated into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, codifying fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties upon which Government cannot, must not tread. The Bill of Rights makes clear that ultimate authority rests with the people, not Government. Thus, was the framework for a new Nation established.But, there are ruthless, inordinately wealthy, very well-organized, and extremely powerful forces at work today, both here and abroad, that look on our Nation and its people with jealous eyes. They seek to destroy the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ that the President, Donald Trump was elected, by the people, to preserve, and which he has worked tirelessly to preserve even as there are those hell-bent to destroy both him and his Administration.What we see occurring in the EU can unfold here in the U.S. There are powerful ruthless forces at work that seek to insert the U.S. eventually into a unified trans-world government. They realize that the United States, with the most powerful military apparatus in the world and with its mighty economic clout, must submit to this new trans-world government, if they are to succeed in their effort to consolidate power in a one world Government. They cannot succeed unless they bring the U.S. into its fold. These ruthless forces have control over our Press that actively misleads the people, distorting the news, creating false narratives, and they have their flunkies in Congress and in the vast Government Bureaucracy.The American people are becoming indoctrinated; are becoming predisposed to elect the kinds of people in both Congress and in State Government, who seek nothing less than the dismantling of our Constitutional Republic; who see our Constitution, with its predominant Bill of Rights, as a relic of a bygone age; and they seek to radically alter our Constitution, and, in so doing, radically alter the foundation of a free Republic.We see this through blatant efforts to rewrite the Constitution; attempts to weaken the unalienable right of free Speech as codified in the First Amendment; attempts to obliterate the unalienable right of the people to keep in bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment; attempts to weaken the unalienable right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as codified in the Fourth Amendment; and attempts to defeat the very concept of ‘private property,’ as embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.We see attempts by these new representatives in Congress, and in the States, as echoed by a compliant Press, to admit into the ranks of the citizenry, millions of illegal aliens who have no understanding of a Constitutional Republic, who cannot assimilate, and who are not meant to assimilate. They are people who mystifyingly claim a right to reside in our Nation in defiance of our laws. These are people who seek Government largess in return for their vote and the radical Left that has infiltrated the Democratic Party is ever willing to give them tokens in return for their unswerving loyalty.We see attempts to do away with the electoral college as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. And, we see attempts to rewrite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution, with an aim to increase the number of representatives in left leaning States. Were these efforts to come to fruition, the Constitutional Republic as conceived by the founders of our Nation, would cease to exist. Yet, the public is led to believe that all this is for their own benefit; that it is all for their own good; that it is for the well-being of society as a whole; that it is for the welfare of the collective, even as it comes to the detriment of the individual.But, a Government created to serve the people would mushroom into the overseer of the people. And this would be explained to the people as a good thing. The world is complex, they say. The people need guidance. Government must not be constrained. The Government can provide the best care for the people. People must simply be willing to give up a few of their rights and liberties—no big thing!Is there a price high enough that a person would willingly sell their soul? Some would do so. More and more members of the public are becoming hoodwinked.Until the electorate in our Nation comes to its senses, expect to see individuals like Andrew Cuomo and many others contorting this Nation into their vision of a proper world; proper for Cuomo and other radical Leftists, perhaps, but a living Hell for most everyone else: a Hell world as conceived in the radical Left’s own tortured, warped souls, and in their own feverish minds; a world they would force everyone else to live in.It is too late for Andrew Cuomo, and for people like him: people like Eric Swalwell and Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders; and for people like Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. And it is much too late for such arrogant, hateful, spiteful, surly creatures like Senator Krysten Sinema, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; and for radical Muslim hatemongers such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.It is, not, however, too late for the rest of us, but it soon will be as we are rapidly approaching the Eleventh Hour. If we do not act to vote these aforesaid individuals, and many like them, out of Office, and if we fail to support U.S. President Trump, we will indeed acquire the Government we deserve—tyranny and servitude.  ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THROUGH ENACTMENT OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019, NEW YORK NOW SANCTIONS MURDER

Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.Those two reprehensible New York policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies; and  with his political clout he has forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former Act into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter Act into law, on January 22, 2019.The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as all awful laws invariably do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But Cuomo is lying. A perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public, in order to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane New York laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. The drafters of the NY Safe Act peppered the myriad laws that comprise the Act, here and there, throughout the New York State Code. Even an attorney must spend considerable effort to locate them all in this behemoth compendium of laws that comprise the Consolidated laws of the State of New York. Once found, the meaning of many of these laws is difficult to discern and fathom as much of the verbiage is ambiguous and vague.Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or from a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Andrew Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the American citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.Governor Cuomo exclaims, disingenuously, that he is simply more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act only serves to make the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as law-abiding citizens who reside in New York become an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety--which are mere mindless messaging--and has everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability, all intrinsic to the Second Amendment.It should come as no surprise, then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a second measure—certainly a measure he undoubtedly had a hand in crafting and shaping like the first one—a measure that is as sweeping in conception and implementation and as abhorrent to the conscience as the earlier one is.This second measure is, on any estimation, is horrific, as it amounts to legally sanctioned murder. This policy measure has the decidedly false appellation of: “Reproductive Health Act of 2019.”Make no mistake, regardless of protestations to the contrary, it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets for death; for extinction. The Act has little if anything to do with the life and health of the mother and it has everything to do with State licensed execution of an innocent, defenseless child.Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability and sanctity of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ Collectivists concern themselves with society, in its entirety, not with the welfare and well-being of the individual in society. So, then, when Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in the broadest sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called Utilitarian Consequentialism. This is an ethical system unconcerned with and therefore devoid of any reference to a person’s intentions and motivations.Utilitarian Consequentialism derives ethical maxims essentially from the results or effects of one’s actions on society. An individual's motives and intentions for acting fall out of the equation entirely or almost entirely since motives and intentions are deemed essentially irrelevant. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil essentially from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective, the hive.The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is a nebulous concept. And, as a nebulous concept it is therefore, ultimately, an unsatisfactory one upon which to build an ethical system, for the concept of 'utility maximization,' means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means. It is therefore arbitrary and constantly subject to revision. It is ever subject to the whim and caprice of the rulers of society, as they utilize it to dictate morality for the populace. Morality for Collectivists, those people, who espouse Utilitarian Consequentialism, perceive morality as a relative notion, not exact, not definite and definitive, not concrete.Utilitarian Consequentialism, grounded as it is on the concept of ‘utility maximization,’ is a bankrupt ethical system, because, for the Utilitarian Consequentialist, good and evil, are relative to time, place and circumstance, and to the wiles of those who define the expression for everyone else.Utilitarian Consequentialism is a form of moral relativism, and moral relativism of any kind or form, is hardly something upon which to establish a system for distinguishing good conduct from bad conduct, as any act, however reprehensible, can be deemed morally permissible. In fact, it is this very moral relativism that allows for something like New York's obscene Reproductive Health Act to be enacted.Only a purported ethical system like Utilitarian Consequentialism could allow for something as horrific as New York’s “Reproductive Health Act” to exist. And, only those who espouse Collectivism and who therefore adhere to the seeming ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism--as does Andrew Cuomo--would be capable of devising and implementing a monstrosity such as the Reproductive Health Act. And, only a Collectivist, such as Andrew Cuomo, would perceive licensed murder, as ethically defensible, indeed, even righteous.But Cuomo isn't done. He goes further. He dares raise abortion to the level of a fundamental right. But abortion qua the murder of a child, does not appear anywhere in this Nation’s Bill of Rights, either expressly or tacitly, and understandably so. Fundamental rights are natural rights, endowed by God, the Creator, on Man. Fundamental rights are not to be perceived as relative to a particular time, place, or circumstance. Fundamental rights are not mere creatures of Man. They are immutable. The idea that God, the creator of human souls, would ever sanction abortion, amounts to the very crucifixion of sanity. But, of course, nowhere in utilitarian consequentialism is there any discussion of a Divine Creator anyway.Not surprisingly Collectivists would espouse an “ethical” system like utilitarian consequentialism for they are atheists. Since they dispense with the very notion of a Divine Creator, they exhibit no humility. And, we see the results of their lack of restraint through the public policy they espouse. They have no inhibition; no shame. They lack all restraint. They are governed by raw ambition, and they are ever ruled by a lust for power and self-aggrandizement. These are exemplified in the present Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.Now, Andrew Cuomo would probably vehemently disagree with the assertion he is an atheist, having been born and raised as a Catholic; and he has never  disavowed or, in any manner, severed his relationship to or ties with the Catholic Church--at least as far as we can ascertain. But, then, that fact only serves to make his association with an abortion policy, any abortion policy, but especially one he had a hand in crafting and forcing through the New York Legislature--and one as disturbing and confounding and distressing as the one he signed into law--particularly egregious and incongruous; deeply so, and much more so than if Cuomo were to proclaim himself an atheist.

PEOPLE WHO ESPOUSE COLLECTIVISM ARE A COLD, CALLOUS LOT

Not surprisingly, Collectivists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but, profess only concern for an amorphous mass, a Chimera, which is to profess, then, really, no concern for anyone at all. And, indeed, they don't. Thus, they can tell you with cold, calculated certainty that the life of two individuals is worth more than the life of one individual even if those two individuals are serial killers, and the one individual is a simple, God-fearing, law-abiding American citizen. The argument would simply devolve into numbers: two is greater than one, so the life of two individuals is worth more than the life of one individual, and there is no need to consider the nature of those lives. Thus, the Collectivist argues for "gun control." Better, the Collectivist would say, for two killers to murder an innocent individual than for the innocent individual, in an act of simple, basic self-preservation--to kill the two would-be killers with a firearm, as society, in its entirety, will be the better for removal of firearms, according to the reasoning of the Collectivist. Thus, sacrifice of the one individual serves society, as a whole. But, why, really, ought a person to accept sanctity in numbers for the sake of mere numbers?If one cares less for the life of one individual simply because one life is one less than two, why emphasize the import of the lives of the many at all? It is in fact this very preoccupation with raw numbers, rather than with concern for the particular individual life in question that allows Collectivists to sanction abortion. Only a Collectivist can somehow rationalize that the public as a whole will benefit from an abortion policy at all only because there are, presumably, according to the logic of the Collectivist, many more individuals that comprise the body politic than are the number of innocent lives that will be lost--sacrificed--as a result of an abortion policy. In other words, many more women--Cuomo and other proponents of New York's Reproductive Health Act tell us--would personally benefit from disrupting a human life. They tell us that society is better served by killing the unborn child than would be served if the mother were required to carry the child to birth, as society as a whole, somehow, in the mind of the Collectivist is better served for having an abortion policy, notwithstanding the clear, irremediable, irreversible loss of an innocent child that having an abortion policy entails.It is this convoluted, shallow logic that permits New York, now, to permit human sacrifice--sacrifice of the most innocent among us. But this is not reason. It is Satanic sophistry.Thus, Andrew Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, doesn’t express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the innocent individual souls that might, if they had a chance at life, comprise part of the body politic. Cuomo, and other Collectivists only express ostensible concern, then, for the well-being and welfare of the Collective, of “the hive.” How it can it be any other way than this?It is very much in vein then that Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Collectivist, the Utilitarian Consequentialist, would help craft the text of, and avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Given the detrimental impact of these horrific measures on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen, Cuomo and others of his ilk strive to hide the dire impact of these schemes on the sanctity and inviolability of each American citizen, and suggest that they are something different from what they truly purport to be.Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it.Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.  Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system; nor do they wish to adapt themselves to it. But they have no choice. Cuomo thrusts his beliefs and his bizarre belief system onto others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in exercising that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the residents of the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse; he seeks to control all thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, like so many other Collectivists in the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs; oblivious to and, indeed, disdainful of the thoughts and feelings and beliefs of others.As a private citizen, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right as an American citizen as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor, Cuomo can and does ordain his belief system for others, that harms everyone and cannot and ought not be countenanced, and ought to be roundly and soundly condemned and fought against.Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental, natural, unalienable right—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment, and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. He thereupon rams through the State Legislature, surreptitiously, without debate, in the dark of night, an extraordinarily restrictive firearms' measure that operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist.Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, Andrew Cuomo operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and, so, may be summarily and unceremoniously erased.

GOVERNOR CUOMO CATEGORICALLY IGNORES THE FACT THAT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE EXPRESS WORDS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; YET, AMAZINGLY AND BIZARRELY HE PROPOSES TO CREATE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE SEES AS A RIGHT INHERENT, APPARENTLY, IN A GENERAL, NOTION OF PRIVACY; BUT NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES SUCH A GENERAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXIST.

Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Andrew Cuomo dares attempt to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who then signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. In creating such monstrous policy, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other living soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.But contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to an abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. Yet, now, with the enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, the State of York has taken the rash, unprecedented step of literally sanctioning legal murder--an oxymoron, to be sure--but there is no better way to refer to it for that is what it is. Under law, legal murder is not murder at all. But, a purposeful act of snuffing out the life of an innocent soul has occurred nonetheless. And, as if that were not enough, in having enacted such a law, the Legislature of New York and the Governor of New York now audaciously raise a certain instance of murder to the level of a fundamental right, as the preamble to the Act, makes plain. The Governor of New York and those members of the State Legislature who had a hand in drafting the Reproductive Health Act or who otherwise voted for the Act's enactment, categorically declare that abortion is a fundamental right under both the State Constitution and under the U.S. Constitution. A certain kind of act that heretofore did constitute a criminal act, no longer does constitute a criminal act in New York.How does Cuomo and other proponents of the Reproductive Health Act, literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child. But, where in the Constitution does this presumptive right of privacy of the  the mother reside? Cuomo doesn't say. But, assuming arguendo, it does reside and must reside somewhere, implied, and tacit, in the Constitution, where in the Constitution does this presumptive right of privacy happen, then, to reside? Where in the U.S. Constitution does such presumed fundamental right preside over that of the very life and well-being of the unborn child? The answer is: nowhere!If a vague, generalized right to privacy exists at all, it is nowhere to be found in nor can it be extracted from any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and it is not to be found in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution or in any other Amendment of the Bill of Rights; nor is it to be extracted from the text of any one of the subsequent Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive, explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise and explicit. The concept of ‘privacy,’ on the other hand, is abstract and vague.

SUPPOSE, FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT, A FUNDAMENTAL, SUBSTANTIVE, GENERAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY DOES FEASIBLY EXIST IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, CAN THAT EVER JUSTIFY ABORTION?

Certainly, no rational argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child is somehow subordinated to a general notion of privacy, even if such general right of privacy can be extracted somewhere from the text of the U.S. Constitution. Some people may argue that a general implicit right of privacy exists in or is subsumed in the explicit unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. Even so, such general right of privacy cannot rationally justify abortion. The framers of the Constitution could not have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise. Cuomo is one such fevered mind that does. But, if a general, fundamental right of privacy does exist, and, if not in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, then where else might such substantive fundamental right be found upon which abortion might reasonably be Constitutionally sanctioned?Some may argue, that, if a general right of privacy cannot be found tacit in the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, then, perhaps, a general right to privacy exists as one of the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.But, once again, no one can reasonably, rationally, logically construe the idea that an assault on the life of an unborn child is always Constitutionally permissible through the notion of a fundamental but unenumerated general right of privacy. Yet, advocates for abortion would argue that a general right of privacy--whether perceived, somehow as a substantive and fundamental but unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment or as tacitly existent in the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, or, perhaps, as residing in the due process clause or equal protection clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, or in the text of any other part of the Constitution--serves, legally, to override concern for the life and well-being of the unborn child. In other words, if State sanctioned murder is to be lawfully permitted, then it must be Constitutionally protected, but one must twist and contort the Constitution to find a way to justify what is, on its face, a horrific act. And, however one attempts to do so, the attempt invariably fails.

ABORTION RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND ACTIVISTS MUST FACE THE FACT THAT ABORTION, WHETHER EARLY TERM OR LATE TERM OR AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH, ALWAYS INVOLVES THE KILLING OF A LIVING, ABSOLUTELY DEFENSELESS AND INNOCENT CHILD.

Although there have been attempts to insert privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn, child. Even if one assumes,  as Cuomo does, the existence of a general and fundamental right of privacy, albeit without proof, it is of dubious value to argue that such general privacy concern is superior to the life and well-being of an unborn child, and that such right of privacy is to be secured to the detriment of the unborn child. But, Cuomo's Reproductive Health Act has, by contriving a general fundamental right of privacy, placed that contrived general right of privacy over the very real life and well-being of the child. The Reproductive Health Act operates from just such an implausible assumption.But, do we allow Cuomo and other proponents of the Reproductive Health Act to get away with murder? Do we allow State-sanctioned murder simply because the proponents of abortion perfunctorily couch the act of abortion in something palatable, namely in the language of a fundamental right of health, privacy, or equality, despite the absence of a clear legal and moral foundation for it? They should not be let so easily off the hook.For those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, inherent in a fundamental, but unproved general right of privacy, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child, which, for these abortion rights advocates and activists, even includes a right to abortion even up to commencement of birth of a living human being. These people, though, do not wish to admit that fact, overtly, even if, among themselves they are perfectly content with it. So they tend to skip over it, rather than contend openly with it. If pressed, however, these advocates of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child, including the child about to be born, and even the child in the midst of live birth, isn’t a person.Those advocating for abortion simply view the unborn child as a nonentity. They deny to a living soul, the sacred, inviolate idea of 'personhood.' Advocates of abortion thereupon deny, to the unborn child and to the child about to be born and even to the child in the midst of live birth, the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim, through it all, a concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Statute and in the New York Safe Act. Both Acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act shows, in the language of it, and in its operation, a complete lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at substantial cost: a concomitant loss of benefit accruing to the individual.Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society, comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a clear and callous lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent of living beings. As with the NY Safe Act, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act claim the Act benefits society as a whole, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of decidedly the most critical need of all—life itself—for it is innocent individuals who suffer the dire and immediate consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER, PLAINLY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY

Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by submerging the act of abortion into the context of a presumed fundamental general right of privacy. But, that isn't enough. The problem is that, under the laws of New York, abortion is a crime. So, the Reproductive Health Act must change those provisions of New York law that make abortion a crime. The Reproductive Health Act amends New York law by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other State laws regarding abortion.A new Section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion, when according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion on demand up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” But is that true? A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion until the third trimester, we must not lose sight of the fact that the New York's Reproductive Health Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Abortions' rights advocates like to skirt over that fact. But, the fact remains that a living soul exists in the womb.Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. So what! whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether one talks about viability of the child during the first, second, or third trimester. The question is whether abortion can be ethically justified at any point during pregnancy.Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may perform an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give everyone pause.Third, when analyzing New York's Reproductive Health Act, one should pay attention to how the Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten to cohere with the precepts of the Act.Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly so as to conclude that the Act proscribes abortions at the point of the third trimester, as Cuomo and those who advocate for his abortion Act do so claim--apparently to assuage those who oppose the Reproductive Health Act--the claim is actually false.Still, despite the apparent language of the Act, and contrary to the remarks of those who justify the Act, claiming built-in limitations on abortion, the fact remains that with Cuomo's imprimatur, ab0rtion on demand is now perfectly legal in New York, not simply up to the third trimester, but at any time. That signals a legal right to abortion on demand through the third trimester, and, in fact, up to and including the very point of birth of the child. But, is that true? Yes, it is. The statement is true because abortion qua the killing of a child at any point in time, from conception up to the point of delivery and even beyond, is no longer a crime in New York. The very word, 'abortion' has been stricken from the Consolidated Laws of New York.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ABORTION NO LONGER ATTACHES IN NEW YORK

Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. What does that mean? It means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and, further, it means that abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.Where there is no penalty for committing a crime, there does not, in effect, exist a crime, regardless of what a criminal code sets forth. Any words to the contrary are nugatory, and, so, in effect, meaningless.  Abortion is no longer a crime in New York.If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:

• A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
• death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
• death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;

(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(e) A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”Sections (d) and (e) have been excised from New York law. And, New York's Legislators, who crafted the Reproductive Health Act, did so for an important reason. They took this rash step to make clear that the very act of abortion is lawful, even moral, because it is consistent, in the mind of the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, as a fundamental right.What does this Section of New York law mean? It means that abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time. For, where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, once again, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York. It has been indelibly stricken.What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that: Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse, when one considers various scenarios that play out.Consider one scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, the mother loses the baby. While the attacker can can still be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot any longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.Where a perpetrator violently attacks a pregnant woman, in New York, we can extrapolate from that a peculiar "benefit" that accrues to the perpetrator of the violent attack: The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. But, since abortion, whether intended or not, is no longer a crime in New York, the loss of the child from abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Thus, the Reproductive Health Act provides substantial benefit to a class of society in New York beyond the amorphous class of women who may seek to have an abortion--the criminal element now benefits directly from the fact that abortion, under any set of circumstances is no longer deemed a crime in New York.Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. It is an inane and singularly odd remark, but, apart from that, it misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not in this instance, for she is not responsible for the loss of her child. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., whether the person who harms the mother, the perpetrator of the attack on the mother, can be held, as well, criminally liable for the death of the child. The perpetrator of the attack cannot be charged with any crime related to the death of the unborn child, under New York’s new Reproductive Health Act.Obviously, Cuomo doesn't want to address the fact that, with passage of the Reproductive Health Act, a person cannot be indicted for any crime--not for murder, not for manslaughter, not even for criminal negligence--where, but for a perpetrator's criminal assault on a pregnant woman, the woman would not have lost her unborn child. The perpetrator of the attack on the mother can only be criminally charged for harm done to the mother that is directly attributable to the perpetrator of the attack. Under New York law, the unborn child is not recognized as a living soul. The unborn child simply doesn't exist. Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. Once, again, and it needs to be stressed: New York's Reproductive Health Act operates as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK SANCTIONS MURDER THROUGH ENACTMENT OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019

Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.These two reprehensible policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies. With his political clout Cuomo forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter into law, recently, on January 22, 2019.The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as most laws do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But a perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public.The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. A person has difficulty finding them all, as they are peppered throughout the New York State Code. Once found, their meaning is difficult to discern and fathom, even for lawyers, as the verbiage is ambiguous and vague. Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or due to a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.Cuomo exclaims that he is more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act makes the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as it becomes an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety and everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability.It should come as no surprise then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a measure that amounts to legally sanctioned murder in the case of the State’s new “Reproductive Health Act,” for it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets. Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ When Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in a broad sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called utilitarian consequentialism. This is an ethical system devoid of reference to or concern with a person’s intentions and motivations; only with the results of one’s actions. Motives and intentions fall out of the equation entirely. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective.The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is nebulous. It means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means; nothing more. Utilitarian consequentialism an ethically bankrupt system as is ‘utility maximization, underlying it since, for the utilitarian consequentialist, good and evil are relative to times and circumstances. They aren’t, contrary to a person’s expectations. with the notion of fundamental rights and liberties, as relative concepts derived from and created by man, not by God.Not surprisingly, utilitarian consequentialists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but only for that of an amorphous mass. Thus, Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, does not express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the individual souls of the body politic, but only concern for the well-being and welfare of the collective, “the hive.” Understandably, Andrew Cuomo would help draft the text of, avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Both these Acts have a decisive, negative impact on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen. Cuomo and others attempt to hide the awful impact of these schemes on Americans. They do this through carefully conceived and orchestrated campaigns of deception.Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it. Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system. But he thrusts his beliefs and belief system on others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in utilizing that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse, thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, as with so many other Collectivists that comprise the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs, and unmindful and, indeed, disdainful for the thoughts and feelings of others.As a private citizen of the United States, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate and express any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right--the right of free speech--as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor of New York, one would hope the Governor would be circumspect. He isn't. As a Public Official, Cuomo thrusts his belief system onto others. He now harms everyone; and what he has ordained cannot and ought not be countenanced; and, indeed, ought to be roundly and soundly condemned.Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. Cuomo operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist. Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, he operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and may therefore be erased from existence.

GOVERNOR CUOMO DEMONSTRATES NO RELUCTANCE IN DENYING, TO A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS--A RIGHT CLEARLY CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, YET HE DEMONSTRATES, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, A WILLINGNESS TO READ INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE VIEWS AS INHERENT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EVEN THOUGH SUCH NOTION IS NEITHER EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION NOR IMPLIED.

Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Cuomo dares to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. And, having done so, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.Contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. But, with enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, an oxymoron, the State of York now sanctions murder, and has the audacity of raising murder to the level of a fundamental right.How does Cuomo and other proponents literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child. But, where in the Constitution does this right of presumptive privacy for the mother over the life and well-being of the unborn child exist? The answer is: nowhere.Privacy is nowhere mentioned in any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and certainly not in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution subsequent amendment to the U.S Constitution. To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise. The concept of ‘privacy’ is abstract and vague. Certainly, no sane argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child equates with a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The framers of the Constitution could not have feasibly, rationally have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise.Now, one may argue that a general right to privacy, apart from the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right of each American to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures does, arguably, exist as an unenumerated right of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but, again, no one can reasonably construe the idea of the assault on the life of an unborn child as something that is to be subsumed in or as something that can rationally be subsumed in a general notion of privacy, even if only as an unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment. Further, although there have been attempts to interject privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn child.The New York abortion law dares raise abortion to the level of a substantive, fundamental right. It does so despite the absence of either a clear legal or moral foundation for it. And for those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child. They do not wish to contend with that fact. But, if pressed, supporters of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child isn’t a person. The unborn child is simply perceived as a nonentity. Advocates of abortion thereupon deny to the unborn child the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Act, and in the New York Safe Act. Both acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act demonstrates a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a cost: the concomitant loss of any benefit accruing to the individual.Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent beings. Thus, the proponents of abortion on demand, claim to maximize a benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of the most critical need of all—life itself—as it is individuals who suffer the consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER

Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by amending New York law: by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other laws related to and regarding abortion.A new section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:"A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion, when according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health."Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion after the third trimester, one loses sight of the fact that the Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. Whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether during the first, second, or third trimester. In other words, abortion should not be countenanced at any point during pregnancy.Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may conduct an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give anyone pause.Third, when analyzing the Act, one should pay attention to how the Reproductive Health Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten.Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly to proscribe abortions during the third trimester, in fact abortions are now perfectly legal in New York up to the point of birth of the child.Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. This means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:

• A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
• death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
• death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;

(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(e)A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”What does this Section of New York law mean? It means abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time.Where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York.What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that:  Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse. Consider the following scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, loses the baby. While the attacker can can be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot no longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.We can thus extrapolate from the law the following, where a pregnant woman is attacked an loses a child as a result of the attack:The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. Since abortion is no longer a crime, the loss of the child from the abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. But that misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., the death of the child—caused by the perpetrator’s attack on the mother. He cannot!Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. It is as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUN GRABBERS DELIVER FALSE MESSAGE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

PART ONE

OPPRESSIVE ANTIGUN MEASURES DO NOT PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY

"Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties." ~ Charles Krauthammer

Removal of guns from society won't promote public safety. It never has; never will. See, e.g., academic article, "The Failed Experiment, Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (Number 71, November 2003), by Gary A. Mauser. And, if, perchance,  someone could prove, by argument, it did, it would never be worth the price of sacrificing our sacred rights and liberties. But, they can't prove that draconian gun control measures will ever make the individual, or that of society as whole, for that matter, any safer. Antigun politicians should know that. Some don't. Many probably do, but pretend otherwise. It fits the narrative transmitted to the public. The reasoning is flawed; the statistical evidence patchy at best. So antigun proponents squash debate, offering simplistic slogans in lieu of facts; in lieu of sound reasoning. They expect the public to accept the lies as gospel, self-evident truths. They shouldn’t expect this; but they do. Lying to the public is reprehensible. Their lies know no bounds. They have done it so often, lying has become reflexive. Many Americans fall into their trap. Many Americans want to believe the lies. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias kicks in to assist the gun grabbers' false messaging. That makes their nefarious work easy. 

Antigun zealots reduce discussion to two simple, basic declarations, one the corollary of the other: arms expansion endangers the public; arms reduction promotes public safety. Americans hear the message often. Through vehement exhortation and constant repetition the gun grabbers imprint their message on the public psyche. Their comrades in the media provide the vehicle to disseminate this mental garbage.Antigun zealots in Congress, in State Legislatures, in Hollywood, in radical Leftist groups, and in the media grab attention and headlines. They proselytize. They pontificate. They deliver their polemic to the public pompously, with rhetorical flourish, smug complacency, and abandon. Their sermon deceives and confuses; inflames and angers. It doesn’t inform and educate. It is a ploy; simple political artifice, devoid of import and substance. But that's all right for them. Accomplishing their goal is important: destruction of the Second Amendment.The clarion call for mass arms reduction demands submission to governmental authority. Antigun proponents impel the public to rebel against their own best interests; to abandon a sacred right. They promise societal tranquility and serenity, if Americans but heed their call.The suggestion is both monstrous and absurd, but it appeals to many. It resounds with enchantment and charm for some. But, for those not seduced, the gun grabbers employ a different tactic. They chastise and condemn; they scorn and ridicule. They crush dissent. A sacred right for them is an object of scorn, emblematic of a “gun culture.”Can you recall when this Nation had a serious, reasoned debate on the issue of Second Amendment gun rights versus gun control? Indeed, can you recall when we had a serious, reasoned debate on any issue impacting American's fundamental rights and liberties; on any issue involving our Nation's security; on any matter involving the Nation's core values? Remember Governor Andrew Cuomo's rancorous, insulting message to Americans? Back in 2014 the New York Post reported:“'Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,'” the governor said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show. Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.'"Governor Cuomo hasn't changed, mellowing with time, and age, becoming more compassionate, more reasonable, more respectful of our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties, more appreciative and supportive of the sanctity of human life and of the autonomy of the individual American citizen. He's gotten worse--much worse; and that is reflected now in New York's new reprehensible abortion law, that Cuomo has championed, along with New York's new antigun measures that he continues to push for.

ANTIGUN MEASURES TARGET AVERAGE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN; NOT THE VIOLENT CRIMINAL

Millions of law-abiding, rational Americans cherish the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. And millions of these Americans choose to exercise that right. These citizens don’t cause gun violence. If they did, Americans would see carnage on a scale beyond that unleashed by psychopaths, terrorists, drug cartel members, and garden-variety criminals, living among us. Antigun politicians should deal with these violent elements. They don’t.Hundreds of antigun federal and State Statutes, and many more local codes, rules, regulations, and procedures have done little to curb gun violence. That isn't surprising. After all, such measures target millions of average, law-abiding, rational Americans, who don’t commit gun violence.  Antigun measures do significantly less to target the fringe element of society, that does commit gun violence. The idea that fewer firearms in the hands of everyone will reduce gun violence is erroneous. It is mere pretense and subterfuge. But antigun proponents make the argument, anyway. For many people, the argument has an aura of plausibility, as so many wrong theories do. Consider instances of violent crime in the EU, and in Mexico and Central American Countries. The citizenry of these Nations has suffered, notwithstanding strict regulation of firearms.Still the gun grabbers bellow. They do so incessantly, disingenuously, albeit with seeming conviction and unrestrained animus toward those Americans who disagree with them; who dare to assert otherwise; who dare to suggest that perhaps--just maybe--the gun grabbers have it wrong. No matter. The narrative continues, unabated. And, no matter how many restrictive gun measures exist, it is never enough. The gun grabbers won't be satisfied until the unalienable right embodied in the Second Amendment ceases to exist.Antigun politicians call for ever more restrictive gun legislation. They direct antigun legislation to the law-abiding, rational American citizen. They maintain the pretense that once no law-abiding, rational American citizen has access to firearms, every law-abiding, rational American will be the better for it; will be safe and secure. But the gun grabbers don’t desire to control misuse of firearms by irrational sociopathic, criminal, and similar types in society; not really.  Otherwise, legislators would separate the dangerous among us; from us. They don’t. "Feel-good" politicians release these deviant, incorrigible types into society, instead of keeping them from society--in prisons and mental institutions where they belong. That sensible action would protect millions of law-abiding, sane members of society, reducing gun violence dramatically.But, antigun politicians don’t concern themselves with dangerous elements in society. Not really. These elements live among us. They prey upon us. But their violent crimes do serve a purpose. They serve as the impetus for imposing ever more oppressive, repressive gun measures on the rest of us. The gun grabbers trust that oppressive and repressive gun laws will induce such stress in average law-abiding gun owners, that they will capitulate; that they will forsake their firearms.It is the mass of citizenry that antigun politicians seek to control; even if they state it is the criminal, the sociopath, the lunatic they seek to constrain and restrain. The extent and nature of antigun legislation bears this out. Deviant types wouldn’t conform to firearms’ measures anyway. They never do.The gun grabbers direct their attention and efforts to the law-abiding citizen. And, the reason they do so  is clear. They seek to control the citizenry because they are distrustful of it.This distrust in the Nation's citizenry, in whom ultimate authority and power resides, consistent with the will of the founders of a free Republic, the founders of an indestructible Constitution, is endemic among those who espouse a collectivist agenda, reflected in totalitarian societies that have forever espoused strong Government control over the actions, and even thoughts, of the citizenry. Societies structured on the precepts of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism exemplify this. Despite the subtle differences in economic and political ideology of these various totalitarian systems, they are all grounded on the notion of Collectivism—consisting of a set of precepts, completely at odds with those that define Individualism. It was through application of the latter set of precepts, those grounded on Individualism, not the former, those grounded on Collectivism, that our founders drafted a Constitution upon which our Nation was founded and on which a great Nation has long stood. The new radical Left in this Country, slowly taking control of the Democratic Party, seeks to turn on its head all that our founders have accomplished. We cannot permit these Leftists to succeed in their aims._______________________________________________________

PART TWO

COLLECTIVISM VERSUS INDIVIDUALISM: TWO DOCTRINES AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER.

The Arbalest Quarrel discusses at length, on our weblog, the principles grounding two incompatible philosophical systems. See, “The Modern Civil War: Collectivism vs. Individualism,” posted in October 2018. The framers of the U.S. Constitution, the founders of our free Republic, structured a Nation on the principles of Individualism, not those of Collectivism. The Radical Left, brazenly attempting to take over our Country, as it is gaining control over the Democratic Party, seeks to exercise absolute control over public discussion and discourse--presumptuously, sanctimoniously, presuming to be the voice of both sanity and morality. The mainstream media follows suit, indoctrinating the public in the new social, economic, political, and legal order, predicated on the principles of Collectivism. Collectivism and Individualism are at odds with each other, wholly incompatible. And, in the words and actions of the Collectivists, we see a Nation they seek to create--one divested of its laws, customs, traditions, history, and Judeo-Christian ethic--a Nation, in fact, that is divested of its very identity and soul. These Collectivists seek to subsume our Nation into a supranational organization of Western States. The differences between Collectivism and Individualism are stark.Let us be clear. Democratic Party candidates entering the race for U.S. President espouse a political, economic, social, financial, and legal system grounded on the precepts of Collectivism, not Individualism. The Nation they conceive cannot be squared with the U.S. Constitution as it exists. And, no one should be surprised that these Collectivists would call, shrilly and audaciously, for several changes to be made to it. Contenders, recently announcing their candidacy, namely, Kristen Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker unabashedly declare radical Socialist positions. Each tries to outdo the other. Beto O’Rourke the Radical Left Democratic Party candidate is also pondering a run. These politicians espouse political, social, economic, and financial positions far to the left of Joseph Biden; and even to the left of Bernie Sanders—difficult as it is too believe. Not surprisingly, these people show no reluctance in both misconstruing and attacking our Constitution.Among the radical views expressed by these contenders, vying for the Democratic Party crown, we see: Constraints on the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association; Constraints on Freedom of Religion; Abrogation of the Second Amendment; an End to Habeas Corpus; an End to Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures; Abrogation of the Electoral College; Vast Expansion of the House of Representatives, promising outsize representation of California, in Congress; Continued Politicization of our Bureaucratic Institutions; Radical Expansion of the Federal Government; Absolute Federal Control over Public Education; Porous Geographical Borders, permitting free flow of non-citizens both into and out of our Country; the granting of voting rights to non-citizens, and career felons; a curious tolerance for crimes committed by illegal aliens, including drug cartels, against our Nation's citizens; and, through it all, the desire to close all debate on their radical agenda.Where would this all lead? The citizenry would inevitably witness the dismantling of our Nation State; renouncement of the U.S Constitution. Arguably, we would see the integration of our Nation into a pan-North, Central, and Southern American Confederation, eventually connected politically, socially, economically, and legally to the EU.Socialist precepts, beliefs, and desires have run amok in our Nation. Any vestige of a Nation as conceived by our founders may very well draw to a close if Democrats take control of the U.S. Presidency in 2020. The Democratic Party is no longer--if it ever truly was--the Party of Moderate political and social thought and discourse.The Democratic Party leadership takes its cue now from new radical members. The Leftist agenda is seeing a dangerous re-emergence and resurgence in America—not seen since the early Twentieth Century. The Socialist and Communist belief system, grounded on the precepts of Collectivism, is naturally accepted among the poorly educated illegal aliens among us, as they are familiar with it, and have most to gain from it. They are steeped in it. And, their ranks grow every year.More disturbingly, we see this strange belief system of Collectivism, adopted by a younger generation of Americans. This may be due to radical, doctrinaire changes to our Nation’s public education system. The political, social, economic, financial, and legal fabric of our Nation is at risk. It is all being questioned, criticized, reevaluated. Nowhere is that more in evidence than in the matter of firearms' ownership and possession in this Country. Will our Nation survive, in the form our Founders structured it, as a free Republic? The question of the future of firearms' ownership and possession in this Country is central to that question. How the gun issue dynamic shapes up in 2019 and beyond, into the 2020 Presidential Primary Season, will likely impact the ultimate question facing our Nation:Is our Bill of Rights to be perceived as codification of natural law, sacrosanct and inviolate, as understood by our Founders, who believed in the principles underlying Individualism, or is it to be perceived as nothing more than a compendium of man-made law, as accepted by the proponents of Collectivism--which we see in other Nations, whose populations conceive their laws as ever malleable, subject to reworking or repeal, not unlike those of our own man-made Congressional Statutes?This question goes to the heart of what it means to be an American citizen. And, because this question, tacit though it be, nonetheless underscores what is at stake in the coming U.S, Presidential election, as our Nation stands at a crossroads, a critical juncture in our Nation's history, it is not exaggeration to assert that the American citizenry is facing a monumental crisis in 2020. There have only existed a few others.Our forefathers fought George III and the might of the British empire. That was our first mighty struggle. We prevailed.The founders of our Republic then debated the form our Nation should take. That was our second mighty struggle. The founders came to agreement with ratification of the United States Constitution, and, so, succeeded in their effort.We then faced major wars and depressions, and the might of the Soviet Union. These calamitous events combined, constituted, together, our third major struggle. We overcame them all, our Nation and its Constitution surviving, intact.We are now facing internal conflict as radical elements in our society, organized and supported by foreign internationalist groups and individuals, seek to undermine our Constitution, our people, our Republic, and our fundamental rights and liberties—and doing so callously, insidiously, seditiously—deliberately creating dissension among us, dividing each of us, one from the other, to accomplish their monstrous aims.The dangers we face as a Nation today are caused less from a disruption and explosion from outside, and more from implosion within. It is the work of a massive Fifth Column, actively at work, in our Country. It is marked by its insinuation into and control over the Democratic Party machinery. But it operates at many other levels of our Government as well. And it operates in our communities; and in the various sectors of business, finance, and media; and even within the legal profession. Nothing is left untouched. This fourth major battle has been waging for the last thirty years. And this new danger is unique for the diabolical approach it employs to destroy our Nation. The ruptures in our Nation, seeded by the machinations of this Fifth Column are now bearing poisonous fruit.But, the Fifth Column struggle for dominance over our Nation and its Countrymen isn’t over. But what we see is dire. We will know soon enough, whether the disruptors of our Nation, these purveyors of lies, succeed. The outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election will do much to decide whether our Nation survives in the manner our founders have bequeathed it to us or falls under the weight of those who seed dissension and discord from within.If a Democratic Party candidate should gain control of the U.S. Presidency, and the Fifth Column that controls it continues to extend its tentacles into, around, and through every organ of our Nation, slowly squeezing the life out of our Nation--we will, indeed, have lost, and those who have fought and died to create a Great, unique Nation and those who have since fought and died to preserve it, will have done so in vain. For, nothing will remain of our Nation but an empty shell. All vestige of what we once were as a great Nation and a great People will be lost forever.__________________________________________

PART THREE

THE RESHAPING OF AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD FIREARMS

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes. . . . One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. . . . We need to do this every day of the week, every school, at every level, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” ~ A young Eric Holder, speaking to the Woman’s National Democratic Club in 1995, as televised on CSPAN in 1995—fourteen years before President Barack Obama appointed him as Attorney General, in Obama’s Administration.” Among the critical rights codified in the Bill of Rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the only truly tenable check against tyranny in our Nation. That, of course, explains the ferocity of the Collectivist attack on the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. For, after all, it isn't tyranny that concerns them. In fact, the unchecked, unchallenged growth of Government is the clearest manifestation of tyranny; it is something they have designed and are working to accomplish--the enslavement of the American people, much as the populations of the EU are becoming enslaved. Our Nation, though, is not so easily susceptible to tyranny, unlike the Nations comprising the EU, as our Constitution provides for several "failsafe" mechanisms that serve to preclude, forestall or, at least, to deter the onset of tyranny. And that makes the effort of the Collectivists, both here and abroad, who seek to "soften up" our Nation, and ultimately to destroy it—that it may be subsumed eventually into a massive transnationalist union, which is the Collectivist dream of a new world order, comprising the remains of what had once been distinct, independent, sovereign nation states—so extraordinarily difficult. The last of the "failsafe" mechanisms that the framers of our free Republic built into our Constitution to preserve its existence and to preserve the existence of a free, autonomous citizenry in whom ultimate authority resides, and was meant to reside, is also the most effective failsafe mechanism: the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.For proponents of Collectivism, the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms--and the emphatic assertion that this sacred right shall not be infringed--creates a serious problem for the Collectivists in this Nation--those Collectivists like Eric Holder and Barack Obama. And it creates, as well, a problem for the Collectivist overseers--those both here and abroad--who support and who have orchestrated the Collectivist agenda and who are working to implement the items in it. Much more so than even the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech--which, too, not surprisingly, is also under attack today--the Collectivists cannot and will not abide the Second Amendment to our Nation's Bill of Rights. Tyranny cannot take root and prevail--indeed it cannot even exist--in the presence of an armed, capable, determined citizenry, poised to resist tyranny. Thus it is that those who seek to destroy us--the Collectivists both here and abroad--those intent on to breaking the back of our free Republic and on breaking the will of the American citizenry, no longer even pretend to support the Second Amendment. We see this as they call for more gun control laws--gun control laws they refer to, disingenuously, as "sensible."These Collectivists, who vehemently denounce our Second Amendment, have long considered it an anathema. Of late, these ruthless creatures who have sought to impose ever more restrictive gun laws upon us no longer even keep up the pretense of supporting the Second Amendment, as they once had done so when prefacing their remarks slyly, duplicitously, with the phrase--"but of course we support the Second Amendment"--when really they didn't. The Collectivists who have always seen the Second Amendment as intolerable, are now making overt claims of their abhorrence of it. They now assert it to be inconsistent with modern Western civilization; archaic; a relic of a bygone age--bizarre remarks to say the least, and remarks all the more disturbing when they emanate from a jurist.Firearms in the hands of millions of citizens are perceived as senseless to those who espouse the ideology of Collectivism. But then Collectivism demands absolute obedience to subservience to Government and reliance on Government. A person isn't prepared to be obsequious to Government if that person insists on being armed. That fact informs Government that a person isn't prepared to place his or her trust in Government. But, some people are prepared to do just that. And, for them, firearms are considered unnecessary. In return for forsaking one's firearms, Government promises to fulfill one's basic needs and wants and even happiness. But, for others, that price, is much too high. For, the mere act necessitates that one place blind trust in Government. That is something one should never do, and we, for our part, never will. And, we have history to resort to as proof in support of our reluctance to do so. Government's promises are designed merely to soothe and placate the public, who are urged to view the false promises as true and proper and desirable.For the ignorant, for the shallow, for the gullible, and for the weak among us, who readily "buy into" these false promises--and who believe in, who are compelled to feel the need to believe in mere words--that seems to be enough. Like children, such people wish to believe. It is easy to deceive those for whom faith in false prophets comes easy. Those who seek comfort in Government to coddle, protect, and nourish them, the Collectivists' promises are tranquil pipedreams. And for these sorry souls, "the big tall wish"--this seeming pleasant pipedream--is enough. But they will  learn too late what they have lost--and what they will have lost is everything of consequence. They will learn too late, much too late, that happiness--true happiness--can be achieved only if the individual remains "individual”--true to him or herself. Happiness is not something that Government is capable of bestowing on the individual, notwithstanding the Radical Left’s suggestion to the contrary._________________________________________________

PART FOUR

THE MYTH OF THE BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT AND OF SOCIETAL PERFECTION THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL IMPOSED AND SANCTIONED ORDER

Ultimately, each individual must depend on him or herself for sustenance and for providing for one's needs, wants, and desires, and happiness. That is as it should be. This requires less Government control over the citizenry--as little control as possible--not more control over the citizenry. Government, whatever its configuration is not benign, and it is not benevolent and reliance upon it to create a utopia for its denizens is a cruel hoax, even as the Collectivists tell us otherwise. A recent Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal bears out the hollow, empty pipedreams that Collectivists shower on the masses, like so much fairy dust--sparkling gold that inevitably turns to gray soot and ashes in the  sharp, clear, rationality of the morning.Barton Swaim, who writes political book reviews for the Wall Street Journal aptly points out the shallowness and emptiness of the Collectivists' drives, aspirations and goals. Published in the Wall Street Journal on February 11, 2019, Swaim's article, sarcastically titled, "All You Need is a Congress, And A Dream," writes of the bizarre aims of the Democratic Party Collectivists--new members of the Party and old--whose goals, if implemented, would fracture, irreparably, our free Republic and its free People. It is worthwhile quoting Swaim's article at length. He says:"The [Democratic Party's] Green New Deal is an expression of dreams, but that doesn't make it pointless or merely comical. Take it seriously, not literally. Much of it reads like a leftist manifesto from half a century ago--I thought of the Port Huron Statement, issued by the founders of Students for a Democratic Society [invariably referred to, at the time, by the initials "SDS"] in 1962, which crammed scores of hopelessly vague and muddled objectives in a single document for the purpose of movement cohesion [that is to say, for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the American citizenry or for the benefit of the Nation] not 'the economy itself is of such social importance that is major resources and means of production should be open to democratic participation and subject to democratic social regulation' and so on. . . . The imperturbable Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wasn't offended by the word, 'dream.' I don't consider that to be a dismissive term,' she said. 'I think it's a great term.' It's certainly an apt one, and makes sense of the resolution's weirdly vatic language. Mr. Marky, sounding a little like the prophet Isaiah, said: 'We will save all of creation by engaging in massive job creation.'The word 'dream' almost always has a happy connotation in American politics. To dream is to desire worthy and noble ends. Sometimes the ends really are worthy and noble. . . . But, mostly they are not. Communism was always a dream, always a future state toward which its adherents had to struggle. I recall the haunting line of the political philosopher Michael Oakeshott: 'The conjunction of dreaming and ruling generates tyranny.'American progressives are fond of the word 'democracy' but it is not democracy they want, because democracy is messy. What they want--and it is Mr. Trump's strange genius to make them say it--is the noumenal perfection of a dream."The dream of the “perfect” society is difficult enough to conceptualize, and impossible to realize. To begin, how do we define this word, ‘perfection,’ as applied to a social, political, economic, and legal construct? Carrying out such a scheme would be empirically, if not logically, impossible--one fraught with considerable difficulty and peril from the get-go, even if theoretically possible.Assuming arguendo, that a workable definition could rationally be developed, how would one go about implementing the creation of this seemingly 'perfect society?' And, once implemented, how might this ‘perfect society’ be maintained? One is  reminded of the futility of the enterprise, as one reads Voltaire’s satire, "Candide."Yet that doesn't stop the Collectivists in this Country from daring to thrust their notion of the 'perfect society' on the rest of us. Indeed, the thing they envision is grounded on a precept, taken as axiomatic, that very few in our Country would agree with. It is that a strong, centralized Government, unfettered by rights and liberties of its citizenry, imposing edicts on the rest of us, is the way forward toward creating this 'perfect society'. These Collectivists accept as self-evident that a strong, central Government of unfettered power is the appropriate vehicle through which the 'perfect society' might one day be realized. But, the idea is less ambitious than it is foolhardy, and presumptuous, and pretentious, and dangerous. Consider: what does the Collectivists' blueprint for their ostensibly perfectly ordered, perfect society, entail? It entails no less than the dissolution of our Constitution; the dismantling of our free Republic; and the debasement, defilement, and subjugation of the American people. The Collectivists' blueprint for their ostensibly perfectly ordered, perfect societydemands that the American citizenry forsake their fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, and--adding insult to injury--therein proclaim that the American citizenry would be all the better for having done so. The Collectivists' blueprint for their ostensibly perfectly ordered, perfect society presumes that some people--namely and particularly, the Trillionaire Rothschild clan, residing safely in their lofty, sequestered, protected abodes, removed from and safely tucked away from the hoi polloi, who toil away in the lower realms of the world, along with the Billionaire Globalist Technocrats, through whom the radical Left elements in Congress and in the Government Bureaucracy receive their marching orders--be permitted to rule with dictatorial power and abandon over the rest of us, bound not by legal constraint or by ethical maxim, or by convention, or by compunction of custom, or by simple common decency as they, after all, know what is in our best interests. Oh, but how imperfect this perfect world they envision and how imperfect this seeming perfect world they would make and thrust on all Americans.The founders of our Republic would likely take a very dim view of this, the Collectivists' most perfect of all perfect worlds and of this, the Collectivists' vision: that of a  meticulously crafted and implemented, presumptively and pretentiously presented, pompously ordained, perfect well-ordered society that the few "Elite Elect" in the world ordain for rest of us, the Condemned and Damned, to toil in, underfoot, for their benefit, on their behalf. _____________________________________________

PART FIVE

A STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AN INHERENT DANGER TO A FREE PEOPLE, REQUIRING OUR CONSTITUTION’S BILL OF RIGHTS TO DETER THE THREAT POSED TO OUR LIBERTY

THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC, THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, WERE WELL AWARE THAT, EVEN AS THEY RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR A "FEDERAL" GOVERNMENT, THEY SAW THE INHERENT DANGER IN ITS CREATION--AS IT WOULD INVARIABLY AMOUNT TO A DANGEROUS DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.

The founders of our Republic, the framers of our Constitution, dismissed out-of-hand the idea that Government, through unfettered power and authority, is capable of serving the best interests of the citizenry. The members of the new radical Left in our Nation, would—if given a free hand—destroy the very underpinnings of our Nation, and consider themselves none the worse for having done so. But, then, this should come as no surprise to anyone, as the Radical Left clearly demonstrates its utter contempt for the founders' vision of a Free Republic and of the founders' understanding of the sanctity of the individual. The members of this new Radical Left have exhibited their absolute disdain for and disregard of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people--those natural rights and liberties cemented in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. They perceive the Constitution, not as containing the inviolate principles they are constrained to work within, but, rather, as an inconvenient impediment they feel smugly confident they can and should be permitted to work around or skate happily beyond or through.Through a strong central Government, the Nation would be in the best possible position to thwart dangers posed to the Nation from forces outside the territorial boundaries of the Nation. But, by the same token, a strong, central Government, would also pose the greatest, gravest threat to the freedom and autonomy of the Nation's citizenry. The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, knew all this, of course. They weren't naïve.The founders knew full well of the inherent danger existent in a strong, central Government--especially one with unfettered power. The founders knew full well what would occur if Governmental power were allowed to grow unrestricted, unhampered, unchecked. To prevent this or, at least, to forestall, the danger to a free people, through unfettered, unrestrained growth of Government, the founders created a Government of limited power. Further, to preclude accumulation of power in Government, the founders of our free Republic, devised three co-equal Branches of Government, legislative, executive, and judicial. And the founders divided the powers that Government would wield, among those three co-equal Branches. But would this be enough? The founders of our Nation, of our free Republic, pondered this, and many of them--those referred to as the antifederalists--were unsatisfied; were vexed and wary. They concluded, and rightfully so as it has come to pass, that even a Government of limited power--power distributed among three co-equal Branches--might yet not prevent a push by those in Government, the servants of the people, to seek ever more power, to seek power well beyond that power permitted in the Constitution the founders envisioned.Since ultimate power would remain, must remain, in the American people themselves--a point axiomatic for both the Federalists and Antifederalists, an argument ensued among them as to the manner of ensuring that ultimate power would always remain in the American citizenry. For the Federalists, it was necessary and sufficient for to articulate clearly and categorically those specific and limited powers Government shall have. The Antifederalists were not convinced that this would be enough to maintain supremacy of authority and power in the American people themselves. To guarantee that ultimate power would forever reside in and remain in the American people, thereby preventing Government encroachment on the preserve of the American citizenry, the Antifederalists demanded that a Bill of Rights  be incorporated into the very structure of the Constitution.  Those among the founders, belonging to the Federalist camp, did not, for their part, feel it incumbent upon them, much less mandatory, to incorporate a Bill of Rights into the fabric of the Constitution. For the Federalists, it was enough for the Constitution to consist of the core Articles. Since Government as conceived and structured, by both Federalists and Antifederalists alike, would have limited power, the Federalists felt that inclusion of a document codifying the rights and liberties of the American people into the Constitution, would simply be redundant. Further, a few among the Federalists, thought that a Bill of Rights, consisting in salient part of enumerated rights, would work against itself, endangering a free people, as its existence might imply that delineation of specific rights and liberties would operate as a limitation on the American people and detract from the principle of ultimate authority residing in the American people.The Federalists reasoned that, if a Bill of Rights were incorporated into the Constitution, this would mean that the American people would have only those rights and liberties specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and no others. Even worse, some Federalists speculated that incorporation of a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, would operate in a matter wholly inconsistent with the principle that ultimate power and authority must reside in the people, not in Government. Thus, some Federalists inferred that inclusion of a Bill of Rights into the final product would be tantamount to saying that ultimate authority did not, would not, and could not reside in the American people, but must, then, reside, by default, in the Federal Government, notwithstanding that the Articles would speak of a Government with limited powers. Thus the Federalists were much convinced that inclusion of a Bill of Rights would actually operate to the detriment of the American people, nullifying ultimate authority residing in the American people, contrary to the deep set desires and wishes and understanding of all the founders.The Antifederalists, though, insisted a Bill of Rights be included in the final product as this alone would ensure that ultimate power and authority would invariably--for all time, as it should and must--reside in and remain with the American people themselves, and not in and with Government. Otherwise the new and free Republic would be a travesty, no better than that of Great Britain, ruled by a Monarch. After all did not the founders, and other Americans, fight a bloody war to throw off the yoke of just such a totalitarian Government--apart from those Colonists, the Tories, who had thrown their lot with George III? So it was that the Antifederalists, among the founders of a free Republic, vehemently disagreed with the Federalists. The Antifederalists felt that it could only be through inclusion of a Bill of Rights that ultimate power and authority would remain with the American people. And they were adamant. Perhaps they foresaw that, whatever reservations the Federalists had in incorporating a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, the dangers posed by the federal Government to the citizenry would be greater and graver by far were a Bill of Rights omitted from the Constitution. We, now with clear hindsight, realize the Antifederalists with their prescient foresight, were  correct in their observations, and that the Federalists were wrong. Much worse would we, Americans, be today, had the founders forsaken inclusion of a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. And we, the founders descendants, realizing that a Bill of Rights was needed, would attempt too late to rectify the matter. Better we are by far, as we see those despicable groups among us, the Collectivists, who complain bitterly over the existence of our Bill of Rights--who dare call for  constraints on the First Amendment and on the Fourth Amendment, and on the Fifth Amendment; and who call for de facto or de jure repeal of the Second Amendment. Let those who ascribe to the precepts of Collectivism be, as they are, in the more difficult and, in fact, in the untenable position to dare attempt destruction of an indestructible document than for us, who, like the founders before us--ascribe to the philosophical precepts of Individualism, but who would be in the most difficult position of all, proclaiming the need for adoption of a Bill of Rights had the Federalists held sway over the Antifederalists--and ratification of our Constitution proceeded without inclusion of our sacred Bill of Rights. ______________________________________________________

PART SIX

NO RELIEF FROM LIES, INCESSANT LIES, AND DAMNABLE LIES!

Antigun proponents proselytize relentlessly, mercilessly, zealously, and sanctimoniously to the masses. A compliant, complicit mainstream “Press” reports every incident of gun violence. And, it does so deliberately, duplicitously, insidiously--exaggerating, magnifying incidents of gun violence in society. The unethical reports become a fictional, grating, narrative: Confiscate firearms from everyone and the problem of criminal and sociopathic misuse of firearms will take care of itself, we are told. No, it won’t. This tactic would simply leave millions of law-abiding Americans defenseless. But some believe the lie.Antigun politicians cajole the public to view gun violence as more prevalent than it is. Since they see firearms in the hands of millions of citizens as senseless, antigun politicians wage a ceaseless, inexorable assault on law-abiding gun owners. They try to instill in the average American a feeling of revulsion and abhorrence of guns.They see the ownership and possession of firearms as uncivilized. They deem firearms aesthetically unpleasant. They find firearms morally objectionable. They perceive the teaching of our youth to enjoy and appreciate the proper use of and respect for firearms to be wrongheaded at best, and altogether unconscionable, at worst. The youth of our Nation are expected to share the raw hatred and fear toward  firearms that the antigun zealots, themselves, have toward them. Young boys that grew up playing "Soldier" and "Cops and Robbers," and "Cowboys and Indians" in the 1950s, are no longer permitted to do so. What once was actively encouraged or, at least accepted, is no longer tolerated. Those children who do play these childhood games--as part of  acclimation to manhood--are chastised for doing so.The radical Left, insinuating itself throughout Government, Business, the media, and even in our institution of law, consider the innocuous games of our youth, dangerous, aberrant behavior that will no longer be tolerated and condoned, much less acquiesced, let alone encouraged. Allowing children to play such games is considered wrongheaded, socially deviant. Antigun zealots and other radical Leftists  believe that the very existence of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms undermines social cohesion; undercuts the societal collective, and undermines their ability to control the polity. This bespeaks the “hive mentality” they seek to seed, cultivate, in nourish in all Americans--to create a docile and obedient and frightened community, beaten down, and remolded to accept bondage and penury. Yet, they find "reeducating" the adult population difficult--too many adults resist their efforts. So they refocus their efforts on our children. Children are ostracized, today, in our public schools, when they happen to demonstrate a predilection for firearms and who eventually are able to understand, truly understand, and appreciate the critical importance of our Bill of Rights and, especially, the critical importance of the Second Amendment in at least deterring if not preventing the onset of tyranny. Gun ownership and possession is the sine qua non of individuality and autonomy.The new programs for educating our youth--apart from the education of the children of the "elite" who will dominate and rule over the rest of us--do not breed self-assurance and self-confidence, as the curricula are not designed to do that. Instead children are instilled with anxiety and self-doubt, and this is by design. They learn nothing about our core values, traditions, and history. They know nothing about our form of Government and the trials and effort and sacrifice that went into the creation of our Nation, founded and preserved on a unique, sacred, Constitution. Rather, children are instilled with guilt over perceived wrongs of our ancestors and told to behave and toe the line. The youth of our Nation, educated to be docile slaves in a new international world order, will then be easier to control. And the massive waves of ignorant, uneducated, ill-informed illegal aliens--admitted with open arms into our Country by those elements, both here at home and abroad, who see in these millions of hapless individuals a useful tool to undermine our Nation--are intended to supplant Americans.These alien migrants are, after all, nothing but a glob of docile, obedient "worker ants." They know nothing of the importance of personal autonomy and individuality; and they couldn't care less about  the structure of a Constitutional Republic, ruled by law, not by men, even if they could understand and appreciate our Constitution, our history, our traditions, our core values and beliefs. Indeed, The New York Times, in an article titled, "Backlogs Prolong Wait To Become U.S. Citizens," published on February 21, 2019, says--in fact, complains--that "the steep application fee, and the civics and English tests have historically deterred many from naturalizing." Really, now! The fact that people who seek to become citizens of the Greatest Nation on Earth have to pay a steep application fee, and learn to speak English and gather an understanding of our Nation's history, and traditions, our fundamental, sacred rights and liberties and our form of Government is asking to much of them? Did millions of Western and Eastern Europeans quibble and complain about costs, and the demands of learning English and learning about our Constitutional Republic when they emigrated to our Country in the early Twentieth Century? Were these people heard to complain about remitting exorbitant amounts of money just to arrive here by ship, and who had to learn English, and who had to learn about our Constitution, and about our Nation's history, and about our core values. Not at all! They were proud to become citizens, and they realized the importance of inculcating our values and language as they assimilated. Now, we have the MSM making excuses for them, as it is we, Americans who should accept people who have no desire to learn our language, or to learn about our Nation's rich cultural past, and who feel no need to accept the principles under which we live--it is we who must kowtow to them! Many of these people are looking for handouts, and handouts will, of course, be given to them so long as they behave. Thus, the Billionaire Globalist "elites," through their minions, the Radical Left--in Congress, in the media, in business, and even in the Courts--envision a different, bizarre America, one that is hollowed out--one that even precludes the trappings of a once proud, sovereign, independent Nation. Yes, the strength of the military and of the police and intelligence apparatus will continue to exist but will be coopted for use by the rulers of a new transnational system of social, political, cultural, economic, and legal governance, as we are occurring even now. It stands to reason that assimilation is unnecessary if our Nation is doomed to fall anyway as our Nation becomes a mere cog in the grand scheme of the new international world order. It is all false messaging. And most Americans do not fall for it.Most citizens recognize the fallacy of the new messaging and are well aware of the agenda of this Radical Left. The Radical Left desires to create confusion and uncertainty in the public and seeks to instill, in our children, that same confusion and uncertainty. The aims of the Radical Left is insidious. But, it has access to money; lots of it. And the Radical Left is well organized. The ruthless internationalists, who seek to destroy our Nation, orchestrate the radical Left's every move; provide the Radical Left with its talking points; create the Left's agenda, and tick off the items on the agenda, once accomplished. It is all a well-planned, orchestrated subterfuge. It is all a carefully calculated, ruthless scheme to take the Nation from the American people, without the American people even knowing it is happening. _____________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

WILL FIREARMS OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION GO THE WAY OF BUGGIES AND CORSETS AND THE CATHODE RAY TUBE?

Antigun zealots and other Leftist extremists, and radical Leftist Groups, along with the Billionaire Internationalist Class of Overseers who fund them, consider the holding and exhibiting of positive thoughts toward firearms to be outworn and outdated; altogether unfashionable; aberrational; even primeval.And, as they seek to control the thoughts and actions, and word and deed, of average Americans, we see, at once, these antigun zealots, and other Leftists of all stripes, and the billionaire Globalists exhibiting a marked reluctance toward castigating the criminal, sociopathic element in our society for their conduct, in whom reprehensible, aberrational behavior truly resides. This is all according to plan.As for this criminal element of society, antigun zealots, and other Leftists, tell us that society is itself to blame for the aberrant behavior of criminals and of the criminally insane. It is all nonsense. But, the incessant repetitious drone has a nascent effect on some. Thus, the cry goes out to "liberate" the criminal and the lunatic from the institutional setting, even as law-abiding citizens are placed more at risk for their life, safety and well-being in the implementation of such policy. It is they--average law-abiding, rational Americans--who, strangely, find themselves shackled, psychologically for daring to harbor impure thoughts toward gun ownership and possession; all the more so in the event they dare to exercise their Second Amendment right. If they could, antigun zealots, and others of the radical Left, would lock up millions of law-abiding gun owners, to reeducate them. Alas, they cannot, at least for the moment. Once they come into power, who knows?American gun owners extoll the virtues of individual responsibility, autonomy, self-reliance and self-resilience. These virtues are reflected in the desire to keep and bear arms, as is their unalienable right. But these virtues are inconsistent with Government control over the commonalty. Bizarrely, we see attempts to control thought by controlling use of language. Nothing is sacred. Leftists seek to revise how Americans view their fundamental rights and liberties. Indeed, everything—our history, traditions, core values—now demands revisiting for these Collectivists.The existence of enumerated, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, intrinsic in each American citizen, guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, presents a formidable problem, a true conundrum for those who ascribe to Collectivism--the harbingers of a one world government. They cannot control a citizenry that has access to guns. That is the insistent, irrefutable truth, and it poses a difficult, significant if not  insurmountable hurdle for them.The Bill of Rights mandates freedom from Governmental restraint. Guns in the hands of the American citizenry guarantees freedom from Governmental restraint. The radical Left can have none of it. But, then, how do Antigun zealots go about separating the American people from their firearms?From a legislative standpoint, Antigun politicians must use a different tack against those of us who exalt the fundamental rights and liberties cherished by the founders of our Free Republic. Antigun politicians cannot change the attitudes of those Americans steeped in an understanding of and deep abiding love and adoration for our unique Constitution and our Bill of Rights. They have tried. They argue, dubiously, that some gun owners see the value of “gun control” and “gun licensing” measures and schemes. But, is that true? And, if it is true, does that mean we all must follow suit? Does that mean “gun owners” who have capitulated are right, and the rest of us are wrong? No!Antigun proponents cannot sway those Americans who visualize a Government of limited authority. Antigun proponents cannot sway those Americans who understand that ultimate authority resides in the people, not in Government; that Government growth must be contained and constrained; that the tendency toward accumulation of Governmental power should be resisted; attenuated; that fundamental rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights, must be preserved and strengthened, at all costs, not weakened, restricted, ignored, or abrogated.Most Americans understand that natural rights—such as the right of Free Speech and Association, the right to be free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, and the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms—exist intrinsically in the American citizen; that a loving, all powerful, and omniscient, and benevolent Creator bestowed these rights on us; in us. No man, nor Government entity created these natural rights. So no man, nor any Government can deny the American citizen of these fundamental, unalienable, enumerated rights. For those of us who ascribe to the precepts of Individualism, these sacred, fundamental rights and liberties are not mere statutes. They represent the highest form of moral law—codifications etched in stone in our Constitution; never to be amended, repealed, ignored, or abrogated.Again, since Government did not bequeath these natural, primary rights to man, Government cannot lawfully take those rights from man. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this. See, for example, our article, posted April 2017,  titled, “Does The Second Amendment Codify Natural Law, Preexistent In The Individual, Or Is The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms A Man-Made Construct?”  Leftist politicians and those in the polity who espouse an alien ideology understand, if only reluctantly, they cannot erase centuries of traditional American values and teaching. They cannot lawfully abrogate the Bill of Rights. So, they use the force of Government, unethically, even illegally, to thrust their will on those who stubbornly hold to their natural rights and liberties, and who refuse to yield to a new belief system—one requiring the forsaking of such rights and liberties._______________________________________________________

PART EIGHT

AN INCREMENTAL ASSAULT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Of the enumerated fundamental, unalienable rights, Leftist politicians know, the one etched in the Second Amendment is most difficult to dislodge. But these politicians are tenacious. This assertion isn’t meant to be a compliment; merely an observation.Strong drives coupled with an equally strong will lead one to act. Actions may be positive or perverse. Here, perverse. Leftists abhor the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, more so than any other elemental right set forth in the Bill of Rights, because, more so than any other sacred,  elemental right, the Second Amendment constitutes the greatest threat to their accumulation of power and their ability to maintain power over the American people. It is impossible for these Leftists, these Collectivists, to implement a new system of governance in our Nation—a system of social, political, and legal governance, altogether contrary to and inconsistent with that designed by the founders of our free Republic. But, these Leftists won’t stop their nefarious, diabolical attempts to impose more and more stringent constraints on the average law-abiding American who, uninhibitedly, dares to exercise the fundamental, unalienable, primordial, enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

THE THREE ANTIGUN PLANKS

Although gun laws enacted by Congress, State Legislatures, and subordinate bodies of the States, are numerous and complex, the strategy undergirding them is simple. That strategy has three primary planks. Each Governmental measure falls into one or more planks, and Leftist, antigun politicians and those echoing their sentiments in mainstream media organizations, in antigun groups, and in other radical Leftist organizations often pursue all three planks simultaneously. These three planks are as follows:One, continually expand the domain of banned firearms, ammunition, and firearms’ components and paraphernalia. Two, continually expand the domain of individuals who cannot lawfully own or possess firearms, ammunition, and firearms’ components and paraphernalia. Three, among those who do not fall within a statutory federal or State disability, and who, then, may continue, at least for the moment, to own and possess firearms, ammunition, firearms' components and complementary firearms' paraphernalia, make the exercise so onerous, so pernicious, so expensive, that few of these individuals will wish to continue to do so.

THE ONSET OF “RED FLAG” LAWS AND GUN LAW BANS

For 2019, the Arbalest Quarrel will be dealing especially with two of the three planks.Pertaining to the first plank, we will see, in 2019, a flurry of activity in both the Democratic Party controlled House of Congress, and in Democratic Party State Legislatures to ban semiautomatic weapons and so-called large capacity magazines; and we will see attempts to ban ammunition and components of firearms.Pertaining to the second plank, we will see efforts to expand the domain of individuals compelled to surrender their firearms. Our next article will look at so-called “Red Flag” laws and bills. These are a new phenomenon. We will explicate the nature of these laws and will zero in on New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s success in resurrecting New York’s “Red Flag” measure--several of which were presented in both the New York Senate and in the Assembly, and all of which failed in 2018. However, with Democrats firmly in control of Albany's Legislature, and with Cuomo's clout, several of these measures passed both the Senate and Assembly, as the antigun group, "New Yorkers Against Gun Violence" proclaimed, with boisterous approval, on the group's website, NYAGV. Note: In New York, the "Red Flag" measures are referred to as "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" ("ERPO"). A flurry of other draconian antigun bills have been introduced in and are floating about in both the New York State Assembly and in the State’s Senate. Since Democrats control both Houses in Albany, the State Capital, Cuomo is not sitting back with one success. He is continuing to exert strong pressure on the State Legislature to pass further antigun bills. Keep in mind: Governor Cuomo does not perceive these “Red Flag” laws and other proposed antigun legislation coming down the pipe, as measures distinct from the New York Safe Act, which the State Government passed and which Governor Cuomo signed into law in 2013. Rather, he sees New York's new antigun measures as extensions of the New York Safe Act, enacted in 2013. As Cuomo says, as reported in the weblog, State of Politics, an obvious mouthpiece for Cuomo and a propaganda organ of Cuomo's radical Left Government: "I think the red flag bill adds improvements to the Safe Act." In that same blog post, Governor Cuomo asserts, disingenuously and flippantly, "We have proven that gun safety laws are needed and I think we have also proven that gun safety laws exist without the fear of the slippery slope. . . . Well, they're trying to take away your guns. No one is trying to take away the guns from people who are mentally healthy."No slippery slope, here? Really? And, who, among U.S. citizens residing in New York, is judged to be "mentally healthy." And, is that expression to be construed as a medical or legal term of art?Through it all, there may be a silver lining for those of us who cherish the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One should remember that, while the Democratic Party leadership in Congress and Democratic Party controlled Legislatures in some States, continue efforts to undermine the Second Amendment, the Conservative-wing on the United States Supreme Court will, it is our fervent hope and belief, continue to review antigun laws that impermissibly impinge on and infringe the Second Amendment, and, acting as a powerful counter-force against antigun efforts carried out in Congress, and in State Legislatures around the Country, and in the media, strike down unconstitutional laws, rules, regulations, codes, and procedures. The U.S. Supreme Court has done remarkably well with the issuance of favorable rulings in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases. While reluctant to take up any Second Amendment case since then, until very recently, the fact that the high Court has now voted, finally, to hear a straightforward Second Amendment case, in the decade since Heller and McDonald, this may very well augur a good sign for things to come, apropos of preservation of our sacred Bill of Rights.In that regard, the Arbalest Quarrel has written on New York City’s firearm transport case that the high Court has accepted for review. See our article, posted recently, titled, “U.S Supreme Court To Hear New York Gun Case; Mainstream Media Visibly Worried.”We will keep tabs on the New York transport case, analyzing, in depth, the arguments of Petitioners, New York residents and gun owners, as well as arguments brought by the Respondent, City of New York, contra Petitioners. There is a lot of work ahead of us, and for you too.We must let Republicans in Congress and in State Government know, and we must let the President know, too, that, notwithstanding the importance of controlling illegal immigration—which has gotten much media attention in the last several weeks—preserving and strengthening the Second Amendment is as critical to the safeguarding of a Free Republic, and the safeguarding of our Nation’s Constitution, and the safeguarding of our Country’s core values, history, and traditions, as is stemming the flow of illegal migrants, refugees, terrorists, criminal gang members, drug cartel members, sex traffickers, contraband, and other assorted flotsam, jetsam, and riffraff  into our Country.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

U.S SUPREME COURT TO HEAR NEW YORK GUN CASE; MAINSTREAM MEDIA VISIBLY WORRIED

“FREE” PRESS FLAILS WILDLY AS HIGH COURT TAKES UP RESTRICTIVE GUN MEASURE.

Much to the consternation of antigun proponents the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a Second Amendment case. On Tuesday the high Court granted the petition in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2nd Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 734 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (No. 18-280). This marks the first time the high Court has granted a petition in a straightforward Second Amendment case since handing down its rulings in the seminal cases, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010).The central issue, as presented on The Supreme Court’s weblog, is “whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.” The City’s restriction is not only inconsistent with the high Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, it is patently ludicrous. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should have struck down the measure. Instead, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower U.S. District Court’s decision, finding for the City, ignoring the Heller and McDonald case rulings and legal standards for review of Second Amendment cases. In finding for the City, against Plaintiffs, the Second Circuit, as with several other Circuit, fell back on the age-old disturbingly familiar and empty shibboleth: “public safety concerns” in ruling for the City against Petitioners. This "interest balancing" approach is precisely what the Court's Majority in Heller and McDonald, frowned upon and cautioned against. Clearly, several members of the U.S. Supreme Court were not impressed with the Second Circuit ruling, and granted Petitioners' writ of certiorari to review the Second Circuit decision. At long last, the high Court has accepted the challenge of those lower Federal Circuit Courts that have openly defied United States Supreme Court precedent.In requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the writ for certiorari, Petitioners made a compelling case, stating in pertinent part:“New York City flatly prohibits its residents from removing their lawfully purchased and duly registered handguns from the city limits, even to transport them (unloaded, and locked up) to second homes at which they are constitutionally entitled to possess them, or to out-of-city shooting ranges or competitions at which they are constitutionally entitled to hone their safe and effective use. That prohibition does not even make sense on its own terms. It has the perverse consequences of forcing New Yorkers to leave their handguns behind in their vacant residences whenever they leave the city for an extended period of time. And far from achieving the City’s professed interest in decreasing the amount of time that its residents spend transporting their locked and unloaded firearms to and from shooting ranges (an activity that the City made no serious effort to demonstrate poses any meaningful safety risk), the ban actually forces New Yorkers to spend more time traveling to the paucity of inconvenient in-city shooting ranges. Indeed, the only plausible theory under which the City’s novel transport ban could be understood to further its professed public safety interest in decreasing the transport of unloaded, locked-up firearms is if the ban discourages people from transporting their handguns to shooting ranges at all. But it would be utterly irrational for the City to enact a restriction for the express purpose of making it harder for individuals to gain proficiency in the use of the handguns that the Constitution entitles them to possess. More to the point, a restriction that is expressly designed to make it harder to exercise core Second Amendment rights cannot  plausibly withstand any level of constitutional scrutiny. Courts would not countenance for one moment a prohibition on leaving city limits to get an abortion—and certainly not if there were only seven locations in a city of 8.5 million people at which to obtain one. A prohibition on leaving city limits to exercise core Second Amendment rights should fare no better.”Respondent, New York City, was furious the high Court would dare second guess the Constitutionality of the City’s firearms’ measures. The Supreme Court never did so before, and the City didn’t want the Court to do so now. It didn’t take long for antigun proponents’ echo chamber, the mainstream media, to offer its own concerns; issue its rebuke of the high Court; and present, to the public, its dire prognostications.The New York Times, quoting one antigun activist, Michael Waldman, reported:“This is the first case but not the last case where at least four justices open the way to a major ruling that could limit gun safety laws.”And, in that same NY Times article, the New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio chimed in, as well, essentially chastising the high Court's for its seeming presumptuousness in daring even to consider that perhaps--just maybe--the New York City's gun regulations do not meet Constitutional muster.“Mayor Bill de Blasio, responding to a reporter’s question about the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, said at a news conference on Tuesday that the city would vigorously defend its law.“We, every single day, are working to make this the safest big city in America,” he said. “We need the laws that we have that protect against guns being on our streets and we will fight to protect ourselves, that’s the bottom line.”Bill de Blasio offers mere claptrap. The New York City regulation bars the average, law-abiding and rational U.S. citizen from transporting their firearms--in a case, ammunition separated from firearm--to a firing range in another locality. Bill de Blasio has the audacity to characterize this with misuse of guns by that of the common criminal. And, who is it that Bill de Blasio thinks he is protecting residents of New York from? When considered beyond the ludicrous rhetoric, Bill de Blasio is describing nothing more than a bizarre belief that the New York City gun transport regulations protect average, law-abiding New York City residents and citizens of the United States from other average law-abiding, rational New York City residents and American citizens--those citizens who simply seek to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms, as etched in stone in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The absurdity of the Mayor's remarks and, hence, the absurdity of New York City's gun transport regulations, is plain, painfully so.In that article, The New York Times also cites a Constitutional law professor, Adam Winkler who, as with Mayor Bill de Blasio, clearly shows his animus to and strong aversion against, the Second Amendment. The NY times closed the article with Winkler’s sarcastic comment: “The Second Amendment is alive and well in the Roberts court.”Reading comments from antigun zealots, one might think a negative ruling by the high Court would cause mass gun play on the streets of the City. Antigun zealots avoid drawing a bright line distinction between criminal access to and misuse of firearms, on the one hand, and the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens, on the other. This is borne out by the proliferation of antigun laws in this Country and the speciousness of the arguments made in support of them.USA Today, quoting from Respondent City’s Brief, notes:“Unlike golf clubs and musical instruments, firearms present public safety risks that the city has a legitimate interest in protecting against. . . . ‘Limiting their possession and use in public minimizes the risk of gun violence.’”Now really! Bringing up “golf clubs” and “musical instruments”? What does a driving iron or a saxophone or bassoon have to do with the best recognized means of self-defense, a firearm? The incongruity of the comparison is glaring. Further, the descriptor, ‘public safety,’ through overuse, is mere cliché. It has lost all import. The phrase continues more as rhetorical flourish, than as part and parcel of considerate, well-thought through articulate political opinion and journalistic commentary as presented to the public; and it exists as unsound argument, when appearing in legal Briefs presented to the Courts. Over reliance on the phrase, 'public safety,' in public statements, political commentary, and in legal argument defends the most flagrant abuse of Governmental authority, and does a disservice to the citizenry of this Country who honor our sacred Second Amendment. Those who rely essentially or solely on “public safety concerns” to make the case for restrictive gun measures demonstrate intellectual laziness. It is mere makeweight, in the absence of explication and rigorous argument. Reliance on it to support draconian gun measures is intended to appeal less to one's reason and more to one's passions. The goal of most restrictive gun legislation is to separate law-abiding citizens from their firearms. Restrictive gun measures, targeting millions of law-abiding gun owners, do not enhance public safety. These gun measures make the public decidedly less safe—defenseless in the face of ever more crime.Such reprehensible, irresponsible Governmental action is directed to destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But now the City and antigun proponents around the Country are worried, as they contemplate U.S. Supreme Court review of the New York City firearms’ transport measure. They know this draconian measure cannot survive high Court scrutiny. So, the media sounds the alarm with inaccurate, exaggerated reports of danger if the City's firearms' transport measure is struck down.Even the conservative, staid, Wall Street Journal report is misleading. The reporter, Jess Bravin, taking his cue from The New York Times, suggests the case will radically expand Heller and McDonald. It won’t. But, that doesn't stop the reporter from claiming that it does. Jess Bravin says:“The case, a review of New York City regulations that curtail the transportation of guns, offers the court’s newly bolstered conservative majority an opportunity to expand the constitutional right to bear arms beyond a pair of decisions that, beginning in 2008, found the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.”  These remarks are false. A reversal of the Second Circuit decision would mean only that the City's firearms’ transportation rules contradict high Court precedent, on core Second Amendment matters, and, for that reason, must be struck down. The Wall Street Journal does not, though, see it that way. To bolster the point, the Wall Street Journal, like The New York Times, quotes the same source, Adam Winkler. In that WSJ article, Winkler says, “At issue is ‘the right to have a gun in public. It’s the biggest open question in Second Amendment law today.’” These remarks, cited in the Wall Street Journal, article are false; flagrantly so; and, not so subtly, inflammatory. For, Striking down an unconstitutional firearms’ measure isn’t equivalent to expanding a Constitutional right. Rather, an unconstitutional restriction on an enumerated right, unduly impairs the fair exercise of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. The striking down of an unconstitutional firearm's measure would do no more than operate as an expression of what the plain language of the Second Amendment says; no more and no less. Transporting a firearm, in public, in a locked case, ammunition separated from firearm, is hardly the same as carrying a firearm at the ready, anyway. So, Winkler is wrong. At issue, here, is not the right to have a gun in public. Transporting a firearm in a locked container is not what is meant by having a firearm in public, namely, at the ready. Winkler erroneously conflates the two notions.But, transporting a firearm in a case, in public, does present a peculiar danger of its own: one of theft of a firearm. Such a requirement is also strange and unsettling as the City of New York would permit a licensee the use of a firearm for self-defense at home, but preclude the holder of a restricted “premises” license access to the best means available for self-defense when outside the home. Why should a law-abiding American citizen be limited to location where a firearm may be available for self-defense?  Why must our Nation's citizenry suffer the presence of "Second [and First] Amendment free zones?" Would the framers of our Bill of Rights tolerate this? Indeed, it is often in public, especially in urban areas, where a person is more exposed to danger. It is in an urban environment where a person’s life and safety is more, and conceivably, most at risk. It will be interesting to see whether the high Court broaches these matters in its opinion in this critical Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2nd Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 734 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (No. 18-280).The Arbalest Quarrel will stay abreast of the New York City case and offer detailed analyses of the arguments presented in forthcoming articles. And, we will also stay attuned to media accounts. We expect the Governor of New York, the architect of the awful New York Safe Act, the smugly self-assured and virulent opponent of the Second Amendment, Andrew Cuomo--a person never at a loss for words, especially when seeking to appear well-meaning and pious before the public--will, himself, sound off at some point on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. Especially on matters of firearms ownership and possession, the Governor of New York is ever before the cameras!As New York has always led the assault on the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is only fitting for the U.S. Supreme Court to take New York to task. For far too long, people like Andrew Cuomo, Michael Bloomberg, Bill DeBlasio, and others--in New York's Government Offices,  in Congress, and in Governments around the Country--have held sway over the American citizen’s most sacred right; a right intrinsic to one’s being; a right endowed in man the by the Creator. These politicians dare to relegate a sacred right to mere privilege—a privilege Government may grant at its discretion and revoke at will--as if they themselves have created the right.Government officials have not created the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but continue the pretense that they have. These Government officials continue to infringe a sacrosanct and inviolate right, contrary to and an affront to the Creator's dictate that they should not and must not do so.New York’s myriad, loathsome firearms’ laws, codes, rules, regulations, and procedures must, then, all be scrutinized by the high Court. That is something neither the City of New York, nor the State wants. Neither the City nor the State wishes its draconian firearms laws--ever more onerous with time--to be viewed under magnifying glass of legal scrutiny. But it is happening, nonetheless. It must happen. New York City, a bastion of the new Left ideology has turned away from the principles reflected in the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and must be called to account.The Times Ledger reports—and it is mystifying to consider in light of the Leftist leaning of the City today—that New York City was, for five years, from 1785 through 1790, the seat of the Nation’s Capital. It was here in 1789 that the Nation’s first President, George Washington, swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States and to safeguard the fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people, embodied in that sacred document.But, a new, alien, radical, virulent Socialist belief system and agenda has taken over the City, insinuating itself inexorably and insidiously in the lives of the City’s inhabitants. Socialist ideas and precepts--grounded on inherent distrust of the American citizenry--are painfully evident in the City’s myriad, convoluted, restrictive, unconstitutional firearms’ codes, rules, regulations, and procedures, and in the State’s draconian firearms’ laws. Leftist propaganda is proselytized to the residents of New York, daily. But, a day of reckoning is at hand, both for New York City and for jurisdictions like it, around the Country. It’s about time!________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS UNDER FIRE

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.” ~ Yogi BerraIf you asked your fellow Americans to point to one defining moment in our Nation’s recent history, many would likely mention the attack on our soil in 2001, for obvious reason. Some Americans might point to Barack Obama as U.S. President, but not for anything he carried out—if he carried out anything of benefit to this Nation and its people—but because he served as the Nation’s first African-American President. Some people might mention the recession of 2008, and the bailout of major banks. Still others might point to the result of the general U.S. Presidential election in 2016. Depending on one’s political bent, that result is shocking and dreadful, or surprising and hopeful.But, for those who cherish our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights, the watershed moment came in 2008, with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. The high Court held, in principal part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, asserts an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. One would think a lengthy Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment would be unnecessary. The text of the Amendment is clear, concise, precise, and categorical.But the high Court’s affirmation does serve a purpose. It lays to rest any pretension the Second Amendment means other, or less, than it says. Sadly, the pretension lingers among many, despite this seminal Second Amendment case.Many defy and denigrate the high Court’s imprimatur: politicians, the mainstream news; entertainers; billionaire globalists both here and abroad; antigun coalitions; myriad Leftist groups; academicians; and jurists. They detest the Second Amendment, and wish to rid the Nation of it.It should not come as a surprise to Americans that the Democratic Party’s leadership, holding most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, plans to introduce a flurry of antigun bills in the coming months. The most ambitious concerns a ban on those semiautomatic firearms, referred to by the negative expression, “assault weapons.”But this push to ban an entire category of semiautomatic firearms in common use is nothing new. The late U.S Senator, Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, who died in 2008, introduced a bill to control the sale and use of assault weapons in 1989. That Senate bill, 101 S. 386, failed.The House introduced similar bills that year. They, too, failed.However, in 1994, Congress did enact a semiautomatic firearms' ban, as part of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The “Assault Weapons Ban” provision was codified in federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (v)(1). The law expired in 2004. It wasn’t reauthorized. The House then tried, in 2007, to resurrect a ban on semiautomatic firearms, introducing the “Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act Of 2007, 110 H.R. 1022.” That bill failed.After a lull, Democrats ramped up efforts. The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy served as the pretext to ban an entire category of firearms, once again.Congress, though, often acts slowly. That’s a good thing when proposed legislation impinges on or infringes Constitutional rights and liberties. But, Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, unlike Congress, doesn’t act slowly. He doesn’t have to, and, he doesn’t want to, especially when an opportunity arises to further constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms.New York’s Constitution provides a Governor the means to push the State Legislature to act quickly if he deems a matter an emergency. Article I, § 14 of the New York State Constitution sets forth:“No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage, unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon, in which case it must nevertheless be upon the desks of the members in final form, not necessarily printed, before its final passage. . . .”Governor Cuomo intended to act quickly to further restrict New York’s already draconian gun laws. He pushed for an immediate vote on the New York Safe Act of 2013. His statement to support emergency passage of the NY Safe Act, reads:“Some weapons are so dangerous, and some ammunition devices are so lethal, that New York State must act without delay to prohibit their continued sale and possession in the state in order to protect its children, first responders and citizens as soon as possible. This bill, if enacted, would do so by immediately banning the ownership, purchase and sale of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. For this reason, in addition to enacting a comprehensive package of measures that further protects the public, immediate action by the Legislature is imperative.”With the clout he wields in Albany, the measure passed, and the Governor signed the Safe Act into law on January 15, 2013. To herald enactment, he created a web page, devoted to glorifying his achievement.Then, on January 24, 2013, hardly a week after Governor Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act into law, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, introduced a federal assault weapons ban, modeled on the Safe Act. Senator Feinstein expected Senator Harry Reid to include the assault weapons ban in the broad Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act Of 2013, 159 Cong Rec S 2699. That didn’t happen. Senator Reid felt its inclusion would reduce chance of passage of the broader gun control act. Senator Feinstein was livid. But, the Act failed on a Floor vote, 40-60, even without Feinstein’s assault weapons provision.Senator Feinstein then released a statement to the Press, barely restraining her anger:“I’m disappointed by today’s vote, but I always knew this was an uphill battle. I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue, and I will continue to fight for a renewed ban on assault weapons.The very fact that we’re debating gun violence on the Senate floor is a step in the right direction, and I hope my colleagues vote their conscience and approve the underlying bill. But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war.I will carry on this fight against military-style assault weapons, and I ask of the American people that they continue to pressure their elected officials to take action. It’s long overdue that we take serious steps to remove these dangerous firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines from society.”In later years, Democrats, in the House and Senate, ever undeterred, tenaciously, rapaciously introduced semiautomatic firearms’ bans, one after the other, despite repeated failures—ever determined to rein in the Second Amendment. these bills included:The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, 114 H.R. 4269  Imported Assault Weapons Ban of 2016, 114 H.R. 4748The Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, 115 S. 2095The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, 115 H.R. 5077They all failed. But, the antigun politicians remain undeterred. They aim to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms, however long it takes. The recent roll-out is drearily the same: same title, later date. This one is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. Many of the usual cast of characters have signed on as co-sponsors. Some are considering a run as Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President in 2020.Not surprisingly, Senator Feinstein is the principal sponsor on this latest “assault weapons” bill, directed to an attack on semiautomatic firearms. Destroying our most sacred right has always been a high priority for Senator Feinstein and she is a prominent figure in all antigun legislation emanating from the U.S. Senate.According to Feinstein’s Press Release, issued January 9, 2019, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is an “updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”  The Press Release then lays out the details. The House will likely release the bill shortly. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze it when the House does release it.

A NATION-WIDE BAN ON SOME SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS IMPERILS ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Antigun zealots desire nothing less than an end to firearms ownership and possession in America. This is not an exaggerated concern for those who cherish the Second Amendment.New York Times contributing columnist commentator, Brett Stephens has called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment. We may dismiss an excessive, incendiary remark from a news commentator. But, when a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice echoes that sentiment, Americans must take notice. Consider the remarks of retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, as reported in The New York Times:“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”Retired Associate Justice Stevens always tied the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia. Read his dissenting opinion in Heller. But, the majority in Heller rejected Stevens’ premise.Americans should take antithetical remarks attacking the sanctity of the Second Amendment, seriously, especially when coming from powerful and influential people. The attorney, Christopher Keleher, in an academic article, titled, “The Impending Storm: The Supreme Court’s Foray into the Second Amendment Debate,” 69 Mont. L. Rev. 113, 154, (Winter 2008), published just months before the high Court’s decision in Heller, recited a litany of disturbing comments from members of Congress.“United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, commenting on an assault weapons ban, stated  ‘if I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.’ Former United States Senator Howard Metzenbaum complained that the same ban was insufficient, exclaiming, ‘until you ban them all, you might as well ban none. . . . [But, it] will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind.’ United States Congressman William L. Clay proclaimed the 1993 Brady Bill was a ‘minimum step’ that Congress should take in its efforts to restrict firearms. Congressman Clay professed, ‘we need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.’ A fellow member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bobby Rush, was also forthright in his strategy: ‘Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame.’ Senator Lincoln Chafee was no less bashful when he asserted, ‘I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns. . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!’ The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech prompted Congressman Dennis Kucinich to draft legislation ‘that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.’ While such views have not garnered a majority of lawmakers, these statements are notable for their stridency and frankness.”Americans should not brush aside these candid remarks as simple bluster. These politicians support their words with direct attacks on the Second Amendment. Anti-Second Amendment politicians despise the Second Amendment. They find it not merely inconvenient and irrelevant, but also unconscionable. They see our Second Amendment as incompatible with an ethical system predicated on utilitarian consequentialism they espouse, but which our founders did not. Antigun politicians find the mere thought of firearms both aesthetically distasteful and morally objectionable.These politicians consider the Second Amendment inconsistent with international legal rules and standards, and incompatible with societal norms of conduct. One or the other must go. For them, it’s the Second Amendment that must go. They feel we, Americans, should adopt and adhere to the new international liberal democratic order they, and those in the European Union, ascribe to.The mainstream media conveys the message of the antigun zealots incessantly, obstreperously, and passionately. The false message delivered to Americans is plain enough: for the welfare of society  you must comply with and adapt to the conventions of the global, liberal, democratic order; and this requires you to forsake the archaic and degenerate desire to own and possess firearms.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

PRESIDENT TRUMP OVERSTEPPED HIS AUTHORITY IN BANNING BUMP STOCKS.

PART ONE

THE PRETEXT FOR TRUMP’S CALL FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES.

Following the devastating, unconscionable attack by the maniac, Stephen Paddock, on innocent concertgoers, attending a concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the evening of October 1, 2017, the gun grabbers wasted little time in turning their attention on what they depicted as the salient culprit of the carnage: a little device called a “bump stock.” It is a device that investigators found attached to semiautomatic rifles Paddock used in his murderous assault.

Antigun groups and antigun politicians immediately called for a ban on the device. But, oddly and sadly, it is President Donald Trump, the seemingly indefatigable champion of the Second Amendment—not the Democratic Party leadership—who gave the gun grabbers what they want: a ban on “bump stocks.”

DONALD TRUMP MAY ACT RASHLY ON SOME MATTERS AND AVOID REPERCUSSIONS; NOT SO, WHEN HE BLATANTLY ATTACKS THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been an early and avid supporter of Trump’s bid for the U.S. Presidency—first during his campaign for the Republican Party nomination, and then during the turbulent first two years in Office, as he was buffeted and roiled on all sides by various factions that sought and still seek to destroy his Presidency. It is alarming, though, when Trump seems to disregard those who support him. Trump had made several promises to the American electorate. Among the most important he promised to build “a wall,” an effective physical structure to keep the multitude of illegal aliens from cavalierly crossing our Nation’s borders, and audaciously claiming the same rights, liberties, and protections that accrue only to American citizens. Trump realizes now, a bit late in the day, that his thoughts of a second term in Office, in 2020, will be undone if he fails to deliver on that oft repeated promise. Just as importantly, Trump made abundantly clear, during his campaign, that he is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. But, what has Trump done to merit his supporters’ continued devotion? So far, two years into his four-year term in Office, we see nothing concrete.

Trump normally “trumpets” his actions, consistent with the importance of, and his belief in, Governmental transparency. That’s a good thing and to be applauded. It is something his predecessor in Office, Barack Obama, said he would do but rarely if ever did, preferring to cloak his own actions in secrecy. The insidious, reprehensible “Operation Fast and Furious” is a case in point; an oblique attempt to undermine the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. But, as for the architects of the policy, neither the Attorney General—at the time, Eric Halder—nor President Obama, was ever called to account for it. Yet, it is Donald Trump now, not Barack Obama, who has deviously and insidiously undermined the Second Amendment, and he is doing so through an aggressive, unconscionable, unconstitutional, unilateral executive act.

Remember what Trump said about national concealed handgun carry?

“The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.” ~ Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Were these just vacuous words, delivered merely to appease supporters at a singular moment in time, and then to be dispensed with once the U.S. Presidency had been secured and when political expediency seemingly required? Apparently, so. After the Parkland, Florida tragedy, the Washington Examiner reported that,

“President Trump told Republicans on Wednesday they should not include a measure that allows people with concealed carry permits in one state to carry across state lines in a comprehensive gun bill.

‘I think that maybe that bill will one day pass, but it should pass separate,’ Trump said during a bipartisan meeting at the White House. “If you’re going to put concealed carry between states into this bill, we’re talking about a whole new ball game. I’m with you, but let it be a separate bill.”

The President weaseled, giving only lukewarm support for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Obviously this wasn’t a high priority for him. Is it, then, any surprise that, apart from a push by the Republican controlled House in 2017—evidently in spite of the President, not because of him—Congressional action ultimately failed to deliver? Congress got the message. Since preservation and strengthening of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is apparently a low priority for the U.S. President, it was a low priority for Congress—certainly for the Republican-controlled Senate.

A full Roll-Call vote on the Senate Floor was necessary even if the Senate failed to secure 60 votes necessary for passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation since the American public would know who, among both Democrats and Republicans, voted in favor of the measure and those who did not; those Senators, then, who support our sacred Second Amendment right and those who, clearly, do not. 

But, Mitch McConnell never called for a Floor vote, though he could have done so. We will remember McConnell’s disservice to the American people for failing to hold a full Senate Floor vote. And we will remember Trump for failing to make national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation a priority goal. Republicans controlled the Congress—both Houses—along with the U.S. Presidency, from 2016 through 2018. Republicans have now lost the U.S. House of Representatives. The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms took a backseat to both health care and taxes. It should not have, but it did. 

We face a Democratic Party majority-controlled House whose leadership has a decidedly and decisively different, and ominous agenda in store for the American people. It is a safe bet that Gun control and the general weakening of the Second Amendment will not be secondary issues for the Democratic Party leadership once they assume control of the House on January 3, 2019—unlike strengthening the Second Amendment was, obviously and unfortunately, a secondary issue for Republicans.*

The Arbalest Quarrel has written several articles on this critical matter, posting those articles on our website; and on Ammoland Shooting Sports News; and on “The Truth About Guns.” Ammoland posted our latest one, titled, “National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity – Last Chance to Act,” on November 27, 2018. In that article, we urged Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to call for a Senate Floor vote on the House he could have done so. There was time before the year-end adjournment. If the Senate did clear the 60 vote threshold, the bill could have been sent immediately to President Trump for his signature. And Trump would have had to sign it even if he were reluctant to do so. For, it would have been, as he insisted, in his remarks to Republicans, that it must be “a separate bill,” subsumed in no other Congressional bill, as it was a separate bill. But, now, we will never know. The bill that passed the House, the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38, will automatically die—as unfinished business of the old Congress—once the new Congress commences work on January 3, 2019.

___________________________________________________________

PART TWO

TRUMP IGNORES HIS PLEDGE TO THOSE OF US WHO SUPPORTED HIM; CAPITULATING COMPLETELY TO THE ANTIGUN CROWD, ONCE HE CALLED FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCKS.

As if the Republican controlled Senate’s failure to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation and President Trump’s failure to push forward a pro-Second Amendment agenda during his first two years in Office weren’t bad enough—a serious failure of omission on the part of both the U.S. Senate and the President—Trump’s ban on “bump stocks”—an act of commission—is even worse. By foolishly, impetuously, acting to ban “bump stocks,” the President demonstrates a dangerous naïvety and ineptitude, along with a disturbingly blithe lack of concern for the well-being of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, inviolate right of the American  people to keep and bear arms. Trump is obviously oblivious to the deleterious impact his unilateral action shall have—not simply may have—on the Second Amendment itself.

President Trump’s failure to cajole Congress to action, to strengthen our most cherished and important right, is unacceptable. That failure deserves our condemnation. But undermining our most cherished right is alarming and unforgivable. That deserves our lasting contempt. With the radical Left urging Democratic Party House members to impeach Trump, upon issuance of the Special Counsel’s, Robert Mueller’s, report that is due out at any time now, the President can ill afford to antagonize his own base; but Trump has done just that with his flagrant attack on the Second Amendment.

Trump should have left the matter of bump stocks to Congress. Congress, acting through its Article 1 legislative power, can, conceivably, lawfully, take such action to ban them, if it sought to do so, assuming—a big “if”—that the law, depending on the matter of its statutory construction, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But it is not for the President to take that action upon himself under any set of circumstances. We have a system of checks and balances in our Country, and for good reason.

Congress makes the law. That power is within the province of Congress, not the President. The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. Under our Constitution, the President has no authority to make binding law, in lieu of Congress. Unlike Great Britain and Australia, the Chief Executive has no authority to self-execute laws. The President does not serve as both Chief Executive and "Legislator in Chief."

We have seen how Obama has shown a marked, carefree proclivity to ignore the federal Government’s system of “checks and balances” that the founders of our Republic wisely conceived of and assiduously placed into our Constitution. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, makes crystal clear, it is the province of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Obama, as President, and, no less a lawyer and academician, knows this. Yet, that did not prevent him from unlawfully promulgating and implementing his infamous, illegal “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA), policy, along with the concomitant mess it left for his successor, President Trump. 

What was Obama’s motive for DACA? As he says, as reported to the Leftist media echo chamber, CNN:  “. . . for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill. That bill never came. . . . “Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question.” Obama proselytizes to Americans, talking down to us as if we were children, suggesting that it is he, Obama,“the Great Father,” who shall teach us all what we ostensibly need to know about law, politics, and morality too, audaciously exclaiming that, as Congress didn’t give Obama what he wants—he—Barack Obama, will make law himself!

Obama’s remarks are a textbook example of propaganda, disseminated to the public by an insincere Press. It is bombastic, simplistic, perfunctory rhetoric; absolute drivel. Obama certainly knows it; but so should the Press. This smug, duplicitous attitude on the part of both Obama and the Press serves to make Obama’s remarks and the mainstream media’s reporting of them all the more diabolical and reprehensible.

One salient, critical duty of the Chief Executive of the Nation, set down in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The laws the President is duty-bound to faithfully execute are the laws Congress enacts. The President has no power to issue personal edicts, suggesting they have the force of Congressional law when in fact they don’t; and cannot ever have. As Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes abundantly and absolutely clear: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is nothing in Article 1 or in any other Article of the U.S. Constitution reciting that legislative powers, of some sort or another, also vest in the President. Such powers do not invest in the President; only in Congress.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION CONSISTS OF FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS; NOT SIMPLE PLATITUDES.

Trump, as with Obama before him, has begun to demonstrate a disturbing propensity to ignore precepts of the U.S. Constitution, when he wishes to do so, unmoved by the dictates of either the Constitution or his conscience. His unilateral action banning bump stocks was a calculated move. It is obvious why he took this action. He evidently felt the general public supported it—more of those in favor of it than not. He caved to public pressure to deliver something to the public, because of the worst mass shooting ever to occur in our Nation and an unthinkable tragedy that happened to occur on his watch. That may appear as reason enough to act, by some, but Trump should not have fallen prey to the frenzy of the moment, and with such apparent alacrity, abandon, and smug self-assurance.

The continued existence of the natural, fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not properly to be left to public whim, anyway, and never have been. Public opinion is easily manipulated and ever changeable. The founders of our Republic didn’t intend for the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people to be weakened by mere heat and rancor of a given moment in time. That ought to be clear enough to most Americans if they stop to consider this. It should be clear enough to Congress. And it should be clear enough to the President, too; but apparently it wasn’t. And, having taken the action to ban bump stocks devices, President Trump did nothing to make this Nation safer. Having bowed to political pressure--something he is, often and admirably enough, not ordinarily inclined to do, but did so in this instance--he reneged on a salient campaign promise he made to millions of Americans, namely that he, like they, fervently and reverently hold the Nation’s Second Amendment in the highest regard, and that he will do his best to preserve and strengthen it. Yet, a ban on bump stock devices does no such thing. Rather, it makes a mockery of Trump’s promise to the American people. Worse, taking the action he did to usurp Congressional authority and prerogative to make law, Trump did much more than simply undermine a campaign pledge; he undermined the very Constitution he swore an oath to preserve and to protect. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes plain that,

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Trump does not faithfully execute the office of President of the United States by making up his own law as he goes. He doesn’t preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States when he takes upon himself--as did his predecessor Barack Obama--the role the framers of the Constitution reserved alone to Congress, namely the authority to make law. And, Trump certainly doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, when he undermines the fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people as codified in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. 

Whether operating through grandiose self-delusion or blatant deceit, a Chief Executive, who fails to adhere to the limitations on his authority, as our Constitution dictates and mandates, significantly threatens the continued well-being of a free Republic. Under no set of circumstances can suspension or abrogation of our Constitution ever be justified. 

_______________________________________________________________________

PART THREE

TRUMP’S UNILATERAL ACTION, BANNING BUMP STOCKS, IS UNLAWFUL.

Although Trump could have and should have left the matter of “bump stocks” to Congress, Trump’s unilateral action, banning civilian ownership and possession of bump stocks is unlawful. That isn’t an open question. The answer to that question, under Constitutional law, is clear and categorical. Trump cannot lawfully do so. But, he took that action anyway. The danger we now face, given Trump’s rash action, goes well beyond the relative merit or utility of bump stocks, themselves.

Trump’s action calls into immediate question the import of Congressional legislation and the weight to be given to U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements on matters of law. If Trump’s action withstands legal challenge and scrutiny—and David Codrea’s article posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News points to several formal complaints that have been recently been filed contesting the constitutionality of the ban—the ‘rule of law’ becomes mere shallow and hollow rhetoric; legislation becomes mere ad hoc artifice, subject to the vicissitudes of fate; and the Bill of Rights loses its inviolability and immutability.

THE DOJ-ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” IS PATENTLY UNLAWFUL.

Two major websites, Ammoland Shooting Sports News and The Truth About Guns, have posted several fine articles on the issue of bump stocks. The Arbalest Quarrel provides its own take on this subject, including an analysis of the law regarding administrative decision-making.

We reach a disturbing but irrefutable conclusion: if the Courts do not strike down Trump’s action, we will continue to see the inexorable whittling away of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, leading inevitably to the demise of civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic firearms, not simply to the demise of firearms pejoratively called “assault weapons.”

We begin our analysis with the language of Trump’s Memorandum, issued on February 20, 2018. The Memorandum is titled “Application of the Definition of Machine gun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” 3 CFR Memorandum of 2/20/18. This Executive Office Memorandum placed the Justice Department on notice of the President’s intent to promulgate a rule criminalizing possession of bump stock devices--all of them, regardless of the nature of operation of any one manufacturer's version of the device--and further ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to promulgate a rule, banning those devices. The Memorandum directed to the Attorney General, and signed by Donald Trump, reads:

“After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices.

Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns.

Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of ‘machine gun’ under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments.

Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.

Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes. Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.”

[signed] Donald Trump

____________________________________

There are four points to ponder here. First, through this Memorandum, Trump attempts to make law, not simply execute laws Congress enacted because Congress hasn’t enacted a law banning bump stocks. So there is no law for the President to faithfully execute under Article 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. His remark—“I remain committed to the rule of law”—is what we hear all the time from Democrats. It is a remark he expects the public to accept on blind faith. Politicians make use of it often enough. But, the remark invariably comes across as hollow, flaccid, and pathetic; a useless appendage, demonstrating a lack of conviction at its very utterance, as the action taken belies the seeming veracity of the sentiment underlying it. 

The fact remains: absent express Congressional authorization the Executive Branch of Government cannot lawfully promulgate rules to effectuate the will of Congress if there is no will of Congress to effectuate. And, there is none here.Trump has blatantly exceeded his authority under the Constitution.

Second, the Memorandum—a directive to the DOJ—is logically inconsistent. Trump says, at the outset, he simply seeks “further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns,” but then makes clear that it isn’t mere clarification he seeks at all. He tells the DOJ “to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.”  Trump is kidding no one. He is illegally attempting to promulgate law.

Third, the Memorandum calls for a drastic measure. There is nothing in the Memorandum allowing for the grandfathering of bump stocks in the hands of American citizens. Consider: even the infamous federal assault weapons ban act of 1994 (that expired in 2004) made abundantly clear it did not apply to possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon a citizen happened to lawfully possess before enactment of the Congressional legislation.

The new ATF Rule, though, is far more ambitious than even Congressional legislation that banned new purchases of “assault weapons.” For, under the ATF Rule, Americans who fail to surrender bump stocks or who otherwise fail to render them inoperable are subject to criminal prosecution. There is no exception, and no grandfathering of devices that, before implementation of the Rule, had been lawfully purchased.

Fourth, Trump takes the position—as is clear from the language of the Memorandum—that he can get around the Statutory legal hurdle by claiming to operate within  it; but he does so by tortuously toying with the definition of ‘machine gun’ to include ‘bump stocks.’ Trump does not succeed and he is wrong in his endeavor in attempting to do so. He is unlawfully expanding upon and redefining the clear, concise and precise definition of 'machine gun' as codified by Congress in Federal Statute. Further, Trump's attempt to get around the hurdle of a clear concept of ‘machine gun’ is unnerving. It would have been better—although still legally indefensible--had he simply sought to ban “bump stocks” outright, without the semantic convolutions, gyrations, and machinations.

Trump attempts to convince the public that "bump stock devices" do convert semiautomatic firearms into machine guns. Trump simply pretends to be on a sound legal, logical, and grammatical footing. He isn't. The reason Trump contrives to win over the public is plain. Congress has specifically defined the expression, 'machine gun,'  in Statute; and it has defined the expression explicitly and unambiguously.

In 26 USCS § 5845, titled "definitions," “the term ‘machine gun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 

If ever the language of a Congressional Statute were straightforward and readily understood by a firearm's expert or by a lay person, 26 USCS § 5845 is such a Statute. If an agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government can undermine Federal law so blatantly, as Trump attempts to do so here, then no Federal Statute is safe from abrogation by Executive edict by those in Government who would dare trifle with our Nation's Constitution and laws.

Unless, the concept of ‘bump stock’ falls within the meaning of ‘machine gun,’—and it doesn’t—the Justice Department cannot lawfully promulgate a rule that extends the legal definition beyond the parameters mandated by Congressional Statute. Yet, it has dared to do just that, even as it insists that it has not. Trump has audaciously ordered DOJ to promulgate an illegal rule, and the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has obliged.

THE NEW ATF RULE: A CATEGORICAL BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES

In the Federal Register, 83 FR 13442, the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has proposed a rule change to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically, 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479.

The proposed Rule, reads: “The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that ‘bump fire’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are "machine guns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machine guns if this Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.”

The ATF has now finalized the proposed rule, amending the first sentence to read:

“The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). . . .”

As a final Agency Rule, it is ripe for judicial review, if challenged; and it is rightfully being challenged.

THE ATF’S REASONING ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES IS FLAWED.

The critical problem with the ATF Rule is this: bump stocks are not machine guns; nor are they accessories for machine guns; and saying they are machine guns, as the ATF categorically and brazenly does say, doesn’t make them so. The rule seemingly complies with federal Statute by iterating the critical point that “. . . such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger." But, the assertion is false, and the Rule must be struck down on that ground alone. The Rule is also a noxious affront to the natural, fundamental, and unalienable right etched in stone in the Second Amendment. The ATF Rule cannot be allowed to stand without doing a disservice to the purport of our Nation’s Bill of Rights.

Without amnesty for those who lawfully possessed bump stock devices, prior to implementation of the new DOJ-ATF Rule, 83 FR 13442, a wholesale ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess the devices in clear legal jeopardy. Keep in mind the last line of the Rule: Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.” This retrospective application to existing lawful owners of bump stock devices is outrageous, and, apart from other serious Constitutional issues attendant to 83 FR 13442, the Rule may also amount to a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which says clearly and succinctly: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”  The Arbalest Quarrel will look into a possible violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 in a future article.

_______________________________________________________

PART FOUR

THE ATF’S ASSERTION THAT BUMP STOCKS CONVERT SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS IS BOTH LOGICALLY AND LEGALLY FAULTY.

Let’s take a moment to reassess.

What is a ‘bump stock,’ really? Who invented it? How long has it been on the market? Why the uproar over it? Is it really the awful object that antigun zealots and the President, too, claim it is? And, most importantly, does a ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess semiautomatic weapons--millions of law-abiding American citizens--in legal jeopardy?

A LITTLE HISTORY ON BUMP STOCKS—

Who Invented the “Bump Stock?”

Four days, after the Las Vegas concert tragedy, The New York Times looked into this mechanical device called a “bump stock,” reporting, with typical tabloid flourish:

“Gun enthusiasts looking for an extra thrill have long found makeshift ways to replicate the exhilaration of using an automatic weapon — the thrill of the noise and the jolt of rapid-fire rounds — while bypassing the legal hassle and expense of getting one.

They contrived devices using pieces of wood, belt loops and sometimes even rubber bands, to mimic the speed of a fully automatic weapon — even if it meant sacrificing accuracy.

Then came Jeremiah Cottle with an answer. A Texas farm boy turned Air Force veteran, he figured he could do better. He sank $120,000 of his savings into the development of a high-end bump stock, a device that harnessed a rifle’s recoil to fire hundreds of rounds a minute.

He began selling bump stocks in 2010 with the help of his wife and grandparents in Moran, Tex., his small hometown of fewer than 300 residents. His company, Slide Fire Solutions, won approval from federal firearms regulators, and the business moved from a portable building that had once been a dog kennel into a much larger space on the Cottle family farm. Sales exceeded $10 million and 35,000 units in the first year.”

HOW DOES A BUMP STOCK OPERATE?

Antigun groups, along with the Press provide their impressions of “bump stocks”—offering descriptions from the deceptive and simplistic to the florid and patently absurd.

Following up on the October 2017 story, the NY Times, on February 18, 2018 said this says about the device’s operation:

“A ‘bump stock’ replaces a rifle’s standard stock, which is the part held against the shoulder. It frees the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy from the kickback shooters feel when the weapon fires. The stock “bumps” back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger, causing the rifle to rapidly fire again and again. The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing.”

The NY Times' animation aptly illustrates that one shot, and one shot only, is fired through a single  pull of the trigger. A successive pull of the trigger is required each time in order to initiate an additional shot. 

The Progressive weblog “Trace,” says, “A bump stock is a foot-long piece of plastic capable of transforming a semiautomatic rifle into a weapon functionally indistinguishable from a machine gun. That means a gun fitted with a bump stock can fire up to 800 rounds per minute.” 

This is more than simple hyperbole. The problem with the remark is that the expression, 'machine gun' is defined in federal statute by manner of operation, and not, as the weblog Trace, argues, by rate of fire. Antigun proponents do not, however, appear to concern themselves over, or allow themselves to be constrained by, niceties of law. They are only interested in political results. 

Not to be outdone the NY Times or by the weblog, Trace, Gabby Gifford’s antigun group chimed,  

“In the absence of immediate action by Congress, I urge ATF to finalize its proposed rule clarifying that bump fire stocks, along with other “conversion devices” that enable semiautomatic weapons to mimic automatic fire, qualify as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act. And then Congress must act as well—to ensure that manufacturers cannot continue to endanger public safety by designing devices that imitate machine guns and subvert the law. The continued presence of these dangerous devices puts all of our communities at risk, and both Congress and ATF must take action quickly to address this threat."

Whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves "to mimic automatic fire" is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots.

These remarks by Gifford’s organization are purposely incendiary and patently ridiculous. Indeed, even the progressive website, “Vox,” citing an AP News report—albeit claiming that bump stocks offer a "way around the law [pertaining to machine guns]"—felt compelled to admit, if only reluctantly, that bump stock modifications to semiautomatic rifles do not convert those rifles into machine guns.

“The device basically replaces the gun’s shoulder rest, with a “support step” that covers the trigger opening. By holding the pistol grip with one hand and pushing forward on the barrel with the other, the shooter’s finger comes in contact with the trigger. The recoil causes the gun to buck back and forth, “bumping” the trigger.

Technically, that means the finger is pulling the trigger for each round fired, keeping the weapon a legal semi-automatic.”

One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots. So, whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves to "mimic" automatic fire, as Gifford's antigun group, and others like it, claim, is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. And, there’s the rub!

EXPERT OPINION EXISTS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT BUMP STOCKS MODIFICATIONS TO SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES DO NOT CONVERT THOSE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 OR THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

One individual or Company (name and address redacted) contacted the ATF, requesting a formal opinion on whether its device, an “AR-15 Type ‘Bump Fire Stock,’” fell within the federal legal definition of a ‘machine gun’, that “would be regulated by the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) or the National Firearms Act (NFA).”

A firearms’ expert, Michael R. Curtis, Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch, reviewed the device. He responded, on April 17, 2017, to the query (about six months before Paddock went on his rampage in Las Vegas). In principal part, Michael Curtis said this,

“Your bump fire grip device consists of the following:

One AR-style pistol grip that it attached to and adjustable butt stock by a flat metal bar bent to contour to the buttstock. The pistol grip has two plastic pieces attached by small screws, one is the extension for resting your finger on while firing and the other is a shield to prevent the pistol grip from pinching  the  grip  fingers  of  the  firing  hand.

Your stock is designed to allow an AR-type semiautomatic rifle mounted to it to reciprocate back and forth in a linear motion. The absence of an accelerator spring or similar component in the submitted device prevents it from operating automatically.  When operated, forward pressure must be applied with the support hand to the forward hand guard fore-end of the AR-type rifle mounted to  your stock, bringing  the  receiver assembly  forward  to  a  point  where  the  trigger  can be pulled by the firing hand. If sufficient forward pressure is not applied to the hand guard with the support hand, the rifle can be fired in a conventional, semiautomatic manner since the reciprocation of the receiver assembly is eliminated.

The  FTISB  examination of the  submitted device indicates that if as a shot is fired   and a suU/dent[?] amount of pressure is applied to the hand guard/gripping surface with the shooter's support hand—the AR-type rifle assembly will come forward until the trigger re-contacts the Shooter’s stationary firing-hand trigger finger: Re-contacting allows the firing of a subsequent shot. In this manner, the shooter pulls the receiver assembly forward to fire each shot, each succeeding shot firing with a  single trigger function. . . .

Moreover; we should point out that the addition of an accelerator spring or any other non-manual source of energy which allows this device to operate automatically will result in the manufacture of a ‘machine gun’ as defined in the NFA, 5845(b).”

_____________________________________________

The juxtaposition of an expert’s opinion on bump stock devices and the wording of the ATF Rule stipulating an outright ban on “bump stock” devices, aptly illustrates the critical differences between well-reasoned opinion on the one hand written by a firearms’ expert, Michael Curtis, and, on the other hand, simplistic verbiage, reflected in the new ATF Rule, crafted, no doubt, by people who are not firearms’ experts. Further, the opinion of Michael Curtis is facially neutral; the ATF Rule, politically motivated as it obviously is, is only seemingly facially neutral.

Michael Curtis considers the technical attributes of and operation of bump stocks, calmly and rationally. His findings demonstrate his technical knowledge, and he draws a conclusion as to the legality of the particular device submitted to him, on the basis of the law, as enacted. In the law, as enacted, Congress defines the expression, ‘machine gun.’ That definition happens to accord with industry use of the expression. There is no embellishment. But that is not what we see in the language of the ATF Rule, as promulgated. The drafters of the Rule were only interested in giving the President what he asked for; what he wanted; what he demanded from them; and they did so.

Those who drafted the ATF Rule clearly did not bother to consider the technical intricacies of “bump stock” operation. The Rule is nothing more than a simplistic, ill-informed, technically deficient, politically motivated and mandated edict, posing as a well-reasoned administrative pronouncement, ostensibly having the force of agency law. It is not. Those who crafted the ATF Rule on bump stock devices made no attempt to distinguish among any of them. Their mandate was to create a Rule to ban them—all of them; anything that might conceivably resemble them. The drafters of this agency Rule, insidiously contrived to craft a rule that, by outward appearance—to those who nothing about firearms’ operation—may seem impressive. But, as is often the case, appearances are deceptive, and that is the case here. Those who crafted this Rule had their "marching orders."  They conspired to give President Trump what he wanted; what he asked for; what he demanded of them. They connived, and contrived, and conspired, when crafting their Rule, to place bump stock devices within the orbit of a firearm's accessory that converts a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. If the deception succeeds politically, that is all that matters to the President, and to them; but, as the Rule is logically and legally flawed, it cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny by the Judiciary, and must be struck down.

Were this Rule to escape Judicial inquiry unscathed, it will invite misuse of Congressional Statute at every turn—merely to achieve a political end, desired by some. Those who crafted this ludicrous Rule meant to deceive the public. Hopefully, the Courts will not allow themselves to be similarly deceived.       

_______________________________________________________________

PART FIVE

APART FROM TRUMP’S RASH, INCORRIGIBLE ACTION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAS CONGRESS DONE TO CURB POSSESSION OF “BUMP STOCKS?”

Curiously, Congress did attempt action to ban “bump stocks,” albeit unsuccessfully. On October 31, 2017, about one month after Paddock’s murderous assault on innocent Americans, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), sponsored a bill, called, “Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168.

The bill had co-sponsors among both Republicans and Democrats. The stated purpose of the bill was “. . . to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat in the same manner as a machine gun any bump fire stock, or any other devices designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.”

The bill, if enacted into law would amend Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States Code (USCS) of 1986:

IN GENERAL. Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking "and (8)" and inserting the following: "(8) a reciprocating stock, or any other device which is designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon; and (9)".

(b)  Semiautomatic Weapon.—and  Section 5845 [26 USCS § 5845] of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(n) Semiautomatic Weapon.— The term 'semiautomatic weapon' means any repeating weapon that—

"(1); utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and

"(2);requires a separate function of the trigger to fire each cartridge."

The bill went nowhere. But, interestingly, the bill, if enacted, would not have redefined or expanded upon the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in 26 USCS § 5845—something the ATF Rule rashly does—but instead would include a definition for ‘semiautomatic weapon,’ which 26 USCS § 5845, at present, doesn’t have. The bill would then ban devices “. . . designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.” It would treat bump stocks, “in the same manner as a machine gun,” true, as the language of the bill so states; but that isn’t the same thing as saying that “bump stocks” are “machine guns.” That is an important difference, as the definition of ‘machine gun’ is codified in federal statute. There was nothing in the proposed bill to suggest a Congressional intention to amend or to expand upon the statutory [26 USCS § 5845] definition of ‘machine gun.’

Congress itself obviously had a marked reluctance “to play” with its own definitions, and avoided doing so—a reservation that Trump obviously doesn’t have, when he wholeheartedly took upon himself, the role of both Chief Executive and “Legislator in Chief.”

Still, the Congressional bill was a bad idea at the get-go. Had it passed, antigun zealots could have, and likely would have, used the new law to argue that any new development in semiautomatic weapon technology, as a matter of efficiency, accelerates substantially the rate of fire of the semiautomatic weapon and, so, must be banned. After all, Antigun proponents see little if any difference between semiautomatic firearm on the one hand and machine guns, submachine guns, and selective fire weapons on the other, anyway. To these zealots all semiautomatic firearms are “weapons of war,” having no practical civilian use, asserting they—ultimately all of them—should be banned outright.

Antigun proponents have worked for decades to make their goal a reality; and they continue to work toward this end—all with the avid monetary and organizational assistance of wealthy globalists who seek to subordinate our Constitution, our system of laws, and our jurisprudence to a “one-size fits all” set of international norms. If they succeed in that endeavor, the independence and sovereignty of individual nation states will come to a screeching, halt and catastrophic end. All Western nations will all be corralled into a single, centralized and uniform political, social, cultural, economic, and financial system of governance. The EU is the test bed and the basic framework for this system. Even as the citizenry of the individual nations within the EU, realizing that their nations are moving inexorably to dissolution and are beginning to resist that effort, it may be too late for them. But, it isn’t, as yet, too late for us—so long as our Bill of Rights, and, especially, are Second Amendment remains intact. The DOJ-ATF “Bump Stock” Rule is not a neutral rule. If allowed to stand, unchallenged, it can and will have a devastating impact on the continued well-being of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

THE ATF “BUMP STOCK” RULE THAT WE NOW HAVE IS WORSE THAN THE CONGRESSIONAL BILL WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN.

As bad as Representative Fitzpatrick’s bill  [“Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168], was, if enacted, the new ATF Rule, as now finalized, is far worse. Indeed, even Congress was reluctant to subsume the concept of ‘semiautomatic weapon’ into the concept of ‘machine gun.’ President Trump has no such reservations. Trump’s Memo to the DOJ suggests that either he has given little thought to the matter or couldn’t care less about the legal consequences of his actions had he thought about the matter at all. The ATF filled with antigun fanatics, delivered for Trump, with unsurprising, characteristic exuberance.

The ATF has laid the groundwork for subsuming semiautomatic weaponry into the category of ‘machine guns,’ even though a clear bright line between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms exists in Congressional Statute. It is a line that Congress has carefully delineated, and it is one which Congress is loath to tinker with. Yet this sharp, distinction between semiautomatic firearms on the one hand and machine guns on the other is one that Trump has cavalierly, and literally, at the stroke of a pen, erased.

This ATF Rule, if allowed to stand, would severely weaken the Second Amendment. Hopefully, the Gun owners of America, that is challenging the constitutionality of the ATF Rule will prevail. GOA must prevail for the good of the Nation; for the sake of the American citizenry; and for the continued well-being of our Nation’s inviolate rights and liberties.

______________________________________________________

PART SIX

THE ATF BUMP STOCK RULE DEMONSTRATES THE DANGERS INHERENT IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.

AGENCY RULES MUST BE SCRUTINIZED CAREFULLY BY THE COURTS FOR THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.

The American public has historically given little thought to the relationship between Congressional legislation and Administrative action. That must change. The new ATF Rule makes clear that the public must become aware of the intricacies of Governmental action lest the American people lose their sacred fundamental rights and liberties. The American people should have learned long ago of the danger posed to a free Republic through the insinuation of so-called “elites” into the political process. What ensues is oft, appropriately referred to, as “the tyranny of experts.”

How has this come about? It has come about due, paradoxically, to the manner in which our Federal Government operates. The only true “checks and balances” in our Nation are those that rest in the enumerated rights and liberties of the American people, and singularly in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If we lose that basic, inherent right, we have lost everything. That is not hyperbole. That is fact.

Congress makes law, yes. But, in faithfully executing Congressional statute, the Executive Branch must turn Congressional legislation into operational rules. That is the job of Executive agencies.

Congressional legislation provides the mandate through which agencies act. Agencies promulgate rules, allowing for implementation of law. However, that mandate isn’t open-ended. Congressional legislation establishes the parameters beyond which the Executive Branch must not venture. Yet, with disturbing regularity, we see the President, through the Executive agencies he presides over, overstepping his Constitutional authority.

In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard of Court review of agency interpretation of statute. The case is abstruse. The majority of Americans probably never heard of it. Yet, among legal scholars, the U.S Supreme Court Chevron case is likely the most often cited case. Hundreds of academic articles have been written about it. Hundreds more will probably be written. And our case law is legion with references to it.

In Chevron, the high Court wrestled with the amount of discretion that federal Courts—the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government—should give to administrative agencies when those agencies interpret law to promulgate operational rules through which Congressional acts are effectuated. The question for the Courts turns on whether statutory language is ambiguous. If the language is ambiguous, Courts will defer to the agencies—the experts—to resolve the ambiguity, unless the Courts determine the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable. But, then, the Court is itself interpreting statute: hence the conundrum for the Courts.

But that is not the case here, with the ATF Bump Stock Rule, and that is because the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in Congressional Statute, is clear and unambiguous, certainly as unambiguous as our common language, English, can be. The ATF Rule is particularly exasperating as it blatantly ignores the Congressional Statutory dictate in order to promulgate a rule to cohere to a political goal—thereby making a mockery of our system of laws and the very concept of the “Rule of Law” that politicians love to cite but rarely, if ever, actually adhere to.

The ATF Rule, as promulgated, sets forth that bump stock modifications of semiautomatic rifles convert semiautomatic rifles into machine guns because only one pull of the trigger is required to initiate multiple firing of the weapon. But, that statement is either true or it is false.

If true, then the semiautomatic firearm is, in fact, a machine gun. If not, then, the semiautomatic firearm remains a semiautomatic firearm because it is semiautomatic in operation. Rate of fire is irrelevant. Michael Curtis, supra, points out that, in the absence of an “accelerator spring,” a bump stock device—in its usual form (and keep in mind that the ATF Rule fails to consider and appreciate that bump stocks may have different configurations and operate in different ways)—requires one trigger pull for each successive shot. Performance is not a factor, as NRA clearly and correctly points out; the manner of operation is the only factor that comes into play.

Thus, unless Congress enacts legislation to redefine the expression, ‘machine gun,’—redefining it in a way that is contrary to industry use—the President of the United States, through the DOJ-ATF is not lawfully permitted to do redefine 'machine gun' on its own, which, it audaciously has done, even as the language in the Rule says otherwise. The DOJ-ATF action amounts to ad hoc rule-making; ad hoc rule-making, subject to the whims of political pressure, but presumptuously finalized as enforceable law. The DOJ-ATF Rule is nothing more than illegal Executive Branch edict. Its presence makes a mockery of law. It is a travesty. If allowed to stand, it amounts to the usurpation of our entire system of laws and justice, and legal jurisprudence.

____________________________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

THE NEW ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” PORTENDS A TOTAL BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

If allowed to stand, this ATF Rule dangerously undermines the Second Amendment because the Rule unlawfully conflates semiautomatic firearms and machine guns. If rapidity of fire becomes the de facto if tacit but clearly salient factor and new rule-made—as opposed to Congressional enacted—definition of ‘machine gun,’ which presently defines the expression,' machine gun,' in terms of manner of operation, not performance, then all semiautomatic firearms will inevitably and invariably be subsumed into the nomenclature of ‘machine gun.’ Indeed, the mainstream media—comprising stooges and political hacks posing as journalists who know nothing about firearms’ operations and who have no desire to gain such knowledge—merely echoes the sentiments of antigun zealots. The mainstream media routinely argues that no appreciable difference exists between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms, anyway. The running narrative of these organizations is directed to motivating the public to demand, of Congress, the annihilation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose of these “news” organizations has nothing whatsoever to do with news reporting. The Press, today, delivers propaganda masked as news. There is no appreciable distinction anymore between what appears in the Op-Ed sections of these “news” publications or in  what is purportedly presented as “real” news, neutrally presented.

We have seen how antigun zealots create, through the artifice of the ‘assault weapon,’ a useful fiction through which semiautomatic firearms can be ostensibly lawfully banned. President Trump has, consciously or not, but certainly ill-advisedly and uncritically, created, through the DOJ-ATF Bump Stock Rule, a re-branding of semiautomatic firearm as machine gun based, essentially, on performance, albeit deliberately creating vagueness as to whether "bump stocks" necessitate one-trigger pull for every shot or multiple shots with one trigger pull in an attempt to "get around" the lack of any vagueness or ambiguity in the statutory definition of 'machine gun.'

If Trump and the DOJ-ATF are allowed to get away with this subterfuge, then it is but a small step from a total ban on “bump stocks” to a total ban on all semiautomatic firearms, since rate of fire—utilized as the salient and subjective basis for elimination of firearms in the hands of civilians—will now provide the “ammunition” antigun zealots can and will latch onto in their unyielding zeal to continue to weaken the Second Amendment.And it is Trump, now, not Schumer or Pelosi, who has given them a vehicle they can and will use to destroy at once the citizen’s best means of self-defense and destroy, as well, the one truly capable defense in the citizen’s possession, to prevent or at least deter the onset of tyranny.

__________________________________________

*As reported in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, John Crump, NRA instructor, has launched a petition drive to urge President Trump to reverse his position on Bump Stocks. A reversal of Trump’s position requires the rescission of the ATF Bump Stock Rule, which Trump should be able to accomplish. As Chief Executive, the President is sole head of all Departments, bureaus, and agencies of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Trump ordered creation of the rule banning bump stocks. He should be able to demand the rescission of it. Trump can and should assert that, after further consideration, he realizes his Memorandum to the DOJ, requesting a Rule banning bump stocks, was issued in error with little foresight; that the Memorandum he issued is administratively ill-advised, logically flawed, and legally unsupportable, and that, upon reflection, the President realizes the DOJ-ATF Rule does not serve the best interests of the American public, and, further, that the President realizes the Rule is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Arbalest Quarrel supports John Crump’s worthy effort. The founders of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog have added their names to the petition. We urge all Americans who, like us, cherish and exalt our Bill of Rights, and especially our Second Amendment, to do the same. At the moment only a few thousand individuals have signed the petition. That is unacceptable. The petition calls for 100,000 signatures. There are tens of millions of guns owners. Where are their voices? They have not been heard.

Remember this: Nothing serves better to destroy our sacred rights and liberties than public apathy. If those among the public—deluded though they be—are encouraged to yell louder for ever more “gun control” measures than do those who continue to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then Congress will deliver the head of the Second Amendment, on a platter, to the destroyers of our sacred rights. And, the framers of our Constitution and founders of our Free Republic will have given their blood in vain. It is up to you!

Let us avoid the ill-fated national concealed handgun carry reciprocity measure. With the Democrats reclaiming control of the House of Representatives on January 3, 2019, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Democratic Party leadership will be doing everything in its power to weaken the Second Amendment; and we can expect a flurry of anti-Second Amendment bills in the first few months when Congress commences business. We don’t need President Trump assisting them in this effort, whether he is doing so consciously or not.

Once you sign the petition, we also urge you contact the White House. Contact phone numbers are:

1-202-456-1414; (Switchboard)

1-202-456-1111; (Comments)

You may also write to the President. Information may be found at the White House website:

________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SENATE HAS ONE WEEK REMAINING TO APPROVE HOUSE BILL ON CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AND SEND IT TO THE PRESIDENT.

IF THE BILL DIES, WHO IS TO BLAME?

We were never so close to realizing the right of the American people to defend their lives and well-being with a firearm as we were with the passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity by the Republican controlled House in December 2017. Upon passage of 115 H.R. 38 in the House, the bill was immediately sent to the Senate. With the Senate’s vote of approval and with President Trump’s signature, nationwide concealed handgun reciprocity would have become a reality. As of yet, that hasn't happened. The Senate has had over one year to act on this, and we have, to date, seen—nothing. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity was in our grasp. And it is slipping away.We can speculate all we want as to why the Senate has not acted on this, but there is no time for that. The point is that the Senate must act. We cannot take, “no,” for an answer. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity can yet become a reality if enough Americans—millions of us—make clear to the Senate that this is what Americans, need; this is what Americans want; and we want this now, not later. We want no excuses. We want to see action. With a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, the lack of action on the House bill is absolutely unacceptable.If we don’t get the Senate to act, we have only ourselves to blame for the shortfall. And, any chance of seeing another national concealed carry reciprocity bill in the next two years will be next to impossible as the Democrats will hold a majority in the House of Representatives and the Party leadership’s agenda does not call for strengthening the Second Amendment. The agenda calls for weakening the Second Amendment and weakening it quickly and drastically.It is therefore absolutely imperative that the American people—millions of gun owners, not simply a few dozen of us—inform their representatives in the Senate that they, who were sent to the United States Capitol, to work on our behalf, have no greater obligation to this Nation than the safeguarding of the fundamental, unalienable, natural and immutable rights and liberties of the American people. That would fully accord with the intention of the framers of our Constitution.Of those fundamental rights and liberties, none is more important than the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. That singular right, more than any other, makes clear the basic precept that the life and safety and well-being of each American citizen is sacred and inviolate and that no American should be denied the right of self-defense with the best means available—a firearm. Further, the right of self-defense does not stop at the doorstep of one’s home. That basic right extends throughout the Nation and the Nation’s territories. Further, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ultimate defense against tyranny—ever present—a thing the founders of our Republic knew full well and, given that great concern, became the impetus for codification of the right in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.It therefore falls on the American people themselves, as ever it must, as ever it did, to take action, when necessary, as now, and make their voices heard over the cacophony produced by the media lords and ladies. How long must we endure this? How long must we, true Americans left remaining--those of us who believe in the sanctity and autonomy of the individual, who believe in a Nation as conceived by our founders--tolerate the beseeching, syrupy proselytizing of the purveyors of lies; the destroyers of our Republic; those who besmirch our sacred rights and liberties; these perverse, sanctimonious zealots of collectivism who call for ever more gun laws, and ever fewer guns, and ever fewer people “entitled” to own and possess guns, and ever more restrictions placed on the use of guns by those few of us remaining, among the common folk who are entitled to keep firearms at all, but only so long as they are locked up and tucked away—all of course for our own good, for "the collective good" of the people.Some of you believe that the right to keep and bear arms will always prevail in some States of the Union, even if it is denied in others. But, that is a dangerous, false belief. And we should recognize it. Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Montana—States that have traditionally revered the Bill of Rights and extolled as a virtue the notion of the independent, self-reliant, individual—are slowly falling to prey to those who sing a  different tune: one that has less regard for our sacred rights and liberties and for the autonomy of the individual, and for our history, our traditions, our Judeo-Christian ethic.Consider: what sort of Americans would send to Congress people such as the newly elected Left-wing Arizona Senator, Kyrsten Sinema, and the 20-year old self-described Socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, representing New York’s 14^th District? These are people who obviously loathe our Nation’s history, who question our traditions and our core values. Do these people respect the Nation’s Bill of Rights? Do these people revere the First Amendment’s right of free speech, and the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms? Hardly. After all, how would the exercise of these fundamental rights, and others, fit into their Leftist Globalist, Collectivist agenda?If we are going to strengthen the Second Amendment, it must be done now, and quickly. Don’t think that there will be time enough for passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation when the new Congress takes over on January 3, 2019. We need this legislation now, because any firearms’ bills coming out of the House of Representatives, with its Democratic Party majority, will be nothing remotely like the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. You can be assured of that._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.